What You Will Find Here

My photo
Articles and news of general interest about investing, saving, personal finance, retirement, insurance, saving on taxes, college funding, financial literacy, estate planning, consumer education, long term care, financial services, help for seniors and business owners.

READING LIST

Blog List

Showing posts with label long term investing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label long term investing. Show all posts

Motley Fool NINE FACTS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INVESTING

Sometimes it just takes a number or two to deliver a life changing realization.  
  • You may be more prepared for retirement than you think.Say, you have only $75,000 socked away for retirement, and you are already 45. You have a lot more saving and investing to do in order to build a comfortable retirement. But, you are still above average. Fifty-three percent of American workers have saved less than $25,000 for retirement (excluding the value of their home), and 35% have less than $1,000 saved. 
  • You can probably amass much more money than you think. If you have 30 years until retirement and you can sock away $8,000 per year that grows by an annual average of 8%, you can accumulate close to $1 million. You have only 20 years until retirement and can sock away $10,000 a year growing at 8% annually, you will end up with close to $500,000. 
  • It is kind of easy to outperform most managed stock mutual funds. An inexpensive, broad market index fund is likely to outperform most managed stock mutual funds. For example, the S&P 500 outperformed about 80% of large cap stock funds over the decade concluding at the end of June, 2015. 
  • Dividends can turbocharge your investing. A study of Russell 3000 companies dating back to 1992 found dividend payers returned about four percentage points more per year, than the average non-payers, when weighted equally. Between 1927 and the end of 2012, reinvested dividend income made up 42% of large cap returns, 36% of mid cap returns and 31% of small cap stock returns. 
  • Day trading or excessively active trading can wreck your returns. The most active traders reaped the lowest returns. Indeed, between 1992 and 2006, 80% of active traders lost money, and only 1% of them could be called predictably profitable. 
  • Inflation can cut your purchasing power in half. Over the long haul, inflation has averaged about 3% annually. That number may not seem bad, but over 20 years it is enough to give $100,000 the purchasing power of just $54,000. 
  • Do not count on your home as an investment. Think of your home as a comfortable place to live, but not necessarily a great investment. A Nobel-prize-winning economist’s data suggest that housing prices have grown at a compound annual rate of just 0.3% over the past century (inflation-adjusted), while S&P 500 has averaged roughly 6.5%. 
  • Stocks rose 1,100-fold over the last 70 years. Over the last 70 years, the S&P 500 advanced 1,100-fold, which is enough to turn a single modest $1,000 investment into more than a million dollars. Consider that statement in light of the many double-digit market crashes, recessions, and even the Great Depression. The lesson: over the long haul, stock markets tend to rise, not just in a straight line. 
  • You can slash your tax rate nearly in half by being a long-term investor. The capital gains rate on short term investments (those held a year or less) is the same as your income tax, which is 25% for most people and 28% for higher earners. On long-term capital gains, though (from assets held for more than a year), most people will face a tax hit of just 15%.
Put these statistics together, and the conclusion is clear. Have a retirement plan where you save diligently and invest effectively, perhaps in index funds, dividend paying stocks, or both. Beware the erosive power of inflation and steer clear of day trading. Enjoy your house, but do not plan on it making you rich, and be tax smart by aiming to invest for the long term. Not so foolish.

How much can you make in stocks? Realistic Expectations (ICMA Retirement Corporation)

Charts of the Week

Capital Markets Review (As of 9/30/2015)

Chart of the Week for October 2, 2015 - October 8, 2015

U.S Bonds was the only asset class with positive returns during the third quarter of 2015.
Capital market returns were generally negative in the third quarter of 2015, with the exception of U.S. Bonds which had slightly positive returns as U.S interest rates fell during the quarter. Over the trailing 1-year period, U.S. Bonds and U.S. Small-Cap Stocks provided positive returns while International Developed Market Stocks, Emerging Market Stocks, U.S Large-Cap Stocks, and U.S. High Yield Bonds all had negative returns. Over the trailing 5-year period, all asset classes shown except Emerging Market Stocks had positive returns, with U.S. Large- and Small-Cap Stocks outperforming the other asset classes shown.
While U.S. economic reports were generally positive for the third quarter, the negative returns for the asset classes shown above can be related to several factors including market volatility, concerns over economic conditions in China, and U.S. interest rate policy. Emerging Market Stocks was the worst performer in U.S. dollar terms, losing 17.90%. U.S. Small-Cap Stocks lost 11.92%, International Developed Market Stocks lost 10.23%, U.S. Large-Cap Stocks lost 6.44%, and U.S. High Yield Bonds lost 4.86%. U.S. Bonds was the only asset class with positive returns noted on the chart for the quarter, wtih a return of 1.23%.
In the chart above:
  • U.S. Bonds are represented by the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index.
  • U.S. High Yield Bonds are represented by the Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Index.
  • U.S. Large-Cap Stocks are represented by the S&P 500 Index.
  • U.S. Small-Cap Stocks are represented by the Russell 2000 Index.
  • International Developed Market Stocks are represented by the MSCI EAFE (Net) Index.
  • Emerging Market Stocks are represented by the MSCI Emerging Markets (Net) Index.

Investor Psychology - Common Traps

APRIL 5, 2009, 8:04 P.M. ET FUNDAMENTALS OF INVESTING

Avoiding the Bear Traps

People's emotions lead them to make bad financial moves in chaotic times. Here's what to look out for.
Article

»By SUZANNE MCGEE
In a chaotic bear market like this one, it's easy for investors to fall into traps.

They might scramble to make trades based on the latest news reports. They might search for a miracle stock that will pay off big and let them recoup all their losses. Or they might go in the other direction -- and get so scared of the market that they don't make any moves at all.

I believe that the frequency of irrational investor behavior goes up along with market volatility," says Chris Blum, head of the U.S. behavioral-finance group for JP Morgan Funds in New York, which studies how people's emotions affect their financial decisions.

Fortunately, a bit of logic and common sense will keep you clear of these pitfalls. Here's a look at some common missteps -- and how to avoid them.

THE VALUE TRAP:
A chaotic market makes it easier for investors to convince themselves that because a stock -- or a sector or a market -- is cheap, it's a great value. Sometimes, though, there's a good reason that a stock or sector is cheap: It's in trouble. You need to look past the share price or valuation and examine the fundamentals of the company, the industry and the economy before you decide that something is a bargain.

"Within industries, not all companies are created equal; some will fare better than others," says Mr. Blum. It's through research, not instinct or stock price, that investors discover the real values, he adds.



THE RISK TRAP: One reason investors are so vulnerable to the value trap is that another force is at work -- the urge to recoup losses. Investors who are desperate to make back some of what they have lost and return to "normal" are more willing to take outsize bets on individual stocks or narrowly focused exchange-traded funds.

But that approach is even more unlikely to work in this market environment; the combination of the credit crunch and the recession have made the stock market dangerously volatile. A concentrated portfolio is especially risky, advisers argue.

Investors can't accept that individual stocks, or stocks overall, aren't likely to deliver a reliable stream of double-digit profits each year as in the past, says Bill Schultheis, a partner at Soundmark Wealth Management LLC, a financial-planning firm in Kirkland, Washington.

To combat the risk trap, Mr. Schultheis spends a lot of time preaching the virtues of investment basics like diversification and building returns steadily through compound interest and dividends.

THE SCAPEGOAT TRAP: Like the children in humorist Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, people believe they are all above average -- at investing. Overconfidence makes it easy to blame your financial adviser for your outsize losses last year, and to think you'd be better off making the big decisions yourself.

But that attitude ignores a basic fact: In this market, nearly everyone is in the same boat, more or less, regardless of who's managing their money. Ditching your professional help and going it alone is a bad idea.

"There are certainly some financial advisers out there who weren't good at what they did, but the worst mistake someone can make is to fire that individual and decide to do it all themselves instead of finding someone better," says Mr. Blum.

The reality, he says, is that few investors have the time, patience or expertise needed to develop asset-allocation plans and manage diversified portfolios. "Firing a specific adviser may be rational; deciding to be your own financial adviser probably isn't," he says.

THE PARALYSIS TRAP: The market debacle has left many investors too terrified to act at all, whether to sell portfolio holdings to limit losses or take advantage of what may be appealing long-term investment opportunities. Some advisers report clients in their 30s and early 40s shunning stocks altogether, when the real risk that they face is likely to be inflation -- which may eat up their money if they keep it out of riskier investments that are likely to trounce rising inflation rates over the next decade or two.

"The chance of suffering more pain is so intense that they can't imagine a world that will be better," says Joe Sheehan, a partner at Moneta Group, a wealth-management firm in St. Louis. "Two years ago, they would have jumped at the chance to buy more of stocks they already owned at these low prices; now they are frozen in place and won't respond."

Mr. Sheehan tries to persuade clients of a simple fact: The world hasn't changed dramatically enough to justify paralysis. "About 92% of Americans are still employed; the S&P 500 is not going to zero," he says.

Mr. Sheehan finds himself pointing to psychological studies showing that people tend to rely too heavily on what has happened in the recent past when it comes to predicting the future. "That's one reason we're in this mess in the first place," he says.

Among other things, he notes, investors and homeowners believed that housing prices could only go up -- leading to the bubble that got millions of homeowners in horrible financial trouble.

THE COMFORT TRAP: "When people are fearful, Wall Street comes out with a product that tries to make you feel good by promising you safety," says Andrew Mehalko, chief investment officer of GenSpring Family Offices LLC in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

For instance, Mr. Mehalko expects one of the hottest-selling products this year to be principal-protected notes, just as they were after the bear market of 2001-02. While these vehicles -- which promise to preserve your principal investment -- may provide reassurance, they often also come with hefty fees and can sharply limit your upside potential.

As a general rule, a low-risk strategy will produce minimal returns. So, while you may feel the urge to lock up all your capital in ultrasafe strategies, you need to be prepared to invest some of it in riskier products.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sheehan reports that some of his clients have even developed an aversion to mortgages. That may be rational for people with no nest egg or a job that's at risk, but it's not something that everyone should be worrying about.

"It's not logical at all," he says, because some have relatively little mortgage debt relative to home value, hold long-term fixed mortgages at the relatively low rate of 5% or so and gain from the tax deduction for mortgage interest.

Yet "all they want to do is pay off that mortgage," to get rid of "this toxic thing -- a mortgage," he says.

THE CHASING-THE-NEWS TRAP: If you're a financial-news junkie, it's tempting to try to react to each twist and turn of the market. But the best thing you can do is turn off the news, put the remote control down on the coffee table and step away from your television set.

In times like these -- an almost unbelievably volatile stock market, a distorted bond market and an economic meltdown -- newshounds can do tremendous damage to their portfolios. Trying to judge exactly the right moment to get into the market -- and then jump out again a day or two later -- is likely to leave you with big headaches and outsize trading expenses.

An "atmosphere of constant, breathless hysteria" isn't conducive to making smart investing moves, says Carol Clark, an investment principal at Lowry Hill, a wealth-management firm in Minneapolis. "That's not what long-term investing is all about.

"Many of those [300-point] interday moves simply don't make a lot of sense in the first place, so how can it be sensible to try and respond to them?" she asks.

Instead of acting on every new development, it's better to look past the noise and invest small amounts regularly, an approach known as dollar-cost averaging. A strategy based on a solid asset-allocation plan and dollar-cost averaging is more likely to lead to sustainable gains over the longer haul.

Ms. Clark offers one final observation. Usually, investors find themselves in traps "because your emotions have run away with your logical thinking," she says. "You need to find ways to start thinking logically again."

Sometimes it helps to do something as simple as making a list of your investment goals and putting it on the refrigerator. Whenever you're tempted to act impulsively in response to something you see on television or hear from a friend at a dinner party, you can go back to that list and remind yourself that yanking money out of the market may not be the best strategy.

"Then, when you feel an urge to turn on CNBC, you train yourself to look at the list instead," she says.

—Ms. McGee is a writer in New York. She can be reached at reports@wsj.com

Investing in Trends - from Smartmoney.com

SmartMoney
Published March 25, 2009
Screens by Jack Hough

7 Stocks for 10-Year Holders

Stock screening software is handy for sorting cheap shares from pricey ones and determining which are recently rising. But it can’t tell which companies are neatly aligned with long-term societal trends. That means a search for stocks to hold for the next 10 years strays necessarily from the comfort of cold calculus to the gray of human judgment.

Still, I hope you’ll find the following points noncontroversial. For each, the computer has helped find some promising stocks—modestly priced ones attached to prosperous companies.

1. We’re getting old.

About 13% of Americans are 65 or older. By 2030, more than 20% will be, reckons the Census Bureau. The old spend less than the middle-aged on lots of things, but healthcare isn’t one of them. Four in five seniors have a chronic health condition like high blood pressure and diabetes, and half have two or more such conditions. Pills and prescription plans seem like good bets, but a greater role for government in coming years might crimp the profitability of either or both.

Companies that put paper medical records on computer networks, thereby saving money and improving results, seem more assured of growth. San Francisco-based McKesson (MCK1) is North America’s largest drug distributor and a leading provider of information technology to hospitals, insurers and government health-care agencies. Its sales are growing nicely through the current recession, and its shares fetch less than nine times forecast earnings for the company’s fiscal year ending March 31.

2. We’re still fat.

Beyond fat, really: The obese, at 34% of the population, now outnumber the merely overweight, at 33%, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. I suppose that favors purchases of plenty of ordinary things in larger sizes, like pants and airplane seats, but the companies mostly likely to gain from these — Wal-Mart (WMT2) and BE Aerospace (BEAV3) — are more affected by other trends. Kinetic Concepts (KCI4), based in San Antonio, makes vacuum-assisted systems for healing difficult wounds, like skin ulcers associated with diabetes, which is itself associated with obesity. It also makes specialty hospital beds, including ones that accommodate oversized patients.

Optimists might prefer to invest in diet plans and exercise. Companies that offer both are cheap right now; shares of gym chain Life Time Fitness (LTM5) and diet programs Weight Watchers (WTW6) and NutriSystem (NTRI7) trade at 8 to 9 times earnings. Weight Watchers is the best diet plan, according to ConsumerSearch.com, which amalgamated opinions from a variety of sources, including Consumer Reports and The Journal of the American Medical Association. With budgets tight, sales for Weight Watchers are seen declining 9% this year, and those for NutriSystem are seen falling 14%. Life Time is growing sales, mostly because it is opening new clubs, not expanding sales at longstanding ones. NutriSystem, unlike the others, is debt-free, and it offers the plumpest dividend yield: 5.3%.

3. A house bubble has popped, but has left plenty of houses.

Prices are down 27% from their mid-2006 peak, according to S&P’s Case/Shiller index, last reported in February for December. But houses built during the frothy years — from 2000 to 2007 the number of housing units swelled 10% while the population increased less than 7% — remain. Not all are cared for; a record one in nine are vacant. Assuming prices will eventually find a level where buyers will move in, our huge housing stock will need plenty of paint and lawn care in years to come. Sherwin-Williams (SHW8) leads the nation in paint sales, makes most of its money from touch-ups on existing houses, and has increased its dividend each year since 1979. Current yield: 3.2%. Shares are 14 times earnings. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (SMG9), true to its name, is increasing sales in what seems like an unlikely setting. Shares sell for just under 15 times earnings, but those earnings are expected to grow by double-digit percentages this year and next. The dividend yield seems in need of a spritz or two of growth spray, at just 1.5%.

Screen Survivors Company Ticker Price P/E Yield
McKesson MCK10 36.27 9 1.4
Kinetic Concepts KCI11 19.78 6 n/a
Lifetime Fitness LTM12 11.28 7 n/a
NutriSystem NTRI13 14.14 9 5.3
Weight Watchers WTW14 19.35 8 3.7
Sherwin-Williams SHW15 50.2 14 3.2
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company SMG16 33.97 15 1.5


1http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/MCK/
2http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/WMT/
3http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/BEAV/
4http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/KCI/
5http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/LTM/
6http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/WTW/
7http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/NTRI/
8http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/SHW/
9http://www.smartmoney.com/quote/SMG/
10http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=MCK
11http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=KCI
12http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=LTM
13http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=NTRI
14http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=WTW
15http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=SHW
16http://www.smartmoney.com/cfscripts/director.cfm?searchstring=SMG

URL for this article:
http://www.smartmoney.com/Investing/Stocks/7-Stocks-for-10-Year-Holders/

from Sunday's NY Times - A Long Term Investment Perspective

January 11, 2009

The Way We Live Now
Go Long

By ROGER LOWENSTEIN


In October, Columbia University’s business school honored its most famous investing guru, Benjamin Graham, with a series of panel discussions loosely connected to the market crash, which was then accelerating. The panelists, of which I was one, had contributed to an updated version of Graham’s 1930s textbook, whose signature themes are caution, avoidance of speculation and — at all costs — the preservation of capital. The day we met, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 350 points en route to one of its worst months ever.

J. Ezra Merkin, a Wall Street sage, noted philanthropist and professional money manager, seemed to embody more than any of the other panelists the fear that was gripping traders. When it was suggested that the government should stop intervening in markets and bailing out banks, Merkin rejoined that the system had cracked and desperately needed help. As the world now knows, Merkin had entrusted close to $2 billion of his investors’ money to someone even less dependable than the Dow — that is, the accused Ponzi artist Bernard Madoff. I have no reason to think that Merkin, at the time, had any knowledge of the fraud that was soon to secure his 15 minutes of fame, but that afternoon at Columbia now seems pregnant with latent connections. Perhaps Madoff’s investors lost a greater percentage of their money, and lost it more suddenly, than the rest of us. But beyond these mere matters of degree, is there really any difference?

At least for investors of attenuated time horizons, there is not. Public-securities markets are a wondrous artifice precisely because they offer permanent capital to industry and short-term liquidity to investors. Think about it: a General Electric or a Google sells stock to the public and then retains the proceeds — the capital — indefinitely. Even if the companies earn a profit, by selling more light bulbs or Internet ads, they are under no obligation to pay out the gains in dividends. How, then, do the shareholders claim their reward? Why, by selling their stock to other investors, of course. This means that, in the short term at least, each investor is dependent on the willingness of other investors to hop on board. If other investors go away, prices (even of solvent companies) plummet, to devastating effect on those who sell.

In a Ponzi scheme, there is no G.E. or Google underneath the pyramid: only air. Outgoing investors are paid from the money put up by new ones. And the game for Madoff ended, as Ponzi schemes always do, when he ran out of suckers.

In theory, stocks and bonds are more valuable than air. But when investors get hooked on trading securities (as distinct from owning them), especially ones that are overvalued, they are courting disaster. In retrospect, this was true of the legions that invested in mortgage-backed securities and in the banks that owned them, not to mention the many other companies affected indirectly. Nobody was thinking about what these companies were worth, only about the next quotation on the screen.

This was doubly true for the banks that held those wearily complex and difficult-to-value mortgage bonds. Look at the post-mortem issued by UBS, one of the world’s largest banks, which has suffered mortgage-related losses of some $50 billion (enough to bail out the auto industry several times over). Discussing one particular write down, the bank admitted, “The super senior notes were always treated as trading book (i.e., the book for assets intended for resale in the short term), notwithstanding the fact that there does not appear to have been a liquid secondary market.” Legally, UBS was a bank; conceptually, it was investing with Bernie Madoff.

There is, of course, an alternative to this madness. Which is to invest for the long term, independent of the market action on any given day or year. This is what most small investors pretended, and maybe believed, they were actually doing.

Robert Barbera, the chief economist at ITG, an investment firm, says there are really three schools of investing. There are people who think they can identify superior stocks and bonds over the long term and selectively invest in those that they deem to be undervalued. Second, there are people who recognize that they don’t have this ability and resolve to salt away a fixed portion of their savings, month after month, in a generic and diversified portfolio. Though the first approach requires considerably more talent and is not recommended for novices, both should work.

What does not work is believing you are following either strategy No. 1 or 2 when you are actually engaging in the third approach — which is, essentially, following the crowd, day by day and hour by hour. At the top of the market, investors told themselves they were disciplined and in for the long haul. Now they are selling or refraining from investing. Some misjudged their liquidity needs and have come under pressure to raise cash; others have simply lost heart. Either way, they are dependent on new money to come in for them to get out.

Benjamin Graham’s premise (which he did not abandon, even in the depths of the Great Depression) was that, sooner or later, markets will reflect underlying corporate values. Thus, he wrote, long-term investors had a “basic advantage” over others, because they could ride out bubbles and crashes rather than be gulled during such highs and lows into, respectively, buying or selling. In other words, for those who invest with prudence and an eye toward long-term values, the market need not be a Ponzi scheme. While stocks periodically go for roller-coaster rides, the earning power of the U.S. economy, albeit with serious fluctuations, endures. The people who chased unrealistic returns at the top, like those who are selling now, have simply cashiered their “advantage” to play a game that more nearly resembles Bernie Madoff’s.

Roger Lowenstein, an outside director of the Sequoia Fund, is a contributing writer for the magazine. His most recent book is “While America Aged.”