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 cash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cash. Show all posts

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.

New Money Market Rules (Pensions & Investments)

Don't delay moves on money market, investors warned

By: Rick Baert
Published: September 21, 2015

Among the issues with delaying, they warn, are the potential for investment losses and reduced liquidity from a last-minute rush to the exits that could negatively affect the nearly $1 trillion of assets now in institutional prime funds.
New rules requiring floating net asset values and potential withdrawal restrictions on institutional prime money market funds won't take effect until October 2016, but some money managers and consultants are warning the time to move out of them is now.
“I understand why some people might have the perspective that it's too early. ... But it's not too early to have these conversations,” said Kimberly Gillett, manager research analyst-U.S. fixed income, Towers Watson & Co. LLC, New York. “Decisions will need to be made, and if you can already make the change to Treasury and government money market funds, it's an easy change to make.
Prime funds are popular tools for pension funds, endowments and foundations, and custodians for cash sweeps and short-term transitions for rebalancing; they're seen as highly liquid with a set $1 NAV. But on Oct. 14, 2016, Securities and Exchange Commission rules will require floating NAVs on institutional prime money market funds, and the boards of money market funds will be allowed to impose fees and restrictions on investors that want to withdraw funds in times of financial crisis.
Retail prime funds will keep the fixed $1 NAV but their boards will be allowed to impose the same fees and restrictions as institutional funds; government money market funds will have the fixed NAV as well, but will have no fees or restrictions.

No exodus

Sources at money market fund managers interviewed for this story agree there's been no exodus by institutional investors.
“In the institutional prime market, there's about $900 billion now, about the same as in July 2014” when the SEC approved the rule change, said Thomas Callahan, managing director, co-head of BlackRock Inc.'s global cash management group, New York. “There's been a lot of talk about a grand shift from prime to government funds, but industry flows haven't indicated that it has happened — yet.”
Brandon Swensen, senior portfolio manager, co-head of fixed income at RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Minneapolis, argued that now's the time to make the change as the maximum allowable maturity for securities in prime funds is 13 months. “We're at 13 months before the regulations take effect, so the composition of prime funds means that people should act now,” Mr. Swensen said. “There's no perception of any risk before October 2016. ... But through time, as more money moves, there could be dislocation, a large-scale liquidation of securities at the same time. That could cause some potentially serious problems.”
Bud Person, executive vice president, wealth management and cash division, Federated Investors Inc., Pittsburgh, said the shift in assets to government from prime funds could affect spreads. “We do think with any meaningful shift, a couple hundred billion dollars or more, that you could see as a result that spreads would widen. It's just supply and demand. If you have some investors selling out of prime funds and into government funds, government yields will stay lower and prime yields could go up.”
That could make prime funds attractive even with a fluctuating NAV, said Mr. Person, “so you may have some institutional investors staying with prime funds despite the new rules. Those fluctuating NAV prime funds could have the potential to outperform certain government funds in certain time periods and circumstances. Institutions will have to look at prime funds not just with their yield but on a total-return basis.”
Declining yields of government money market funds could make them off limits to many pension funds whose investment committees have limits on how low yields on approved investments can go, said Robert Zondag, co-managing partner, American Deposit Management LLC, Delafield, Wis.
“Many committees have investment policies that limit what they can use from both yield and safety perspectives,” Mr. Zondag said. “Such constraints could limit their options, especially close to the October (2016) date.” ADM is an institutional cash manager with about $5 billion in AUM.

'3 powerful market currents'

BlackRock's Mr. Callahan said that money market reform is one of “three powerful market currents colliding simultaneously,” along with the ramifications of Basel III banking regulations and future changes in the Federal Funds rate.
He said hundreds of billions of dollars being pushed by banks to government money market funds because of Basel III “could aggravate the shortage of government collateral and make government funds more expensive.” Also, the yield premium in institutional prime funds relative to government funds will be partially determined by the level of the Fed Funds rate. “Right now that spread is about 12 basis points,” Mr. Callahan said. “Is that enough premium to move from a (constant NAV) government fund to a (fluctuating NAV) prime fund? Probably not. But if rates go up, is 20 basis points enough compensation? 30? 50?”
Those uncertainties, not any foot-dragging, are the real reason asset owners aren't acting, Mr. Callahan said. “Those concerns make institutions uncertain, and when they're uncertain, they watch and wait. That's what you're seeing now.”
Mr. Swensen of RBC Global and Towers Watson's Ms. Gillett both warned that another unintended consequence of the new rules could be what Ms. Gillett called a “potentially interesting scenario” involving overall corporate bond liquidity. “There are definitely issues concerning liquidity if everyone tries to move assets all at the same time,” she said.
“There's an indirect aspect of this that's difficult to quantify, but there is linkage” between a large outflow from prime funds and corporate bond liquidity, Mr. Swensen said. “Prime money market funds are a sizable holder of corporate bonds. That will significantly shrink as a result of the outflows, and a sudden rush (to) exits could have a negative effect on corporate bond financing. Corporate bonds will price lower liquidity into spreads (on the secondary market). The sudden shrinking of prime money market funds will be another direct hit on corporate bond liquidity.”
However, Messrs. Person and Callahan disagreed, saying liquidity won't be an issue. “The repo markets are contracting rapidly, a lot of issuers are terming out their short-term debt, and Treasury bill supply is shrinking,” Mr. Callahan said. “With large demand and limited supply in the front end, we are confident liquidity will be substantial for prime funds.”
Peter Yi, senior vice president and head of short-duration fixed income, Northern Trust Asset Management, Chicago, said he expects institutions to make the move from prime funds starting early next year.
“It all depends on what's the right liquidity solution,” Mr. Yi said. “If a balanced solution exists today, then we encourage them to move when they are ready. If not, we want to start working with them now to think about all the enhancements they think they need to improve their liquidity management experience. ... I'd say in early to mid-2016, we think that's a good time frame to conclude our final discussions and put this all together with thoughtful recommendations.”

Stocks, Bonds, Cash and Inflation - the last 30 years

Chart of the Week for March 30, 2012 - April 5, 2012






When investing in any asset class, such as stocks, bonds or cash equivalents (U.S. 30 Day Treasury Bills), an investor assumes some level of risk. Securities with higher return potential typically carry more risk of not meeting return expectations or even possibly losing some or all of the amount invested. Stocks, for example, are typically more risky than bonds or cash equivalents, but have historically offered higher return possibilities. The graph above illustrates the relationship between risk and reward in different asset classes between February 1982 and February 2012.

We can see the growth of inflation and of a $1 invested in three different asset classes beginning at the end of February 1982. After 30 years, the $1 invested in stocks, as measured by the S&P 500 Index, would have grown to $26.56. If that same $1 was invested in bonds, as measured by the U.S. Long-Term Government Index, the investment would be worth $22.03. If the $1 was allocated completely to cash equivalents, represented by U.S. 30 Day T-Bills, its value would be $3.84, only slightly better than inflation. As a result of inflation, $2.40 is needed in February 2012 just to buy what $1.00 bought in February 1982.

Over the 30 year period, stocks outperformed bonds and cash equivalents, and stayed well ahead of inflation. However, stocks carried the most risk as demonstrated by the volatility in the blue line and if the chart stopped in December 2008, bonds outperformed stocks.
Depending on your risk tolerance, time horizon, and investing goals, each investor should balance risk and reward to create their own portfolio. Remember the next 30 years may not look like the last 30 years.



© Copyright 2012 ICMA Retirement Corporation, All Rights Reserved. This information is intended for educational purposes only and is not to be construed as investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell securities. Investors should seek financial advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in any securities or investment strategies discussed here. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future performance.

How Long for that Check to Clear ? (NYTimes)

September 19, 2009
Your Money
Hurry Up and Credit My Account

By RON LIEBER


What is it with these banks that are so quick to hit you with a fee for spending more than you have in your checking account but take their own sweet time in crediting deposits?

My colleague Andrew Martin and I heard that complaint repeatedly from readers after we wrote about overdraft fees earlier this month. The angry questions happened to arrive as we approach the five-year anniversary of when the federal law known as Check 21 took effect. The law allows banks to turn paper checks into digital images and settle them electronically instead of shipping bags of paper around the country on airplanes.

Once banks embraced the new procedures, money disappeared from your account much faster when you wrote a check. But the old laws on how quickly banks must credit your account when you make a deposit did not change at all. They still haven’t. In fact, they haven’t changed in more than 20 years.

In part because of that, consumers are suspicious that banks earn more money by not making the funds available until they absolutely have to. Banks, meanwhile, say that they often make deposited funds available before they know that the checks haven’t bounced.

The banks and the Federal Reserve have made some progress in speeding up many deposits. But the rules — and especially their exceptions — still trip up plenty of people.

So first, a refresher course on the rules, the ones the bank explained to you when you signed up for an account in a fine print document that you probably ignored.

Banks are supposed to allow you to withdraw the following types of deposits no later than the next business day after the bank receives them: cash, electronic payments like paychecks and other direct deposits, government checks, postal money orders and cashier’s checks. That said, if you don’t make the deposits in person (say, if it’s through an A.T.M.), there may be further delay.

For other checks, the Federal Reserve rule that governs deposits makes a distinction between local checks and nonlocal checks. Once you deposit your check in your own bank, it may go to a Federal Reserve check processing center before it heads to the bank of the person or company who wrote it. If the same center services both banks, then the check is local. If not, it’s nonlocal.

Banks must make your deposits of local checks available no later than two business days after you hand them over. But they get a full five days on nonlocal accounts. In either case, they must make $100 available to you the next business day after the deposit as a sort of good-faith advance. That number, too, has not changed in two decades.
One piece of good news here is that because of the rapid adoption of electronic check imaging, the Federal Reserve is a year or so away from completing the consolidation of all its processing centers. As a result, many more checks are already local. So when you deposit them, they hit your account more quickly.

The bad news, however, is that there are still a number of exceptions that allow banks to put a hold on part or all of the deposit, often for at least five business days. Any deposit over $5,000 is automatically suspect. If your account has been overdrawn at least six days in the last six months, then the bank can delay all deposits to your account. If your account is less than 30 days old, then your bank gets the extra time there, too (plenty of fraud happens in new accounts).

The large deposit exception ensnares plenty of people, according to Gail Hillebrand, senior attorney for Consumers Union. They include those who are paid on commission or quarterly and those earning royalties, and a large number of others moving money around from, say, a brokerage account to their checking account to pay big medical or tuition bills or buy a car or house.

She suggested taking an active approach with the bank when big money is involved, deposit by deposit. “Ask the bank if there will be a hold and how soon you can have the money. Don’t assume it’s going to be there because the teller smiled at you and accepted it,” she said. “If you’re moving money for a big payment, do it well in advance.”

Banks can and do move faster than the regulations require. And some have pushed their daily deadlines for depositors later by a few hours. Credit unions, in particular, tend to clear deposits more quickly, according to a 2007 Federal Reserve study of the effect of Check 21.

But you can’t count on that happening. So if you can’t keep a cushion in your checking account to protect yourself from running out of money while waiting for deposits, there are a few other available tactics.

Use direct deposit for everything you possibly can, from government benefit checks to tax refunds to reimbursement from your health insurer or flexible spending account administrator. Freelancers who do regular work for large companies can often receive payment via direct deposit, too.

If you’re sending money to a child in school or supporting a relative in some other way, you’ll spare yourself a lot of desperate phone calls if you can find a way to transfer money electronically into their account from your own linked account, say by listing yourself on the account with them.

There’s one big win for consumers arising from Check 21 that should have happened by now but mostly hasn’t. It’s something bankers like to call remote deposit capture. In plain English, that means you scan the check using your home computer and send it to the bank without having to bother with envelopes and mailboxes or remembering to stop at the branch in person.

Banks were fairly quick to make this available for their biggest customers — businesses. But only a couple of hundred banks or credit unions have given it to consumers so far, according to Bob Meara, a senior analyst with Celent, a financial services consulting firm.

The early adopters tend to be institutions like USAA Federal Savings Bank, which has only one branch but has lots of customers serving in the United States military who don’t want to send money in from an Army base. In fact, the bank has gone a step further and created an iPhone application that allows many of its customers to take pictures of their checks and deposit them that way. One in four of the bank’s check deposits now arrive remotely.

Customers of bigger banks could get their deposits into their bank accounts a lot faster if only the institutions were willing to let them move money this way. So why don’t they?

According to Mr. Meara, 90 percent of all transactions with bank tellers involve checks. If everyone had an iPhone deposit app, people wouldn’t come into the branch as often. That would be fine had banks not invested so much time and energy in training branch workers to persuade checking account customers to move into more profitable products.
“One the one hand, fewer deposit transactions could mean a headcount reduction,” he said. “But it invites the erosion of store profitability. The banks are struggling with the enormity of what it means.”

It can’t hurt to ask your bank for this sort of deposit-at-home service. But Mr. Meara thinks it will be many years before everyone gets to use it. That’s too bad. Until the Federal Reserve acts to tighten the deposit crediting rules further, having more ways to make deposits is one of the best benefits that can still come out of Check 21. If only your bank were in a bigger hurry to give you the tools.


Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

Common Sense from Ben Stein (NY Times)



March 30, 2008
Everybody's Business
Time to Go on a Liquid Diet
By BEN STEIN
AS the market keeps torturing us, many people say the problem is fallout from the losses in subprime mortgages. Others say it is fear of a recession because of the credit crisis, rising oil prices and the collapsing dollar and its flip side, inflation.
We could be in for much more pain as profits fall this year, and maybe even into 2009. Financial companies account for a huge hunk of total corporate profits — or they did.
And we could be in for more suffering if the currents of fear whipped up by the short-sellers grow into tidal waves.
Markets can certainly fall: from 1926 through 2007, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index fell 3 out of every 10 years. Some declines can be substantial. And there can be times like the 1970s when the market is sluggish for cruelly long periods.
As we are now seeing, real estate is far from a consistent shelter. And, for many of us, there isn’t much time before we’ll want to hang up our spurs. (Actually, I don’t ever plan to hang up my spurs. I plan to die going through an airport security line en route to a speech.)
So what do we do? I am going to be honest here: I don’t know. Or at least I don’t know for sure. (Hey, honesty may not be the best policy, but it’s worth trying every once in a while, as my old chief, Richard Nixon, once said. He had a much better sense of humor than is usually believed.) But I do have some general considerations that should guide you.
No one ever went broke from too much liquidity. In volatile times like these, cash is your best friend, aside from your dogs and cats. True, you earn very little interest on cash these days. True, if the stock market has a huge move up and you are largely in cash, you will be sad.
But it is also true that cash does not crash — although it does slowly but surely lose its value. You can pay your bills with it without having to sell it at a loss. So, as my pal Ray Lucia, the San Diego money manager, has taught me over the years, your first bucket of money should be in cash.
Having a plan is vital. It does not have to be a perfect or precise plan. Indeed, it cannot be, because you cannot forecast your rate of return or cost of living. But a rough plan to get you to and through retirement (to the Rainbow Bridge, where you meet all your departed dogs and cats) is a must.
Nowadays, alas, such a plan must consider the likelihood of much higher inflation than we had expected, as imports and food costs skyrocket. And we have to plan for the possibility of prolonged low returns from stocks. That means more saving.
Third, we have to be diversified: large- and small-capitalization stocks, foreign and domestic, emerging and developed markets. My own preference is for index funds, but there may be some fine managed funds out there, too.
Diversification should also include real estate investment trusts, with their fabulous yields, and commodities, which can easily be bought through index funds. Commodities may well have hit an air pocket, as commodities do, but they will be back someday.
My preference for a plan would also include guaranteed income that you cannot outlive — and that means annuities. There are now fixed annuities and variable annuities that give you inflation protection as well as protection from a collapse of the stock market. Of course, you have to pay for this, as you would for any hedge, but it can allow you to sleep better. Investigate the fees carefully and buy only the features that you want and need.
Fourth, plan for living more frugally. This is not easy for some of us. “What were once vices are now habits,” as the Doobie Brothers once said. This is true for millions of us, but we simply cannot escape the logic and power of arithmetic.
We cannot live forever on more than we have in principal and interest (or earnings ) and pensions. If that means no more second homes, or no more third cars, so be it.
No comfort is worth putting yourself in genuine fear of poverty. For me, your humble scribe, this is a vicious problem, but at some point, it must be solved.
But look on the bright side. My pal and investment guru Phil DeMuth and I have shown repeatedly that the best returns for stocks come after periods of extreme pessimism. It is just when the horizon seems darkest and cloudiest that we find above-par returns. And it is just when hopes seem dimmest for the United States that the economy starts to rally. If you have enough liquidity, if you are well diversified, now would be a good time to start back into the buying pool, in the most diversified way imaginable.
The best time to go house-hunting may be when pundits say the housing market is hopeless. That market, too, will eventually turn around. Many homes bought decades ago, when prices seemed insanely high, are now a steal. If you do buy a home, be patient. The days of flipping for easy money are long gone.
Prudence is the order of the day. If we can remember that, we’ll really be well off when, soon enough, the good times start rolling again.
Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail: ebiz@nytimes.com.