Articles tagged with: stock market

Investing Means Tolerating Some Risk

That truth must always be recognized.

When financial markets have a bad day, week, or month, discomforting headlines and data can swiftly communicate a message to retirees and retirement savers alike: equity investments are risky things, and Wall Street is a risky place.

All true. If you want to accumulate significant retirement savings or try and grow your wealth through the opportunities in the markets, this is a reality you cannot avoid.

Regularly, your investments contend with assorted market risks. They never go away. At times, they may seem dangerous to your net worth or your retirement savings, so much so that you think about getting out of equities entirely.

If you are having such thoughts, think about this: in the big picture, the real danger to your retirement could be being too risk averse.

Is it possible to hold too much in cash? Yes. Some pre-retirees do. (Even some retirees, in fact.) They have six-figure savings accounts, built up since the Great Recession and the last bear market. It is a prudent move. A dollar will always be worth a dollar in America, and that money is out of the market and backed by deposit insurance.

This is all well and good, but the problem is what that money is earning. Even with interest rates rising, many high-balance savings accounts are currently yielding less than 0.5% a year. The latest inflation data shows consumer prices advancing 2.3% a year. That money in the bank is not outrunning inflation, not even close. It will lose purchasing power over time.1,2

Consider some of the recent yearly advances of the S&P 500. In 2016, it gained 9.54%; in 2017, it gained 19.42%. Those were the price returns; the 2016 and 2017 total returns (with dividends reinvested) were a respective 11.96% and 21.83%.3,4

Yes, the broad benchmark for U.S. equities has bad years as well. Historically, it has had about one negative year for every three positive years. Looking through relatively recent historical windows, the positives have mostly outweighed the negatives for investors. From 1973-2016, for example, the S&P gained an average of 11.69% per year. (The last 3-year losing streak the S&P had was in 2000-02.)5

Your portfolio may not return as well as the S&P does in a given year, but when equities rally, your household may see its invested assets grow noticeably. When you bring in equity investment account factors like compounding and tax deferral, the growth of those invested assets over decades may dwarf the growth that could result from mere checking or savings account interest.

At some point, putting too little into investments and too much in the bank may become a risk – a risk to your retirement savings potential. At today’s interest rates, the money you are saving may end up growing faster if it is invested in some vehicle offering potentially greater reward and comparatively greater degrees of risk to tolerate.

Having a big emergency fund is good. You can dip into that liquid pool of cash to address sudden financial issues that pose risks to your financial equilibrium in the present.

Having a big retirement fund is even better. When you have one of those, you may confidently address the biggest financial risk you will ever face: the risk of outliving your money in the future.

Mike Moffitt may be reached at ph#641-782-5577 or email: mikem@cfgiowa.com

www.cfgiowa.com

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note – investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Securities and Registered Investment Advisory Services offered through Silver Oak Securities, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC. Silver Oak Securities, Inc. and Cornerstone Financial Group are separate entities.

Citations.

1 – valuepenguin.com/average-savings-account-interest-rates [10/4/18]

2 – investing.com/economic-calendar/ [10/11/18]

3 – money.cnn.com/data/markets/sandp/ [10/11/18]

4 – ycharts.com/indicators/sandp_500_total_return_annual [10/11/18]

5 – thebalance.com/stock-market-returns-by-year-2388543 [6/23/18]

The Intriguing Post-Election Rally

Why did some sectors rise more than others?

Wall Street likes certainty. When startling financial, political, or societal events occur, volatility usually follows, and the major indices may fall.

In late October, the Dow Jones Industrial Average went on a multi-day losing streak as Donald Trump caught up to Hillary Clinton in the polls tracking the presidential race. Wall Street had been anticipating a Clinton victory; suddenly, that looked less certain. The Dow gradually sank below 18,000. When Trump won, however, the Dow did not drop further. It rallied for seven days and notched four record closes.1,2

What sparked the Dow’s rally? One, a new presumption of massive federal spending on infrastructure and defense. In August, Trump pledged he would “at least double” Clinton’s proposed federal stimulus if elected, which would mean committing more than $500 billion to repair the nation’s highways, bridges, and ports. He has also talked of greater military spending. Many, if not all, of the 30 companies making up the Dow could play significant roles in such efforts. Two, a Trump presidency is perceived as pro-business, with the potential for decreased regulation, renegotiated trade agreements, and tax cuts.2,3

The small caps also soared after Trump’s win. The Russell 2000 advanced 9% during November 9-17, leading some investors to wonder what the small caps had in common with the record-setting blue chips. The quick answer is that these small-cap firms have greater exposure to the U.S. economy than they do to foreign economies. Bulls believe that these firms will be particularly well positioned if infrastructure spending increases.4

Why did the S&P 500 & Nasdaq Composite lag the Dow & the Russell? The S&P rose 1.8% from November 9-17. This returned the index to the level at which it had been for most of the third quarter.4,5

A closer look at the S&P’s recent performance reveals a striking gap between its industry groups. Its financial sector climbed 10% in the eight days after Trump’s victory, aided by hopes for friendlier bank regulation in the new administration. By November 15, its YTD performance was 17% better than that of the S&P’s worst-performing sector, utilities. This degree of difference had not been seen in the index since 2009. Basically, a major rotation happened, taking invested assets out of certain sectors and into other sectors presumed to benefit from the policies of a Trump presidency.2,6

Hearing about the Dow’s surge, some investors assumed their portfolios would see large, abrupt gains – but in any sector rotation, money flows away from some industry groups toward others. In the three days after Trump’s victory, the Dow had gained 2.81%; the S&P, 1.16%; and the Nasdaq, 0.84%. While the Dow is only comprised of 30 companies, the S&P and the Nasdaq are much broader benchmarks, exponentially larger in their scope. Both the Nasdaq and the S&P contain many tech companies – and, broadly speaking, Silicon Valley was not high on Trump.7

Investors scratching their heads at recent portfolio performance would also do well to remember that large caps are just one of six asset classes. The gains for U.S. equities stood out globally after the election; there were losses in emerging and developed markets abroad, and losses in the debt markets. As assets in many portfolios are allocated across various asset classes to try and manage risk, this helps to explain why many retail investors saw only small gains or no gains at all immediately after November 8. They were not invested merely in the member firms of the Dow Jones Industrial Average.7

Will this rally continue? It’s difficult to say. As you know, history provides information of the past, and no assurance of future returns. While it’s possible that the new administration’s policies will bear out this goodwill, it’s also possible, after the administration convenes, that there is a new perspective. Time will tell.

Mike Moffitt may be reached at  ph# 641-782-5577 or email:  mikem@cfgiowa.com

Website:  www.cfgiowa.com    

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note – investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index is a capitalization weighted index of 500 stocks designed to measure performance of the broad domestic economy through changes in the aggregate market value of 500 stocks representing all major industries.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is comprised of 30 stocks that are major factors in their industries and widely held by individuals and institutional investors.

The NASDAQ Composite Index measures all NASDAQ domestic and non-U.S. based common stocks listed on The NASDAQ Stock Market. The market value, the last sale price multiplied by total shares outstanding, is calculated throughout the trading day, and is related to the total value of the Index.

The Russell 2000 Index is an unmanaged index generally representative of the 2,000 smallest companies in the Russell 3000 index, which represents approximately 10% of the total market capitalization of the Russell 3000 Index.

The prices of small and mid-cap stocks are generally more volatile than large cap stocks.

Additionally, the prices of small cap stocks are generally more volatile than large cap stocks.

Michael Moffitt is a Registered Representative with and Securities are offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC. Investments advice offered through Advantage Investment Management (AIM), a egistered investment advisor. Cornerstone Financial Group and AIM are separate entities from LPL Financial. 

Citations.

1 – money.cnn.com/data/markets/dow/ [11/17/16]

2 – investing.com/news/stock-market-news/s-amp;p,-nasdaq-higher-as-investors-digest-yellen-remarks-441723 [11/17/16]

3 – fortune.com/2016/08/03/donald-trump-infrastructure/ [8/3/16]

4 – blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/11/17/why-the-small-cap-rally-may-stick-around/ [11/17/16]

5 – marketwatch.com/story/stop-calling-stock-market-rise-a-trump-rally-2016-11-17 [11/17/16]

6 – bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/s-p-500-futures-inch-ahead-as-investors-speculate-on-trump-plans [11/15/16]

7 – forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2016/11/14/how-the-markets-moved-after-a-trump-victory/ [11/14/16]

 

 

Why Well Diversified Portfolios Have Lagged the S&P

Some investors have seen minimal returns compared to the benchmark.

Diversification is essential, yet it comes with trade-offs. Investors are repeatedly urged to allocate portfolio assets across a variety of investment classes. This is fundamental; market shocks and month-to-month volatility may bring big losses to portfolios weighted too heavily in one or two classes.

Just as there is a potential upside to diversification, there is also a potential downside. It can expose a percentage of the portfolio to underperforming sectors of the market. Last year, that kind of exposure affected the returns of some prudent investors.

Sometimes diversification hinders overall performance. The stock market has performed well of late, but very few portfolios have 100% allocation to stocks for sensible reasons. At times investors take a quick glance at stock index performance and forget that their return reflects the performance of multiple market segments. While the S&P 500 rose 11.39% in 2014 (13.69% with dividends), other asset classes saw minor returns or losses last year.1

As an example, Morningstar assessed fixed-income managers for 2014 and found a median return of just 2.35% for domestic high yield strategies. The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index advanced 5.97% in 2014 (that encompasses coupon payments and capital appreciation), while the Citigroup Non-U.S. World Government Bond index lost 2.68%.1,2

Turning to some very conservative options, the 10-year Treasury had a 2.17% yield on December 31, 2014; at the start of last year, it was yielding 3.00%. As March began, Bankrate found the annual percentage yield for a 1-year CD averaged 0.27% nationally, with the yields on 5-year CDs averaging 0.87%; last year’s average yields were similar.3,4  

Oil’s poor 2014 affected numerous portfolios. Light sweet crude ended 2014 at just $53.27 on the NYMEX, going -45.42% on the year. (In 2008, prices peaked at $147 a barrel). Correspondingly, the Thomson Reuters/CRB Commodities Index, which tracks the 19 most watched commodity futures, dropped 17.9% in 2014 after slips of 5.0% in 2013, 3.4% in 2012 and 8.3% in 2011. At the end of last year, it was at the same level it had been at the end of 2008.5,6

The longstanding MSCI EAFE Index (which measures the overall performance of 21 Morgan Stanley Capital International indices in Europe and the Asia Pacific region) lost 7.35% for 2014. At the end of last year, it had returned an average of 2.34% across 2010-2014. So on the whole, equity indices in the emerging markets and the eurozone have not performed exceptionally well last year or over the past few years.7

All this is worth considering for investors wondering why their highly diversified, cautiously allocated portfolios lagged the main U.S. benchmark. It may also present a decent argument for tactical asset allocation – the intentional, responsive shift of percentages of portfolio assets into the best-performing sectors of the market. Whether an investor favors that kind of dynamic strategy or a buy-and-hold approach with a far-off time horizon in mind, it is inevitable that some portion of portfolio assets will be held in currently lagging or underperforming investment classes. This is one of the trade-offs of diversification. In some years – such as 2014 – being ably diversified may result in less-than-desired returns.

Mike Moffitt may be reached at ph# 641-782-5577 or email:  mikem@cfgiowa.com 

website:  www.cfgiowa.com

Michael Moffitt is a Registered Representative with and Securities are offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC. Investments advice offered through Advantage Investment Management (AIM), a registered investment advisor. Cornerstone Financial Group and AIM are separate entities from LPL Financial.

*Tactical allocation may involve more frequent buying and selling of assets and will tend to generate higher transaction cost. Investors should consider the tax consequences of moving positions more frequently.

**There is no guarantee that a diversified portfolio will enhance overall returns or outperform a non-diversified portfolio. Diversification does not protect against market risk.

This material was prepared by MarketingPro, Inc., and does not necessarily represent the views of the presenting party, nor their affiliates. This information has been derived from sources believed to be accurate. Please note – investing involves risk, and past performance is no guarantee of future results. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional services. If assistance is needed, the reader is advised to engage the services of a competent professional. This information should not be construed as investment, tax or legal advice and may not be relied on for the purpose of avoiding any Federal tax penalty. This is neither a solicitation nor recommendation to purchase or sell any investment or insurance product or service, and should not be relied upon as such. All indices are unmanaged and are not illustrative of any particular investment.

Citations.

1 – qz.com/320196/its-over-stocks-beat-bonds/ [1/2/15]

2 – tinyurl.com/oq6cb7w [2/23/15]

3 – treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2014 [3/3/15]

4 – bankrate.com/funnel/cd-investments/cd-investment-results.aspx?prods=15,19 [3/3/15]

5 – money.cnn.com/data/commodities/ [12/31/14]

6 – nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11387661 [1/17/15]

7 – mscibarra.com/products/indices/international_equity_indices/gimi/stdindex/performance.html [12/31/14]

Income inequality and your investment account

A new article came out recently stating that the top 1% of the world population controls $110 trillion of wealth. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/bp-working-for-few-political-capture-economic-inequality-200114-summ-en.pdf . I understand that many folks consider this a travesty, but before they get too excited about righting this inequality of wealth, they need to actually “run the numbers” and try to avoid being a hypocrite.

Upon doing a little math, I found many of my clients are in that top 1%. That’s right! Before you get too impressed, consider this: the richest 1% globally control $110 trillion of wealth. There are 7 billion people on earth, so $110 trillion divided by 7 billion equals about $1.5 million each. A farmer client who owns 240 acres of Iowa land (a small farm for those who might not know) or a small business person who owns her business debt free, along with a home and a $500,000 401k, could also fall in that 1%. Heck, a person who can save $275/month and increases that with the inflation rate can get to $1.5 million by retirement age.¹

So to be more fair to the less rich, let’s just take from the “super rich”. That would probably do it, right? Well, according to Forbes list of richest people in the world, the top 50 have roughly $1.2 trillion of wealth.² If you confiscated ALL their wealth, it wouldn’t come close to paying down the total public (government) debt in the world of $52.6 trillion (http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock). It wouldn’t even pay the interest on the debt! And, the $1.2 trillion spread out evenly over every man, woman and child on earth, would give everyone $171.43. Would that pay your cell phone bill for 5 months? Or if you confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 1 percenters and spread it out evenly, everyone would get $15,714.28. For those in third world countries who face REAL poverty, that’s certainly a lot. But in the U.S., although it’s considered poverty, it’s not enough to help most people for any length of time.

How does this affect your investments? When the government attempts to help those in poverty, it spends money on social programs. Since it doesn’t currently bring in enough money through taxes, it borrows the difference from investors with help from the Federal Reserve (our banking system in the U.S.)

Our Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air (“prints” money to increase the money supply) and has been using that money to buy U.S. government-backed debt. That extra money enters our economy.³ Some of it ends up in the hands of citizens. Some spend it, but some save it. For those who save it, some ends up being invested in stocks, some in their businesses, and some in real estate, among other places. This typically pushes asset values higher, which makes those people appear richer….on paper.

They may not be poor but many of them saved that money themselves and they don’t consider themselves rich. When the stock market last crashed, in 2008-2009, many of those people lost nearly 50% of that wealth. Not all of those folks were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Their plans for a successful retirement hinge on a decent 401k and Social Security. And Social Security is funded by a trust fund expected to be exhausted in around 20 years, with the source of this information being the 2013 Annual Reports summary on the Social Security website itself (http://www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/TRSUM/tr13summary.pdf) and run by a government that is $17 trillion in debt (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current). The unfunded (future) liabilities of the United States government are projected to be over $127 trillion…more than $1.1 million for every taxpayer alive today.4

So as easy as it is to despise rich people, not all are evil and taking from them won’t come close to solving the problem anyway. And as much as we’d like to think government is the answer, not all government is good and as the debt increases, it probably means much larger problems and much less wealth for everyone when the bubbles pop again like some did in 2008-2009.

Towards that end, we run what-if stress testing scenarios for our clients simulating multiple economic events that could impact their life’s savings, helping them understand the very REAL consequences of actions by governments, terrorists, and the like. Being informed about, and in charge of, your portfolio is the best way to understand and deal with the certainty of uncertainty that affects our life.

Finally, if you really think that rich people have more influence over government than poor people, you may be right. But by that logic, we should all vote for smaller government. There would be fewer people in the government to influence and a chance to reduce the federal debt, which may help save Social Security in the future for us and our kids. If we achieve wealth equality, we’ll need it!

¹annual interest rate 7.5% for 45 years, increasing contributions by an inflation rate of 2.5% and compounding annually. For illustrative purposes only. Not based on any specific investments. Investing in securities involves risk, including potential loss of principal.

² http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

³http://www.independent.com/news/2012/feb/25/how-us-federal-reserve-creates-and-destroys-money/

4http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

Investing involves risk including loss of principal.