Tuesday, November 13, 2012

When Does It Pay To Delay Social Security?

Retirees can start taking Social Security benefits at any time between the ages of 62 and 70.  Many people start taking benefits as soon as possible, but today’ low interest rate environment has changed the calculus enough that for many folks, that’s the wrong decision.  It almost takes a Ph.D. in Economics to calculate when to file for benefits.  Fortunately, a Stanford Ph.D. recently studied how low interest rates and increasing life expectancies impact this decision.

Retirees who file too soon receive lower benefits that, over a long lifespan, result in significantly lower monthly income late in life.  Because interest rates are low, many retirees should use savings during the early years of retirement and let benefit levels increase (risk free) so that less savings is required during later years.  Marriage, divorce, part-time work in retirement, and other retirement income benefits all complicate the calculation making it impossible to generalize.  The recent National Bureau of Economic Research study did make some general findings that readers will find interesting.

Professors Shoven and Slavov concluded that delaying benefits “is actuarially advantageous for a large subset of people, particularly for primary earners in married couples.”  While many people start taking benefits right away, afraid that something will happen to them before they can get their money back out of the system, the study actually found that, “most households – even those with mortality rates that are twice the average,” need to think about delaying benefits. 

Determining when to start taking benefits is the cornerstone of most retirees’ retirement income plan.  Moreover, without an income plan, people have a difficult time knowing how to allocate between “safe money” and “long-term investments.”  Finally, with the calculus so overwhelming that it takes an econometrician to run the numbers, many retirees give up at the outset, abandoning their planning effort and just accepting the anxiety that comes with not having a detailed plan for how to best tap resources during the retirement years.

May-Investments solution is to tap into sophisticated planning resources that allow us to evaluate the results from various options.  We can adjust when spouses file to claim their resources, adjust whether they claim their own retirement benefits, or tap into “spousal benefits” instead.  For more complicated scenarios, we have a Social Study Analyzer program that helps evaluate more complex situations, including 81 different filing options like “file and immediately suspend benefits.”  Planning software doesn’t make decisions for you, but it does make it easier to analyze alternatives.

We know that having a plan for the retirement years is a key strategy to help people enjoy a successful retirement.  Although having a “plan” is not required, it is one of the key traits that separate successful retirees from those who fail to fully enjoy the retirement season of life.  Looking at the numbers won’t necessarily change them, of course.  Folks who fail to plan for retirement and go into it with inadequate resources won’t suddenly discover new streams of income that weren’t there before.  However, for those who have saved but remain anxious about whether they’ve saved enough, a thorough planning effort brings peace of mind and enjoyment that others, who have failed to plan, rarely enjoy.

If you want to read the full study, “The Impact of Mortality, Interest Rates, and Program Rules,” e-mail me and we'll be glad to forward a copy to you.  Happy Thanksgiving from all of us at May-Investments.
 
 Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Election Final Results Being Tabulated

The popular vote is in, the Electoral College will confirm the decision, and today it was time for the market to weigh in on the decision.  Gold was up, interest rates, oil prices, and stocks (generally) were down, and I’m still searching for an unbiased and informed observer to help me make sense of what we can expect to see next.  Anyone who is unbiased is almost certainly uninformed, and anyone with a clue is already dug in deep with an entrenched opinion.

So, I am forced to pull myself together and come in from the fiscal cliff in order to sort things out.

First, I don’t think that the President’s re-election was already “priced in” to the market.  I think that the next few days will be about the market re-pricing the long-term outlook for stocks.  The blue investors think that we will be much better off in the short-run.  The red investors think that, as Joe Biden said, “facts matter” and choices have consequences, and that the long-term consequences of fiscal irresponsibility will be negative.  As with so many things about this election, I think that they’re both right.

In the next few days, I think that the long-term costs of living in a banana republic, running up deficits that may exceed $20 trillion before the President’s term is up, will come back to haunt us.  I think that it is possible that Wednesday’s 313-point drop might not be the last down day we see, in the near-term.  Hopefully that won’t happen, but I think that markets do try to price in stocks’ long-run earnings power and that the market’s judgment might be harsh.

On the other hand, I think that the near-term results might lead to a reasonably profitable 2013.

First, the market is already reasonably valued, so any material short-term sell-off should be limited by the fact that stocks will be getting cheap.  Second, one way or the other we will get past the daunting “fiscal cliff” headlines, and the media will be more than happy to pronounce the problem solved and celebrate the President’s achievement.  I think that the President will get pretty much what he wants in negotiations – not because he has a mandate from the voters, but because I believe that he is quite willing to ignore the handcuffs imposed by the debt ceiling altogether.

In years past, President Clinton was willing to consider the option of “just ignoring” the debt ceiling limitations.  The President could just keep cutting checks.  There isn’t a lot of recourse for using Executive Privilege as an excuse to ignore the rules that have bound others to responsible behavior.  In the fall of 2011, President Clinton even went on record recommending that President Obama use this strategy.  With re-election looming, the White House went a different direction.  That time.  Now that President Obama has secured another four years, I think that this president is perfectly willing to make the problem go away simply by ignoring it.

Furthermore, I think that the markets would love it.

The last thing that the markets want is for today’s slow-growth 2% Gross Domestic Product growth to take a 4% haircut, as many analysts predict would happen if we run off the fiscal cliff.  If the President negotiates modest and imaginary spending cuts, or just ignores the debt ceiling completely, I think that the market would sigh in relief and the headlines would treat the President kindly.  Conservatives would throw a fit.  But strict constitutionalists are now just part of the 49%.

In the short run, Obamacare might reduce healthcare costs by paying doctors and vendors less, keeping a lid on inflation in that part of the economy.  With worldwide economic growth contracting, inflation really isn’t a near-term problem.  Ongoing fiscal stimulus will propel some parts of the economy forward, and deficits higher, providing a traditional short-term stimulus to economic activity. 

Third, tax increases are coming.  Obamacare-related increases have been coming down the pike for months.  Businesses are already paying much higher unemployment taxes.  Big government is going to require big taxes, for all.  However, the economic costs of these tax increases may not be immediate, so 2013 might not feel the squeeze.  Those bills will be paid later.

Also, the President’s re-election means that short-term interest rates are here to stay.  The art of Fiscal Repression, mastered by Ben Bernanke in his economic thesis as a way to enrich Tim Geitner’s banking friends at the expense of retirees from coast to coast, is here to stay.  This government can't afford to pay 4% interest rates on $16 trillion in debt.  Financing deficits at 1% interest rates will hopefully keep the whole deck of cards standing upright.  While the costs are hidden from view, the headline risk of "rising interest rates" is gone, at least until the bond market vigilantes say otherwise.

A late-2012 market sell-off might position the market well for a 2013 rally.

The long-run costs could be years out.  That’s the good news.  I’ll defer from listing those negative consequences, which have been filling up e-mail boxes for most of the past 6 months.

As your mailboxes will indicate, as trading confirms are being sent out, you will find that our equity portfolios have been raising cash.  We started selling a few weeks before election day, and we have sold a bit more after the election as well.  These trades were not made in anticipation of the election.  They were made as a result of general market weakness.  As a result of them, for better or worse, we now have a fair amount of cash on the sidelines.  If the market does sell-off in the near-term, we have dry powder available to reinvest at more attractive levels, if we get them.

At present, the May-Investments Leading Economic Indicators have flattened out, after declining from July through September.  If the indicators resume their downtrend, I will be more likely to keep more cash on the sidelines, for longer.  If growth resumes or markets start to recover, we will be glad to take a look at investing in sectors that are acting well.  At present, there are very few sectors whose “uptrend” hasn’t turned down.  One of the few sectors that was acting well – coal stocks – sharply reversed post-election.  We talk about getting out of the way of what’s not working, and right now very little is working well in the stock market, and we have become quite conservative, particularly given that we are still pretty close to market highs as I write this.  If the market really does turn down, these sales will be very well timed.

If the market stabilizes, we will be happy to get back in to enjoy an upward trend.

We have raised a significant chunk of cash, not because of my forecast or view of the election results, but because the market turned around, just a few days before our “all is well” third quarter client letter was dropped in the mailbox.  The problem, I guess, is that “flat markets” really aren’t flat.  They are jagged and dangerous, with small increases matched by quick and ruthless declines.

My “forecast” is for a quick sell-off, which sets the stage for a decent market in 2013.  Rather than structuring the portfolio so it aligns with my opinion, however, we are managing our risk exposure based on the way Mr. Market is treating investors.  In the past weeks, the trends have been turning down.  As a result, we have reduced the amount of risk we are willing to take.

Hopefully this correction, if that’s what we’re having, will – like the election robocalls - be over soon.  While the market weighs in, however, we’ve moved some cash to the sidelines.

Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Bond Choices For The Timid

With interest rates near all-time lows and about a trillion dollars chasing today’s low yields (it’s more like 3 trillion dollars if you include bond purchases by the central banks), finding decent bond investments is a bit of a challenge, these days.  In general terms, I thought I’d mention some of the types of fixed income securities that we’ve been buying for clients in this low interest rate environment.

Since bond prices and interest rates move in opposite directions, the risk in the bond market is that rates move higher (they can’t move much lower!), which pushes bond prices down.  This risk is much greater in a long bond than it is with a security that matures in just a couple of years.  The Leuthold Group gives the example of a 20-year Treasury bond that sells for a 2.35% yield.  The bond in question has a coupon of 5.625%.  On a $100,000 original investment, it pays $5,625 annually.  To buy that bond in the current low-yield environment, however, investors would have to fork over $140,240.  (Yes.  In the past few years, somebody has already made a 40% profit on that bond.  And they are selling it to you.)

The bond has a price of $140.24.  Should rates go back up by 1.65%, so the bond yields a more normal 4% yield-to-maturity, the price of the bond would decline to $117.10.  If that rate increase happens over the course of the next year, the bond would fall nearly 19% in value.  However, it would spin off income of about 4%, so an investor’s total loss would be about -15%.

While a 15% loss isn’t quite the same magnitude of losses that stock investors experienced during the technology bubble, for someone trying to be “safe” with their money, a 15% loss would come as a rude awakening as to the risk out there in the supposedly “safe” fixed income asset class.  A novice investor might buy the bond thinking that they were getting a “safe” 2.35% return, only to get hit with a 19% loss, instead.  A real rube might think that they were buying a bond that pays 5.625%, but experience that same 19% loss.  In either case, buying a bond for safety, and then losing principal, isn’t going to make folks happy.

A 12-month Treasury bill, by comparison, would not lose money.  However, the return on a 1-year T-Bill is only 0.17%.  It’s almost as bad as losing money, since you’re loaning the money to the U.S. government to buy a lot of things that, well, you probably wouldn’t buy if you had a say in the matter.

We are shopping for reasonably short maturity fixed income investments that provide a better return than T-Bills.  Heck - let’s face it - we’re just trying to find something that will give up a POSITIVE return for the next couple of years.  And we’ve found five different types of securities that we believe offer both positive returns without taking a lot of risk.

In the past, we’ve been a regular buyer of short-maturity junk bonds ever since the high yield market blew itself up in 2008.  With so much money being created by the Federal Reserve, we believe that it makes far more sense to take “credit risk” than it does to take on “interest rate risk.”  The risk of default, we believe, is far lower than the risk that higher interest rates will depress the value of what we own.  However, in 2008 investors could by short-maturity junk bonds with yields of 10% to 20%.  These days, even on junk bonds, short-term yields may be more like 2% to 3% for most names.  It’s tough to take any risk to principal when the investment return is that low.  Still, in a few cases, we’ll buy short-term high yield bonds because we expect to hold those bonds to maturity.  Rather than selling them, we can just let them mature.  If the bonds are backed by hard assets, even in a worst case scenario we foreclose on assets that have value to investors.

Second, a little over a year ago we added a mutual fund that owns short-term government guaranteed mortgage-backed securities in its portfolio.  The bonds aren’t backed by Fannie-Mae or Freddie-Mac, which are entities in guardianship currently because their overpaid traders and executives bought too much junk at the behest of Congress during the real estate bubble.  Instead, we own mortgages that are fully guaranteed by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam, just to be sure.  Periodically, mortgage market participants blow themselves up by buying sophisticated securities on the premise that they’re a simple investment.  In fact, mortgage-backed securities are easy to buy, but in a crisis they can be very difficult to sell.  It happened after Orange County, California bought too many mortgage bonds in the early 1990’s, and again after the 2008 financial crisis.  As a result, mortgages still offer reasonable returns, but they don’t belong in an individual’s portfolio as an individual security.  They are just too hard to sell.  For this reason, we invest in them through a mutual fund.

The fund we own has bonds in the portfolio that yield 3.09%.  The fund’s 0.55% expense ratio must come out of this return.  The fund’s price (net asset value) has been fairly stable.  The N.A.V. was $10.62 in 2001, fell to $10.16 at the end of 2006, and is currently $11.29.  We actually do expect the N.A.V. to lose some value, but not a lot.  We’re hoping that our investment will earn 1% to 2% during our holding period.  Also, it’s good to have funds around because they can be easily liquidated in the event we want available funds to use to buy long bonds later, after rates have gone up.

Another alternative we’ve started using is an exchange traded fund that owns a broad portfolio of short-term high-yield bonds.  In this case, the bonds in the ETF all mature in 2014, so in two years we expect the ETF to self-liquidate and give us back our money.  It’s similar to owning an individual issue, but with junk bond yields so low, it’s hard to justify taking much of any credit risk.  By using a fund to diversify the investment, we reduce the likelihood that we happened to buy just the wrong bond, and lose a significant amount of principal in return for an insignificant rate of return.

The ETF we own has bonds in the portfolio that yield 5.39%.  The fund’s 0.42% expense ratio must come out of this return.  The fund is diversified across more than 100 individual securities, but trades easily throughout the day so it provides both diversification and liquidity benefits.  In an economic downturn, we might want to sell these short-term bonds in favor of buying longer maturity investments.  In the event of an economic recovery, presumably Treasury rates would move higher and we might want to lock in rates by purchasing longer maturity Treasuries.  In the meantime, we’ll be paid a little to wait, and we hope to be able to have liquidity when the time is right to redeploy funds into different types of securities.

We have also found a few floating-rate bonds to be of interest.  With interest rates so low, floaters whose interest rates are based on short-term interest rate indexes have plenty of room for their rates to increase when interest rates, generally, do start moving higher.  In this case, it’s okay to buy a longer-term bond because the price should be protected (generally) by the increase in the bond’s coupon.  Also, in some cases, the current interest rate is so incredibly low that the bonds are actually selling at a discount (i.e. below maturity value), so in addition to some modest coupon income, the bonds can be expected to appreciate as they move toward maturity.

A typical recent example is when we purchased the bonds of a too-big-to-fail bank which is paying IRA investors 0.55% to invest in a 4-year certificate of deposit.  Although not insured, like a CD, the bank’s bonds pay a floating rate of interest currently set at 0.60%, and the bonds should appreciate from $89.4 to par ($100) between now and June 15, 2016.  Combining the appreciation and the coupon interest should yield roughly a 3.25% return to investors.  If short-term rate indices rise, the coupon on this bond goes up, which helps boost the ultimate return to investors.

Finally, there are a few callable bonds that are of interest.  Callable bonds have a final maturity date, but they can be subject to early maturity at the whim of the issuer (i.e. they can be “called away”) based on current interest rate conditions.  In this low rate environment, most callable bonds are called at the first opportunity because issuers can float new bonds, at lower rates, and use the proceeds to get rid of that old, high-coupon debt.  It’s really not much different than what homeowners have been doing with their old mortgages.  They take out a new mortgage and use the funds to pay off the old, higher rate debt.

The interesting thing about callable bonds is that they trade to the short-term call date.  A bond with a 4% coupon won’t have much of a premium because buyers know that the bond will likely be called in a year or two.  However, if rates increase between now and the call date, it’s possible that it won’t make sense to pay that bond off early, after all.  In that case, the 4% coupon might last a lot longer than originally thought.  The key is to find bonds with coupons that are high enough to be attractive, if kept to maturity, but low enough that it wouldn’t take much of an interest rate increase for it to no longer make sense to call in the bonds.

In today’s bond bubble, with the demand for bonds so much higher than the current supply of new bond issuance, it’s a very difficult place to find value.  Hopefully the securities we’re buying will give us a 2%-3% return without exposing us to a lot of interest rate risk.  We’re looking forward to the day when fixed income investors are no longer treated with contempt by the central banking system, which is looking to retirement savers to subsidize the mistakes made by the central banks and Wall Street bankers during the period leading up to the financial crisis.

In this environment, it’s good to be timid.  It may not pay a lot, but it will likely pay off in the end.
 
 Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Fed To Punish Savers For Three More Years

Last week, after completing a set of grueling meetings in Jackson Hole, the honchos at the Federal Reserve announced to the market a new round of money printing and extended its policy of denying savers a fair return on their savings.  They worded the announcement slightly differently, but that’s the gist of things.  Faced with deteriorating economic statistics, the Fed decided to continue its current policy of “financial repression” at least until mid-2015.

Critics of this latest round of Quantitative Easing (QE3) accuse the Fed of bowing to political pressure from the White House in advance of the upcoming election in pursuit of policies that debase the dollar and have not helped reduce unemployment or restimulate business investment.  Contrasting current policies with the polar opposite policies successfully implemented by Paul Volcker in 1979,  Obama critic Larry Kudlow wrote, “It’s like history is repeating itself, but in reverse.”

I do believe that the QE3 announcement is confirmation to what the May-Investments Leading Indicators Index is showing; economic fundamentals are deteriorating rapidly and the Fed is worried.  While the critics charge that QE3 will be no more successful than the first two attempts, I believe the evidence on Quantitative Easing is unclear.  While it is clear that interest rates can’t go any lower, so the normal Fed tools aren’t working, it’s hard to know where we would be absent this digital printing press, which is working overtime.  It is entirely possible that absent “Helicopter Ben’s” herculean efforts to spread money we don’t have to random companies throughout the financial sector, we might already be in a Depression.

One reason that Bernanke is doing just the opposite of Volcker is that the 1979 Fed was fighting rising and persistent inflation.  Today’s Fed is petrified of deflation, inflation’s polar opposite.  No wonder it is using a different set of tools.  Rather than blaming the White House, it is fair to say that there is real uncertainty, and honest differences of opinion, about the efficacy of current Fed policies.
 
The real problem is that something other than low interest rates is holding back confidence and business investment.  Indeed, the current policy of keeping interest rates unrealistically low, which boosts bank profitability at the expense of retirees, just forces the elderly, foundations, and other savers to take more risk than they’d like with their nest eggs.  This policy of “financial repression” punishes retirees who had hoped to live off of their savings when they are too old to work.  It is a cold-hearted subsidy of U.S. government borrowing that is forcing people to put off retirement, take more risk than is appropriate, cut back on day-to-day spending, and forces more dependence on Social Insurance programs.  Is it any wonder that confidence is waning?

Most readers don’t spend a lot of time thinking about U.S. government fiscal and monetary policy.  These subjects seem like dry, “intellectual” pursuits with little bearing on daily concerns.  For May-Investments, however, these political economic policies, known in economics jargon as “macroeconomics,” have clear consequences and we see the impact on our friends and neighbors on a regular basis. 

Households forced to choose between lowering their standard of living because their bank savings no longer pay a decent return, or taking on additional risk, are moving out the risk spectrum into securities that have hard to interpret risk associated with them.  When these investments decline in value, as they almost certainly will, scared investors will lock in losses as the frightened herd heads for the door.  While millions blame “the banks” for today’s ills, in reality it is government policies, bureaucrats at the Treasury, and economists at the Federal Reserve who are largely responsible.  True, bankers are the beneficiaries – but it is current macroeconomic policy which is largely to blame.  When we look at this economy and try to assess what “excesses” might lead to a new recession, the clear and obvious candidate is the bond market, which has been pumped up by Federal Reserve policies that have inflated the value of income paying securities.

Markets are a mess, and it is the hyper-regulated banking sector that is mostly to blame.

The politicians in Washington D.C. are focused on arguing about social issues and tiny steps that don’t begin to solve the country’s economic problems.  “Nero fiddles while Rome burns.”  The Fed’s policies of financial repression are doing more harm than good.  QE3 is, at best, a narcotic designed to get us through the next few months.  No matter what your party affiliation, May-Investments urges readers to make your vote count, pay special attention to voting for candidates whose top priority is getting the economy working again, and remember that “all ties go to the challenger.”  Both parties are guilty.  Incumbents really aren’t going to turn the ship around.  If we want a better future, we have to do things differently.  If we want this brain damage to stop, we need to stop letting the folks in power beat our heads against the wall.  If we don’t want the punishment that the Fed has laid out for us, then rather than continue to mask the symptoms, we need to take whatever macroeconomic medicine will lead to a cure.

Vote early.  Vote often.  Make it count.
 
 Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .

Friday, August 31, 2012

2012 Mid-Year Forecast Update


On August 16 May-Investments updated its January Economic Forecast lunch.  The bottom line was that our optimistic January forecast, which called for continued slow economic growth but a much better environment for the stock market, seems to be on target as of mid-August.  While the equity market remains pretty skittish, strong earnings power and reasonable market valuations combine to provide solid upside opportunity for equity market investors unless conditions in Europe and China continue their downward slides and eventually drag the U.S. market down with them.

While May-Investments leading economic indicators are getting slightly weaker, as of mid-August our January forecast for the year remains virtually unchanged.

We’ve been waiting for the “fear bubble” to pop, which would likely allow both interest rates and the stock market to rise.  For the most part, we’re still waiting for that eventuality, but one important place where we did see some sense of normalcy return to the markets was in how the U.S. market reacted to the European sovereign debt crisis.  While the problems in Europe continue to crescendo, the U.S. market’s response has been more muted than it was in 2008, when Lehman was at the center of the world financial crisis, or in 2010 and 2011 when the sovereign debt crisis first appeared, only to be denied by Europe’s Central Bankers and governmental leaders.

In 2012, with Greece having paid creditors less than 20 cents on the dollar and on the verge of being kicked out of the European Union, and despite the problem of high and rising interest rates in Spain and Italy and threats that the crisis would extend to now AA rated France, volatility in the U.S. market (as measured by the so-called “Vix Index”) was much lower than in previous years.  True, the market did, by our measures, go into a downturn in May.  Although the downturn was severe enough to get us into risk reduction mode, it was not as severe in the past and the daily volatility was much lower than in previous incarnations of the EU debt crisis.  In our view, the liquidity measures put in place in December of 2011 are having a positive impact and have prevented the crisis from jumping over the pond and spreading to the U.S. financial sector.

Nonetheless, the markets (generally and) in the second quarter (particularly) are trading as if we are already in a recession.  The top performing sectors in Q2 were telecommunication services, utilities, consumer staples and healthcare – precisely the sectors which typically fair best in a recession.  But instead the U.S. economy continues in its slow growth mode, with consumers continuing to spend, businesses afraid to invest, governmental entities cutting spending while imports and exports having very little impact either way.  In the same fashion as predicted in the January forecast, the economy keeps moving forward, albeit at a modest pace.

Of more concern, the May-Investments Leading Economic Indicators have turned down, slightly, and need to be watched closely.  Whereas in January, 9 out of 10 of the index segments were indicating healthy growth, by mid-August only 4 of 10 sectors were moving up, while half were beginning to decline.  If those trends continue, May-Investments would be inclined to pull its optimistic forecast.  As of mid-August, however, the down trend was too new to warrant a change in the forecast. 

The biggest concerns are in the areas of global economic activity, where the slowdown in Europe is impacting economies in Latin America and Asia as well.  The outlook for small businesses declined as well, and the Institute for Supply Management “New Orders Index” fell precipitously, very recently. 

As a result of these mixed economic signals, the U.S. stock market rallied in a very unique way.  The U.S. equity markets have risen during 2012 (so investors with 20-20 hindsight should have been aggressively positioned, “all in” as it were, yet the sectors which are performing best are the “defensive” industries that typically do best when the market is weak.  Leuthold Capital Management’s research folks have noted how unusual this market is from an historical perspective.  The 2012 rally is unique in many ways, but we believe it all ties back to the “all in and maximum defensive” nature of this current phase of the bull market.

Updating our industry work, the sectors with the most upside potential appear to us to include technology, healthcare, basic materials, energy, industrials, and financial stocks.  High dividend yield stocks, and utility stocks in particular, are among our least favorite sectors.

Overall, it felt good to optimistic again, and it feels particularly good to be optimistic while the equity market remains in a bubble of fear, generally.  While there are excesses in the bond market, and in unique sectors like the social media stocks and REITs and Master Limited Partnerships, in general the level of investor interest in the market is very low, trading volumes are low, and optimism is in short supply.  It is exactly the sort of market that whets the appetite of a contrarian investor.

In the short run, contrarians often have to fight the current trend, so our contrarian interest in equities is certainly no guarantee that our positive short-term forecast won’t have to be changed.  In the long-run, however, the contrarian nature of our portfolio holdings really is an encouraging sign.  It means that the years of swimming upstream, as investors have had to do since valuations first got stretched in 1998, are nearing an end.  Good riddance!
 
 Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .

Electing A Media Platform

Congratulations to Retirement Outfitter’s Barbara Traylor Smith who is getting married this weekend.  Since she was out with family, preparing for this weekend’s big event, I joined KREX television’s Meaghan Wallace for the “Money Matters” noon news segment.  We talked about the relationship between the stock market and the election cycle and I managed to convey most of the facts, but few of the conclusions, which I’d hoped to deliver in the interview.

At the time of the interview, the Standard & Poors stock index was up about 13 percent year-to-date.  Although you’d never know it by reading the political headlines, it has been a good year for stocks, especially in the United States.

One interesting election year statistic that I’ve seen is that in years since 1904, nearly every year that the market has been up 8 percent or more, the incumbent candidate has won re-election.

There are three exceptions to this rule of thumb.  The first exception was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive (“Bull Moose”) Party ticket, splitting the Republican vote and enabling Woodrow Wilson’s election victory.  President Taft, the Republican incumbent, came in third.  Roosevelt’s challenge to Taft solidified Wilson’s victory.  His unusual third-party candidacy turned the tables enough that normal rules of thumb didn't matter.  In 2012, the Republicans avoided a similar fate when Ron Paul decided not to run as a third party candidate.

The second exception occurred in 1976 when Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford.  Although an incumbent, President Ford had been appointed rather than elected and the election came only two years after the 1974 watershed election when “throw the bum out” resulted in the largest number of incumbents thrown out of office since the French Revolution.  (OK, that statement might need some more fact-checking.)  President Ford paid a political price for pardoning Richard Nixon, resulting in Jimmy Carter’s election and, once again, defying the simple election rule that incumbents win re-election during years when the stock market is on the rise.  Although he lost, Ford carried 27 out of 50 states, the most ever won by a losing candidate.
 
Four years later, in 1980, Ronald Reagan beat President Carter in an electoral college landslide in spite of election polls that heavily favored President Carter.  Not since Truman beat Dewey has the polling been so wrong in the presidential race.  In 1980, you also had a third party candidacy by John Andrews impacting the race, with the Republican Senator from Illinois siphoning off large numbers of independent votes.  Still, as a former Republican, you would think that Anderson was probably splitting republican votes, rather than denying President Carter his re-election.  In any case, the market seemed to accurately forecast Carter’s loss, even if the polls didn’t.  The market started to rally in March and never really stopped as investors celebrated the end to what many Republicans viewed as an anti-business administration.

For Republicans, 1980 is the model year for the 2012 market/election cycle.  Is the current market rally predicting regime change, or validating the Obama recovery? 

Typically, markets rally briefly in the spring of an election year, drop back to even in mid-summer, and then rally into year-end as the parties pick their candidates and uncertainty diminishes.  Then again, typically, incumbents win re-election, having spent four years using our money to purchase their victory.

During years when incumbents lost, however, typically the market remains flat after the June trough.  Unless we’re in sort of a 1980 market/election cycle, the current rally would not be considered good news for Republicans.

During my television interview, this is where I ran out of time.  Meaghan Wallace did a great job trying to lead me through the interview, but I just flat out ran out of time.

And so, as Paul Harvey used to say, this is the rest of the story.

As near as I can tell, this market rally is not predicting anything.  The polls suggest that this election is a toss-up.  The structure of the electoral college, with so many states virtually locked up for one party or another, also forecasts a tight race.

However, the election might be indicating something positive for the market.

In the event President Obama wins re-election, as incumbents typically do, the market’s typical election year pattern suggests that prices between now and November can continue to rally through election day as uncertainty recedes.

In the event Mitt Romney unseats the President, a la 1980’s election year storyline, the markets could rally as investors look forward to what Republicans hope to achieve – a kinder and gentler business and investment environment.
 
In either case, the markets could remain in rally mode between now and the November election.

Many investors in Western Colorado have voiced to me concerns about the investment environment should the President win re-election.  Western Colorado is, after all, a pretty conservative part of the world.  As I think about it, though, how many investors are sitting around thinking, “I’ll sell every stock I know, if Barack Obama is re-elected.”  For the most part, those inclined to sell everything for political reasons, have probably already done so.  They’re not waiting until election day.  They’re already out.

So even if the President is re-elected, I don’t look for an immediate sell-off in the market.  If anything, the President’s re-election would likely have very little market impact.  On the other hand, if Mitt Romney wins, there are a lot of investors, I’m told, which would be much more comfortable investing the trillions of dollars that are sitting on the sidelines, given the likelihood of a more friendly business environment.  There is potential for a market rally, in that event.

Unless the rally has already happened – between now and election day. 

It is this more bullish message that I’d hoped to convey during the noon news segment.  Instead, all I delivered was a brief history lesson that seemed to point leaders to the conclusion that I thought President Obama was destined to win re-election, which really wasn’t my point at all.

I really admire politicians and media personalities who are able to convey their message in the brief window of time that television allows.  This week’s interview was yet more evidence that I have a lot of improving to do in the TV interview department.  Trying not to convey my biases, I failed to deliver the core message.  That’s why I like blogging, I suppose.  I can script and edit and nerves don’t get in the way.  I’m glad I don’t have to make my living by going on camera every day.  Everyone would regret it!

In a blog post, I can take the time necessary to get my point across, and give more thought to the way in which these election year thoughts are presented.  Which is better?  You decide.
 
 Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Internet Tools For Wise Giving

Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying, “Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves.”  Whether Einstein said it or not, this quote brilliantly illustrates an important point – anything worth doing in life is worth doing well.  We’d like to make the argument that this principle should apply to all areas of our life, including an often overlooked one – charitable giving.

While giving is easy (and it is certainly easy to find a cause to give to), giving well requires thoughtfulness and planning.  Most of us want the hard earned dollars we give to make the biggest impact possible, but how do we know if what we are giving is being utilized efficiently?  How do we know if a charity is legitimate, or whether what we give actually accomplishes what they claim?   How can we be sure that we are giving our charitable ‘kiss’ the attention it deserves?

In our present information age, the internet is turning up some creative solutions to this age old dilemma, making it easier than ever to ‘check-up’ on charities and be thoughtful in our giving.  We have reviewed three such sites for you, and hope that you will find them helpful next time you engage in that ‘kiss’.

www.GuideStar.org

GuideStar is a true ‘data-base’ of non-profit information.  Searching for non-profits in their data-base is free and does not require registration, however if you register (also free) you will have access to more complete information.  The databases they maintain are a combination of information provided by the ‘non-profit’ itself, and data they collect from other sources (such as the IRS).  You can search the site by non-profit name, though for local charities, We found it more helpful to search by location (i.e. Grand Junction, Colorado).  We did receive hits for about 30 local groups. The information accessible to a non-registered user was basic, though instructive, and certainly would be helpful in determining the ‘legitimacy’ of an organization, if nothing else.

www.GiveWell.org

Founded by two Ivy League grads who gave up their high paying jobs as hedge fund analysts in order to use their skills to evaluate charities, this site upholds rigorous standards, recommending less than 2% of the charities they review.  They do maintain a highly international focus, with most of the charities on their list serving developing third-world countries.  Their philosophy is that, by donating to the developing third-world, every dollar gets ‘stretched’ further, so that even a small gift can have a major impact.  We don’t know how instructive this site would be for local giving, but it does include a neat ‘Do-it-Yourself’ link, where they share questions they recommend you ask when conducting your own analysis.  These questions could be applied to any charity and are broken down very specifically by type of organization. 

www.CharityNavigator.org

This site reviews a lot of national charities, and is a good resource for topical searches (i.e. breast cancer awareness).  It does not review any international charities (only those based in US) or organizations exempt from filing IRS form 990, which excludes many religious organizations (i.e. the Salvation Army).  We didn’t find any local charities listed, save a couple based out of Denver.

A quick spin around these sites will, if nothing else, show you the questions that others use to critically evaluate organizations in the non-profit world.  We know that clients have your own favorites, but when evaluating new organizations, this perspective can be helpful.  One of the key issues is how much of each dollar is spent on administration, versus going out to those in need.  So when clients tell us about organizations like the United Methodist Committee on Relief (Umcor.org), for example, which says that it spends 100 percent of designated donations on the projects specified by their donors (the United Methodist Church handles all of the administrative functions as a ministry of the church), it's hard not to get excited about the good that comes from contributions to that organization.

Money represents a lot of different things to different people.  To some it represents security.  To others, achievement.  When organizations are able to use money to present the hands and feet of Christ to those truly in need, however, it can accomplish miracles.
 
 Douglas B. May, CFA, is President of May-Investments, LLC and author of Investment Heresies .