Is America Still the Land of Opportunity?

Photo by: stephen.moore

When it comes to investing, is America still the most sensible place to keep your money?  This question involves a lot of elements and has no simple answer.  There are however, some pieces of conventional wisdom that may deserve a little extra attention.

Is China the Future?

Listening to the media, you would think the ascendancy of the Chinese is all but assured.  They are one of the few economies to truly start enjoying an alleged rebound from the economic crisis and were already becoming a behemoth before the latest financial woes.  Surely Asia is where the future lies.

What is often forgotten in all of this is that China is not an open society.  In the modern era we assume that the wool can’t be pulled over investors’ eyes.  China however can easily give out misleading numbers to investors.1 Moreover, because of the amount of their economy that is centrally planned, they can essentially manipulate their own markets very easily.  Their current stimulus may largely consist of creating unused infrastructure to keep their populace employed.2

Inflation: The Ugly Contest

Another supposed factor in why our money should be fleeing US Dollars is the hyper-inflation that will be driven by all the stimulus spending.  The thinking goes that any kind of recovery in the economy will be coupled with inflation from all the money that’s been printed to finance the stimulus.  While this seems reasonable, at the same time it’s been suggested that as much as 40 percent of the World’s wealth was destroyed by the financial crisis.3 With a good deal of that being in America, it seems that we may be able to survive some quantitative easing. (more…)

1. Economist: The Art of Chinese Massage [↩]
2. The Economist:: China’s Stimulus: Got a Light [↩]
3. Telegraph: WEF 2009: Global crisis ‘has destroyed 40pc of World’s wealth’ [↩]

The Joneses Are Your Enemy

Photo by: Chapek Sergey

Probably the most self-destructive thing that a person can do for their financial future is to pay undue attention to what those around them are doing.  Obviously this has limits, but using your friends, family or neighbors as benchmarks for “success” can manifest itself in many ways and almost all of them can sabotage your financial progress.  You should always remember that what a person presents as their situation can be very different from their true situation.  Let’s look at some ways the Joneses can sabotage you.

Status Symbols

Typically when talking about “keeping up with the Joneses” we’re referring to buying status symbols.  Maybe your neighbor bought a new BMW, and it sure looks nice.  Or maybe you’d like to host the football watching party sometime, but your TV just doesn’t match up to your friends’.  These types of situations can inspire us to make purchasing decisions that may provide a short-term high for a lot of pain.

Almost all status symbols are depreciating in nature.  Your car and that new TV are going to lose their value over time.  The more purchases like that you can avoid the better your financial future is going to be.  This isn’t really very tricky, and most of us are aware of this, even if we don’t always follow through.

Debt

(more…)

Should You Ever Leverage Yourself?

Photo by: fairlightworks

The typical American is leveraged.  They have borrowed money to buy things.  This is not necessarily bad in and of itself, but if you start to think of your household as a business, you may stop and question whether the leverage you’ve taken on makes sense.

What is Leverage?

Leverage is the use of debt to magnify the outcome of an investment.  Say, for example, you are a company, and you trade widgets.  On each shipment you can buy widgets in one location for $10 and sell them in another for $12.  If you only had $100, you could only do this in shipments of 10 widgets and make $20 per shipment.  However if you could go and borrow $10,000, you could buy shipments of 1000 widgets and make $2000 per shipment.  Even after you paid back the party that loaned you the money, along with any interest, you would have made considerably more money per shipment.

Appreciating Assets

One of the most compelling reasons for an individual to leverage themselves is to buy an appreciating asset.  An appreciating asset is one that gains value over time.  The most common form of this in recent history has been real estate.  Leverage, in the form of a mortgage, is very common for an individual buying a house. (more…)

Should You Be In the Stock Market?

Photo by: mvhargan

I often hear people tell me that they’ve stopped contributing to their retirement account because they don’t think the stock market is going to go up.  It seems many of these people assume that a retirement account and the stock market are one and the same.  Most plans have many options, and nearly 64% have actively managed bond funds as an alternative.1

The fact that many people don’t even know what their options are in their retirement accounts suggests to me that they probably shouldn’t have been in the stock market in the first place.  Many people were initially sold on stock market-based retirement account options by claims that the stock market returned 8%, or 11%, or whatever their advisor was telling them. They put their finances on autopilot and never looked back.  At least they never looked back until 2008.

The Risk Premium

The philosophical rationale for why stocks should outperform “safe” investments, like government treasuries, is something called the risk premium.  In theory, if equities did not outperform safe investments, then rational actors would cease to buy the equities. The prices would decrease to a level where there would be an adequate risk premium.

This theory was put to the test during the recent financial crisis when, at the nadir of stock prices, there essentially was no risk premium for the previous thirty years.2  Since then, stocks have rebounded a good deal and the risk premium has returned. However, it points out an important fact: the risk premium is only likely in the long term and is not guaranteed.

Risk Tolerance

Because of the wild variability of the risk premium, the value proposition of equities decreases as you get closer to an expected retirement date.  Once you have a near-term window for beginning withdrawals, the amount of time your returns have to “average out” decreases, and your exposure increases.  As you get closer and closer to retirement, equities should become a smaller and smaller portion of your portfolio. (more…)

1. PSCA.org – 51st Annual Survey of Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plans [↩]
2. Bloomberg.com – Bonds Beat Stocks in ‘Earth-Shattering’ Reversal: Chart of Day [↩]

Some Thoughts on “Dollar Cost Averaging”

Photo by: Rob Lee

The term “Dollar Cost Averaging”, or DCA, can have many different meanings.  Oftentimes when referring to “Dollar Cost Averaging,” people actually mean “Automatic Investing.”  DCA typically refers to investing over a period of time an amount you could have invested initially.  So for example, if you had $10,000 to invest, instead of putting it all in now, you invest it over a period of several months in equal dollar amount increments.  Automatic Investing on the other hand is simply taking a set amount out of your income and investing it every month.  This is what the majority of people think of as Dollar Cost Averaging.

The Theory

Proponents of DCA claim that it reduces risk, because you tend to buy more shares when prices are low and fewer shares when prices are high.  This argument makes some sense in an oscillating market that isn’t moving overall in any particular direction.  One question remains, however: why would you want to be investing in an oscillating market that isn’t trending in one direction?  Typically most people’s faith in investing in stock markets is that over time they go up.  If the market is on average going to move upwards, why am I holding back investing a portion of my investment?  On average this simply means I’m going to get a higher price.

The Worst-Case Scenario

If we think about this matter anecdotally it seems intuitive however that by holding back some money to invest we’re reducing our worst-case scenario.  Suppose for example that we invest all our money today and tomorrow the stock drops precipitously.  We’ve avoided that risk.  At the same time however, what if the stock rises sharply and never returns to our original price.  While we may be reducing our worst-case scenario somewhat, we’re also risking leaving a lot of money on the table.  Still there seems to be some merit to increasing your exposure over time. (more…)

76 ETFs For Foreign Stock Exposure

Photo by: foxspain

Many people are looking for various ways to invest in foreign companies.  Whether they’ve lost faith in American companies, want to hedge or simply want  some diversity, ETFs can be an easy answer to eachieve this.  I’ve listed 76 ETFs that provide you exposure to the stocks of certain countries, groups of countries or the world as a whole.  Some things to remember:

• Many countries are highly dependent on a particular sector. For example if you’re buying a Russian ETF in many ways you are buying a lot of exposure to energy as that country is highly dependent on energy income.
• Many of these funds have run up tremendously in the previous few months.
• Some of these funds are not particularly liquid.
• Many of these funds have high fees associated with them.
• Each of these funds implements their exposure in different ways, be sure to read the prospectus.
• This list is far from exhaustive, although it was exhausting to compile.

My summary of all this is:  Read the Prospectus, Read the Prospectus, Read the Prospectus.  Make sure you know what you’re actually buying if you buy one of these ETFs.  I’m not recommending or endorsing any of them, I’m just compiling some resources to help you start your research. (more…)

Why Everyone’s Wrong About Fixing Health Care

Photo by: Bolshakov

Like most debates in this country, the health care debate has gone into the weeds.  People, regardless of their point of view, spout disingenuous arguments to further their cause.  Critics suggest that simply providing insurance for everyone will make everything “fair,” while their opposition makes arguments for the continuation of a broken system.  While I have a healthy skepticism of the government’s ability to solve most problems, it seems that there are telling factors that suggest that the status quo is not just unsustainable, but catastrophic.

Why Do We Need to Do Anything?

Before we move forward, this is a question many believe remains unanswered.  Why do we presuppose that something is wrong with the American medical system?  The most basic reason is that we spend more money to get worse outcomes.  While there are areas in which we excel, ultimately we spend almost double that of most industrial nations, but our infant mortality rate, for example, is signifcantly worse than almost all other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member countries.1

Additionally the care and cost in America are widely uneven.  Interestingly they go hand in hand.  The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care studied the issue nationwide and found almost a threefold difference in health care costs and an inverse correlation between costs and outcomes.2 In other words, the more I’m spending, typically the worse care I’m getting.  All of this suggests that we’re wasting a lot of money, and we need to figure out why.

Perverse Incentives

The fundamental problem in American healthcare boils down to one simple issue: perverse incentives. A perverse incentive is one in which those who are creating the incentives are creating unintended and typcially counterproductive effects.  They are essentially creating their own negative consequences.  As we’ll see almost every component of our system is rife with these types of incentives:

Overconsumption

The opponents to changes in the system constantly raise the “grim” visage of rationed care.  Americans fear loss of control when they look at other countries in which residents have to wait for procedures, even though those countries generally have better health outcomes than does America.  However the flip side to a lack of rationing tends to be overconsumption.

Everyone in the current system has an incentive to allow patients to over-consume medical attention.  Assuming a patient has insurance, it really costs him or her very little out of pocket to get an MRI — even when the doctor may consider it largely unnecessary.  Meanwhile the doctor typically makes money because the patient gets an unnecessary MRI.  The insurance company is likely indifferent as they have already priced their insurance plan assuming this kind of over-consumption.  In the end, we’ve spent considerable money on this MRI and no one’s health is any better.

As the Bear Mountain Bull points out, the structure of many current insurance plans is likely to cause overconsumption.  Because the patient has no “skin in the game,” they opt for procedures that are very unlikely to be useful.  All kinds of diagnostic tests can be taken on the assumption that it’s “better to be safe than sorry,” without taking the cost into account at all.

The Way America Rations

Even as we show such aversion to rationing, America has a different kind of rationing that is far more insidious.  In an extremely perverse incentive, the number of doctors in the United States is decided upon indirectly by the American Medical Association.  That is, current doctors decide how many new doctors there should be.  In the 90’s, despite the oncoming wave of baby boomers reaching old age, the AMA somehow decided that there were going to be a glut of doctors and actually recommended to cut the number of internships available.3 Much of the current shortage now can be attributed to this decline in the number of doctors.

It is rarely in the best interest of the consumer for the provider of a service to decide how many people should be allowed to provide that service.  Even providers with the best intentions are likely to err on the low side.  That doesn’t even take into account those who may be intentionally self-serving and trying to increase demand for their services. (more…)

1. OECD Family Database – Infant Mortality [↩]
2. Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care – Health Care Spending, Qualty and Outcomes [↩]
3. USA Today – Medical Miscalcuation Creates Doctor Shortage [↩]

Why You Spend More Than You Make (and What To Do About It)

Photo  by: CarbonNYC

Everyone knows what you need to do if you want to get out of debt and create a savings account; you have to make more money than you spend. So if we all know this, then why are so many of us still in debt? If you’re still spending more money than you’re earning then it’s probably because of one of the following reasons:

• You don’t know how much you spend. It is shocking how many people there are who don’t track their spending. If you don’t know what you spend, you can’t be sure you’re spending less than you’re earning. Tracking your spending is the best way to avoid this problem. In rare cases, people don’t even know what they earn; tracking your income is also necessary.
• You don’t budget. Some people know what they’re spending. They know it’s more than they can afford. But they don’t budget so they only see the problem after the fact. Create a budget that relies on spending less than you earn. Then learn how to stick to that budget.
• You justify “emergency” expenses. The problem is that there are “emergency” expenses every month. You justify over-spending because you “need” to take the cat to the vet, get your home cleaned since your parents are visiting, buy a birthday present for the party that your child was just invited to, etc. Stick to your budget unless there’s a true emergency.
• You expect instant gratification. You want what you want when you want it. You’re willing to spend money to get it. If you want more than your income allows for then you’re in trouble. Learning to delay gratification until you have the money in hand to pay for what you desire can go a long way towards getting you out of debt. It’s also a great sign of maturity!

(more…)