Investing Curiouscatblog

Category: Investing

  • Gen X Retirement

    Half of Gen X Doesn’t Expect to Retire

    Boomers who are frustrated that they can’t afford to retire may turn out to be lucky compared to their kids. A new survey shows that more than two-thirds of Generation X don’t think they’ll be able to retire at all.
    …
    “They are earning money and paying into Social Security and yet they fear they may never see the payback,” said Moloney. “They feel they deserve it, but it looks like a financial black hole to them right now.”

    The government certainly is failing to pay for future obligations today instead choosing to raise taxes on the future. But Social Security itself is actually in better shape than most think. We really do need to move out the benefit payment date (when it began projected life expectancy was almost the same as the date payments would start – which would mean moving the retirement date more than 15 years later, I believe). Going that far is not needed but it should be moved back. But really social security is in good shape for 30 years or more. First, it isn’t going to go from good shape to failed in a day. And second, they will make adjustments as they have in the past to make it work (the adjustment they made in the last 15 years helped a great deal so now they can just add some additional delays in when it starts paying out… and extend the good condition of Social Security without too much trouble).

    Medicare is the huge problem. The country either needs to stop paying an extra 50-80% for health care than other countries do (and thus reduce the cost of Medicare liabilities) or massively cut benefits or massively increase taxes. Likely a combination of all 3.
    (more…)

  • Lazy Portfolio Results

    Lazy Portfolios update by Paul Farrell provides some examples of how to use index funds to manage your investments:

    These portfolios are virtually “zero maintenance!” Set them and forget them. Plus you can ignore Wall Street’s relentless, misleading chatter about markets and the economy. Seriously. After customizing your own Lazy Portfolio you can ignore the news and focus on what’s really important: your family, loved ones, friends, your career, hobbies, travel — you name it — anything but wasting time tracking and playing the market.

    I think the article is a bit misleading in showing the out-performance of the S&P 500 index (during periods where the S&P 500 index does very well these portfolios will under-perform it). The out-performance shown in the article is largely due to the great performance of international markets recently. Still the strategy is well worth reading about. The strategy is based on using index funds from Vanguard (very well run mutual funds with very low fees). But don’t get tied into Vanguard, if they start to focus on lining their pockets by increasing your fees look for alternatives.

    Overall, I give this concept high marks. Dollar cost average appropriate levels of money into such a strategy and you will give yourself a good chance at positive results.

    My preference would be to include significant levels of international and developing stocks. For aggressive long term investing I like something like:

    40% USA total stock market
    15% Real Estate
    25% international developed stock market index
    20% developing stock market index

    When aiming for more security and preserving capital (over growth) I favor something like:

    30% USA total stock market
    10% Real Estate
    25% international developed stock market index
    10% developing stock market index
    10% short term bond index
    15% money market

    Of course all sorts of personal financial factors need to be considered for any specific person’s allocations.

    Related: Allocating Retirement Account Assets – Why Investing is Safer Overseas – Saving for Retirement – 12 stocks for 10 years – what is a mutual fund?

  • What Should You Do With Your Government “Stimulus” Check?

    What Should You Do With a Check Out of the Blue?

    The USA government is sending out checks to taxpayers in an effort to encourage spending which in turn will provide stimulus to the economy in the very short term. First, this is bad policy in my opinion. Second, if you support this policy the precondition is you run surpluses in order to pay for it when you want to carry out such a policy. They have not, instead they have run huge deficits. What they have chosen to do is spend huge amounts and have the taxes paid by the children and grandchildren of those the politicians are spending the money on today. I would support Keynesian government spending in a serious recession or depression – just not for a country already with enormous debts and in a very mild recession.

    But ok, so the government chooses to spend your children’s taxes foolishly, what should you do now? This is very easy. Whatever is the wisest move for your personal financial situation for any windfall you receive, regardless of the source of that windfall. If all your savings needs are met there is nothing wrong with buying some toy. But most people need to pay off debt, build an emergency fund, save for retirement or something similar not get another toy. Of course would be nothing wrong with donating it Kiva, Trickle Up, the Concord Coalition or your favorite charity.

    The politicians are acting like a 5 year old that wants a new toy. I can too get the new toy now :-O, Mommy you can use your credit card. So what if you already bought me so many toys you couldn’t afford by using your other credit cards and they won’t lend you any more money. Just get another one. Similar to how congress recently yet again increased the allowable federal debt limit to over $9,000,000,000,000.

    The stimulus effect of spending is that if you actually purchase a new toy (say a TV), then the store needs to replace that TV so the factory makes another TV… The store, shipper, factory, supplier to the factory all pay staff to carry this out, those staff can buy new books, dishwasher… and the business may buy a new forklift or computer to keep up…
    (more…)

  • Homeowners Won’t Cut the Price

    It has long been the case that home owners refuse to accept falling prices and choose to demand higher prices than the market demands in a falling market. Therefore when prices should fall (to find buyers) instead the sales decrease as buyers don’t decrease prices to a level buyers are willing to pay. Be It Ever So Illogical: Homeowners Who Won’t Cut the Price

    So the couple, who both have finance jobs in the technology industry, told their real estate agent that they wanted to offer $1.575 million. He told them that the owner wouldn’t even listen to such a low bid. The owner’s attitude was “we’ll just stay here until we sell it for 1.875,” the agent said, “even if it takes years.”

    Three years ago, when the real estate bubble was still inflating, this sort of standoff was the exception. It’s the norm today. Overall home sales have fallen a remarkable 33 percent since the summer of 2005. Home prices, on the other hand, continued to rise until 2006 and are now only 5 to 10 percent below where they were in mid-2005, according to various measures.

  • Uncertain Economic Times

    So lets say you have a 401(k) and are adding to it regularly, you own your house, you have no credit card debts, you are paying off your car loan and overall your financial house is in fairly good order. Still you keep hearing the news about credit crisis, mortgage meltdown, dollar depreciation… It is enough to make you nervous but what should you do?

    Frankly very little in the macro economy has much impact on what is a smart long term strategy. Should you move your retirement money into a money market fund, because of the risks of stocks now? No. If you are good enough to time the market you are already amazingly rich (or will be soon). But either no one is able to do this or next to no one is. Occasionally you might get lucky and time things right but being able to consistently do so over 40 years is just not something that happens.

    So what you should do now is what you should always do. Have cash savings. Pay off your mortgage (don’t over-leverage yourself – don’t take out equity just because you have some). Save for retirement. Have health insurance. Don’t take on credit card debt (or most other debt). Keep up your employment skills (learn new skills…). Diversify your investments (stocks, international stocks, real estate, cash…).

    People often get careless when the overall economy is good. And so maybe you failed to do what you should have been doing then. But the right thing to do today is essentially the right thing to do always. For example, Americans are drowning in debt. They were also drowning in debt 3 years ago. That problem is the same. If you have too much debt you should fix that. Not because of all the fear today, but because to much debt is always bad. You should not take out too much debt in the first place and if you have to much you should fix it whether the economy is strong or weak.
    (more…)

  • How Much Worse Can the Mortgage Crisis Get?

    How bad is the mortgage crisis going to get?

    My preferred metric is the ratio of home prices to rental rates. By that measure, average home prices nationally got way too high. We’ll probably basically retrace all that. So that’s about a 25% decline in overall home prices. Only a fraction of that’s happened so far. Of course, it varies a lot. In places like Houston or Atlanta, where home prices have not risen much compared with underlying rents, the decline will be relatively small. In places like Miami or Los Angeles, you could be looking at 40% or 50% declines.

    This interview of Paul Krugman is worth reading. And it does seem to me the magnitude of the mortgage crisis is very large and likely will result in national declines in home prices of over 15% from the peak. Which is a very large decline. And in local markets declines of 35% seem likely.

    Related: Home Price Declines Exceeding 10% Seen for 20% of Housing Markets (Sep 2007) – Home Values and Rental Rates – Real Estate Median Prices Down 1.5% in the Last Year (Aug 2007) – Real Estate articles

  • Mortgage Rates Rising

    The next shoe to drop in housing

    The national average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 5.96% Thursday, after jumping to 6.08% earlier this week, according to Bankrate.com. Rates on a 30-year fixed mortgage were about 5.90% a week ago. A borrower looking for a 5-year adjustable-rate mortgage would pay 5.71% today, up from around 5.03% a week ago.
    …
    Fannie and Freddie are demanding higher credit scores and charging higher rates for those who don’t have them. Until recently, a borrower with a 620 score might pay the same as one with a 680 score, said Victoria Bingham, chief executive with Pacific Rim Mortgage in Tigard, Ore.

    But now that person might have to pay a half percentage point more. With today’s rates, that translates into 6.75% for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage instead of 6.25%, or $74 more a month on a $225,000 loan, typical for her client base.

    Borrowers must also put more money down, especially if they don’t have stellar credit. For instance, those with down payments of less than 5% need a credit score of at least 680, said Steven Plaisance, executive vice president of Arvest Mortgage Co. in Tulsa, Ok. Previously, he could make loans to people without big down payments if they had other strong points, such as stable employment.

    Related: Federal Funds Rate and 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rate – Mortgage Payments by Credit Score (Aug 2007) – learn about mortgage terms – Beginning of the End of Housing Bubble? – How Not to Convert Equity

  • Create Your Cash Reserve

    Some people think all financial info is boring. I actually find a good deal of it interesting but this tip is pretty boring. Building a cash safety net is an important part of your personal finances. We have explained previously the very simple idea that you don’t buy what you can’t pay for. If you can’t pay for it this month, don’t buy it.

    But that leaves out one thing. Even if you do have the cash you should be building up a cash reserve before buying luxuries. The typical advice is to build up 6 months of expenses in cash (rent or mortgage, food bills, utilities, health care, etc.). Now actually building up to that level can take awhile and forgoing all non-mandatory expenses until you have that saved is not usually reasonable. But as part of your personal finances building up an cash reserve is important (even if it is boring).

    A significant portion of downward spirals in personal finances are started when people have emergency expenses and have to borrow that money (since they don’t have cash reserves). If you are over say 26 and don’t have a cash reserve yet saving for it should be part of your monthly budget. How quickly you build that up is a personal decision but I would say a 1% of the target amount (so if you are aiming for a cash reserve of $20,000 then $200/month).

    If your finances don’t allow that, then do what you can. But realize that is one of the weaknesses in your personal finances and try to fix that as soon as possible.

    Very important personal financial allocations for you to put first include: current needs (food, car payment, rent/mortgage, utilities…), insurance, creating a cash reserve, retirement savings, saving for future purchases. Then there are luxuries and treats, such as: eating out, vacations, cable TV… Many people put current needs, luxuries and treats fist and then say they don’t have the ability to do what is responsible. That is not often true for those that actually have an internet connection to read this blog.

    Related: Buy less stuff – Saving for Retirement – How to Use Your Credit Card Responsibly – Trying to Keep up with the Jones

  • Beating the Market

    For those that don’t find picking stocks fun it is nice to know that just investing in indexes is likely the best option for almost everyone. I have much of my retirement assets invested in index funds. I still think I can beat the market (though the results of the last few months have not been kind) but the amount I invest in individual stocks is not a huge percentage of my portfolio. I still like Google, for example, and in fact might well be buying more this week (it is down over 10% since I added to my position a couple weeks ago). Can You Beat the Market? It’s a $100 Billion Question

    In 2006, the last year for which he has comprehensive data, this total came to $99.2 billion. Assuming that it grew in 2007 at the average rate of the last two decades, the amount for last year was more than $100 billion. Such a total is noteworthy for its sheer size and its growth over the years – in 1980, for example, the comparable total was just $7 billion, according to Professor French.
    …
    From 1986 to 2006, according to his calculations, the proportion of the aggregate market cap that is invested in index funds more than doubled, to 17.9 percent. As a result, the negative-sum game played by active investors has grown ever more negative.

    The bottom line is this: The best course for the average investor is to buy and hold an index fund for the long term. Even if you think you have compelling reasons to believe a particular trade could beat the market, the odds are still probably against you.

    Interesting. I am surprised by the rapid increase in the total expense of trying to beat the market. I guess all those wall street bonuses add up. In my opinion the article does not provide adequate support the claims made, but I think overall the claim are sensible (based on numerous studies of results). The odds of beating the market yourself are very low. And the odds of paying the right people to beat the market for you are likely not worth the cost (in the market today).

    Related: Advice from Warren Buffett – Stop Picking Stocks? – 12 Stocks for 10 Years Update – Feb 2008

  • Most Vacant New Homes Since Records Kept (1973)

    Vacant Homes in U.S. Climb to Most Since 1970s With Ghost Towns

    Almost 200,000 newly constructed single-family homes are sitting empty in the U.S., the most since Commerce Department statistics began in 1973.
    …
    About 370,000 new homes are for sale because people who initially contracted to buy them backed out, according to estimates in a Feb. 15 report from analysts at New York-based CreditSights Inc. An additional 216,000 homes are under construction, according to Commerce Department data.

    In January 1973, the number of finished new homes for sale was 97,000, when the U.S. population was about 212 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In December 2007, 197,000 completed homes were on the market and in January 2008 there were 195,000. The current population is 303.5 million.

    Home prices may fall at least 8 percent nationwide and by as much as 26 percent from the third quarter of 2007 before hitting bottom, according to a Feb. 13 report from New York- based Deutsche Bank AG analyst Karen Weaver, the firm’s global head of securitization research.
    …
    “The builders are looking for ways to accelerate sales and get inventory moving,”

    The news certainly continues to be quite bad on the home front.

    Related: Housing Inventory Glut (August 2007) – Home Price Declines Exceeding 10% Seen for 20% of Housing Markets – Ever Larger Houses – Exurbs Hardest Hit in Recent Housing Slump