Jonathan Clements's Blog, page 429

Repeat After Me

IF YOUR INVESTMENTS CLIMB in value, hold the champagne—until you figure out whether it’s a onetime gain or a repeatable performance.

Suppose your foreign stocks post gains because the dollar weakens. Or your bonds climb because interest rates fall. Or stocks rise because price-earnings ratios head higher. Or corporate earnings increase because profit margins expand. Or stocks jump because the corporate tax rate or the capital-gains tax rate is cut.

Sound familiar? All of these things have either happened over the long haul or helped drive share prices higher this year. You won’t necessarily give back these gains—and, indeed, the dollar could weaken further, interest rates could drop even more, P/Es might rise yet higher, profit margins could widen further and tax rates might be cut again.

But each of these is a road you can only travel once. For instance, since the early 1980s, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note has fallen from roughly 16% to 2% and the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has climbed from less than eight times earnings to 25 times earnings. Treasury yields can’t fall from 16% to 2% again and the S&P 500’s P/E can’t climb from eight to 25 again—unless we first saw a dramatic market reversal. In other words, these are truly onetime gains.

Moreover, in some of these cases, there are limits to how far these developments can run. Theoretically, the dollar could continuously weaken and P/Es could continuously rise, though neither seems likely. But interest rates won’t spend prolonged periods below 0%, profits margins can’t expand so that all of GDP goes to corporate profits and taxes rates can’t be any lower than 0%.

So what would count as a repeatable investment performance? It’s reasonable to expect that bonds will continue to pay interest at their stated yield until they mature. It’s reasonable to expect that total corporate earnings will rise along with economic growth, nudging up share prices over time and allowing companies to pay out more cash to shareholders. And that’s pretty much it.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter @ClementsMoney and on Facebook.

The post Repeat After Me appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Gold Dust

FOR THE FIRST TIME in my life, I’ve hired a housecleaner. It’s absolutely worth it—but embarrassing to admit, at least at first.

I’ve always been a neat freak, demanding clean, organized and tasteful living quarters, so I’ve spent a good portion of my life cleaning and organizing. A lot. I have even declined an invitation to go boating and hiking because I was color-coding my books.

Lame, I know.

After purchasing our home, I realized something had to give. My frugality and can-do attitude had driven me to do it all, even toilets, at the expense of experiences.  But now, there were endless projects, organized books to read and the outdoors of the Pacific Northwest to explore.

On top of that, I was finally living in the city I had longed to live in, with my lovely husband, and doing work I was passionate about. My behavior needed to change. I let go of trying to keep the perfect house and outsourced it. Turns out I’m much happier.

Researchers at Harvard wouldn’t be surprised. A recently released study suggests that spending money to save time can reduce stress and increase overall life satisfaction. Spending on material goods didn’t produce the same effect.

Interestingly, although outsourcing tasks brings increased happiness, it isn’t that popular—even among the millionaires surveyed. When pressed as to why buying time wasn’t that popular, despite its benefits, lead author of the study and Harvard Business School professor Ashley Whillans believes it’s due to our work ethic. Perhaps we value being busy or suffer guilt when we pay someone for tasks that are easy to do ourselves.

A woman, whom I’ve had the pleasure of knowing for years, lives on a farm. For years, she would run around her house, complaining about the dust that accumulated due to the harvest and other farm activities. After a while, she realized that the dust she tried so hard to get rid of was actually her gold dust—providing her with a roof over her head and the clothes on her family’s back. She began to see the dust as a sign of prosperity.

My sign of prosperity—my gold dust—now comes in the form of a wonderful housecleaner, who provides me with more quality time and, in turn, allows me the opportunity to provide value to others. I’ve volunteered considerably more, met new people, experienced new activities and cooked healthier meals for the people I love. It’s amazing what can happen when you’re willing to establish your priorities, spend according to your values and embrace your dust.

Anika Hedstrom’s previous blogs include  Growing Up (Part IV) , Getting Schooled  and  Site Seeing (Part IV) . Anika is a financial planner with  Vista Capital Partners  in Portland, Ore. Follow her on Twitter @AnikaHedstrom.

The post Gold Dust appeared first on HumbleDollar.

This Week/Oct. 15-21

CHECK YOUR RETIREMENT READINESS. Try the simple calculators from AARP, Boston College and Vanguard Group. None requires you to create an account. Each will give you a somewhat different assessment—a reminder that such projections are a rough-and-ready business. Still, you should get a sense for whether your retirement is on track or off the rails.

The post This Week/Oct. 15-21 appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Double Trouble

PEOPLE OFTEN ACT FOOLISHLY and then desperately try to justify their financial sins. A case in point: Those who take on too much debt, can’t get it paid off by retirement—and end up servicing huge mortgages and other loans long after their paychecks have come to an end.

Cue the tap dancing. The indebted start waxing eloquent about the virtues of the mortgage-interest tax deduction and how it’s smart to pay the bank 4% while they invest the borrowed money at 10%. As of 2016, 70.1% of households headed by someone age 65 to 74 were carrying debt, up from 51.4% in 1998, according to the Federal Reserve’s just released Survey of Consumer Finances.

Unfortunately, lenders and financial advisors have no incentive to counter such foolishness, because lenders want to make loans and financial advisors don’t want clients selling off big chunks of their portfolio to pay down debt.

But foolish it is. For every $1 of mortgage interest paid, our retirees might save just 25 cents in federal income taxes. This assumes they’re in the 25% marginal tax bracket and they itemize their deductions. What if they take the standard deduction instead? That $1 of mortgage interest is costing them the full $1.

Moreover, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that our retirees will earn 10%. Indeed, if their portfolio is split evenly between stocks and bonds, their stocks might notch 6%, but the bonds will be hard-pressed to clock 3%. Earning an uncertain 3% on half your money, while paying a fixed 4% on your mortgage, doesn’t seem so smart.

That brings us to another, less-publicized problem: Even if retirees can afford the mortgage and other loan payments, they could incur some hefty unexpected expenses. How so? It’s all about the size of your retirement living costs—and how you pay for them.

A popular rule of thumb says that, to retire in comfort, you need retirement income equal to 80% of your final salary. At first blush, that makes sense: Once you quit the workforce, you’re no longer socking away 10% or so of your income for retirement, no longer coughing up an employee’s 7.65% Social Security and Medicare payroll tax, and no longer paying for commuting costs and office clothes.

But many retirees discover they can retire comfortably on just 50% or 60% of their preretirement income. Why? Partly, it’s because folks often save far more than 10% in their final years in the workforce, as they make a last push to get their finances in shape. But partly, it’s because many people get their mortgage paid off before they retire, and that sharply reduces their living costs.

What if you don’t get the mortgage paid off? You’ll need more retirement income. That might mean drawing more heavily on your retirement accounts and paying income taxes. Alternatively, it could mean selling winning stocks positions in your taxable account and triggering capital gains taxes.

Either way, the extra taxes are unfortunate. But the tax bite doesn’t end there. As a result of this additional income, you might find that up to 85% of your Social Security retirement benefit is also taxed. This double tax whammy is sometimes referred to as the “tax torpedo.”

The tax on Social Security benefits kicks in at relatively low income levels, so it’s tough to avoid entirely, even if you don’t have debts to repay. Still, the extra income needed to service debt can make the tax on benefits especially punishing. An example: Say you’re married, your only income is annual IRA withdrawals of $55,000 and you’re in the 15% federal income tax bracket. If you also pull in $20,000 in Social Security benefits, 85% of that benefit will be taxable, costing you $2,550 in extra taxes. What if you needed to withdraw $15,000 less from your IRA each year, because you had no debts to service? Just 55.5% of your Social Security benefit would be taxable and you’d have to turn over just $1,665 in extra taxes, or $885 less.

It gets worse. The extra income needed to service debt can lead to higher Medicare premiums. In 2017, the standard Medicare Part B premium is $134 a month. But for single individuals with incomes above $85,000 and couples above $170,000, the premiums are higher—sometimes as much as $294.60 per month higher. On top of that, high income households may have to pay as much as $76.20 per month extra for Medicare’s prescription drug benefit.

These extra premiums are based on your income tax return from two years earlier. What counts is your so-called modified adjusted gross income, which includes interest from municipal bonds. The bottom line: If your income is high enough, you could find yourself paying an additional $4,450 a year in Medicare premiums. Want to cut that tab? A good first step is getting all debt paid off by retirement.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter @ClementsMoney and on Facebook.

The post Double Trouble appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Where We Stand

THE TYPICAL AMERICAN FAMILY is wealthier than three years ago. But there are also signs we’re playing faster and looser with our finances, with more folks taking on debt, abandoning homeownership and venturing into the stock market.

Those insights emerge from the Federal Reserve’s latest Survey of Consumer Finances. The survey is conducted every three years. Here are some results from the 2016 survey, which was just released:

The typical family’s net worth—meaning their assets minus their debts—stood at $97,300, up from $83,700 in 2013, but well below the $139,700 high that was hit in 2007.
Homeownership has declined over the past dozen years, with 63.7% of American families owning their primary residence, down from 69.1% in 2004. Among homeowners, 65.7% have a mortgage.
As of 2016, 77.1% of American families were in debt, up from 74.5% three years earlier. The typical amount owed was $59,800, down 4% from 2013, but the drop partly reflects the decline in homeownership.
At 51.9%, a slight majority of U.S. families were invested in the stock market, up from 48.8% in 2013, but below the 53.2% peak recorded in 2007.
The survey offers a glimpse of America’s retirement readiness. Among households headed by someone age 65 to 74, the typical net worth was $224,100, down 6.4% from three years earlier. Homeownership was widespread among these families, with 79.1% owning their primary residence, though that was down from 85.8% in 2013. Meanwhile, 70.1% were carrying some form of debt, including 38.8% who had a mortgage. Among this age group, just 49.8% had an IRA or similar retirement account.
As of 2016, 43.9% of families had a credit card balance, up from 38.1% three years earlier. The typical (or median) amount owed was $2,300. Meanwhile, the average (or mean) balance was $5,700. This latter figure is skewed higher by a minority of families with huge card debt.

Follow Jonathan on Twitter @ClementsMoney and on Facebook.

The post Where We Stand appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Capital Punishment

MY CLIENT ROSTER includes investors who have suffered enormous losses on their stock market investments. To ease their discomfort, I steer the conversation to what they’re entitled to deduct for capital losses. While the IRS imposes strict limits on simply writing off such losses, I assure my clients that there are perfectly legal, IRS-blessed opportunities to sidestep these restrictions.

The big hurdle is a deduction cap of $3,000 for both married couples and single filers. The cap drops to $1,500 for married persons who file separately from their spouses. This is the amount of capital losses that you can use to reduce your ordinary income—a wide-ranging category that includes income received from sources like salaries, pensions and interest. These dollar limits haven’t increased since they went on the books in 1978, when Jimmy Carter was in the White House.

In my experience, many individuals focus only on the $3,000 ceiling—and are completely unaware that the tax code allows taxpayers to use their investment losses to offset capital gains on other kinds of assets.

For instance, taxpayers can offset losses realized on stock and bond sales in their taxable account against gains on sales of capital assets other than stocks and bonds. This opportunity opens up many possibilities: You might offset your stock market losses against gains on sales of collectibles, personal residences and vacation homes.

A client I’ll call Louise met with me to discuss the pending sale of her personal residence. She expects her profit to considerably exceed the applicable exclusion amount for sellers (up to $500,000 for married couples filing jointly, and up to $250,000 for single individuals and married couples filing separate returns). My no-brainer advice: She should realize existing paper losses on some of her stocks and offset those losses against the taxable part of the gain from her home sale.

How much is Louise allowed to deduct and when? It depends. The law lets Louise use capital losses to erase taxes on capital gains realized during the same tax year, up to the total amount of gains. The IRS couldn’t care less whether her gains and losses are a mixture of short- and long-term.

Suppose Louise actively trades stocks and makes many bad bets. Her net capital losses greatly exceed her capital gains. The good news: She won’t have to pay taxes on any of her realized capital gains. But how much additional tax relief can she count on for 2017? Not all that much. She gets to offset net losses against no more than $3,000 of ordinary income.

How quickly will Louise be able to apply her unused losses, above that $3,000, to 2018 and succeeding years? Consider an example: For 2017, active trader Louise has losses of $260,000 and gains of $240,000, with $40,000 from selling some winning stocks and $200,000 from the gain on the sale of her home, over and above the exclusion amount. Thanks to her losses, Louise saves $6,000 in taxes on her winning stocks and $30,000 in taxes on her home sale, assuming she would have paid capital gains taxes at 15%.

After offsetting those gains, Louise is left with a net loss of $20,000 in 2017. On Form 1040’s Schedule D, she subtracts $3,000 of the loss from ordinary income and is allowed to carry forward $17,000 from 2017 into 2018. On 2018’s Schedule D, she uses the remaining loss (unless it’s offset by realized capital gains in 2018) to trim ordinary income by no more than $3,000 and then carries forward $14,000 from 2018 to 2019, and so on indefinitely.

Julian Block writes and practices law in Larchmont, NY, and was formerly with the IRS as a special agent (criminal investigator). His previous blogs include Unending Pain, Moving On and Late? That’ll Cost You 50%. This article is excerpted from Julian Block’s Year-Round Tax Savings, available at JulianBlockTaxExpert.com. Follow Julian on Twitter @BlockJulian.

The post Capital Punishment appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Working the Plan

WORKPLACE RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS can be confusing and intimidating. Often, human resources departments serve as the contact point for employees, yet HR folks rarely know much about the nuances of a plan’s investment options—and, in any case, they aren’t legally allowed to offer advice.

Not sure how to handle your 401(k) or similar employer-sponsored plan? My first step was determining how much to contribute per pay period, so that I could hit the $18,000 annual limit. To do this, my wife (who works in a school and automatically contributes 11% to a pension) and I made sure that we could afford our other expenses, without counting on this money. I believe retirement should be the top priority for most people—more important than a new car or even the children’s college tuition.

Next, I ensured that I collected the full match that my employer offered. I learned that if I contributed too much early in the year and hit $18,000 in October, I’d lose out on the match in November and December. Check with your 401(k) plan to see how they determine matching payments and what you need to contribute each pay period to get the entire year’s full match.

My plan offers both a traditional 401(k) and a Roth 401(k). I decided to split my contributions between the two as a hedge against uncertain future taxes. The deduction from the traditional 401(k) reduces my current taxable income, which is great, while the Roth builds an account that I can tap into during retirement without paying taxes. If I leave my company, I’ll need to roll each one into a separate account to keep them distinct.

Once I made all of the technical decisions, I was ready to invest. When I initially joined my company and looked at the funds, I sorted the 25 available and noticed they all had fees of at least 1%, except for Vanguard Group’s S&P 500 index fund, which was far cheaper, since it’s passively managed. I put all of my contributions into this one fund and figured I would use my personal accounts to invest in other market sectors. But I also gave feedback during an HR survey, requesting more options.

I don’t know whether my feedback had any impact or whether it was an already scheduled plan change, but three months later I noticed that five more Vanguard index funds were introduced, all with lower expenses than the other available choices. I reallocated my future contributions to match my overall philosophy. I split the majority of my money between the S&P 500 and an international index fund, with another 5% to 10% each in Vanguard’s small-cap, mid-cap and emerging markets index funds.

Zach Blattner’s previous blogs include Not So Fast and Growing Up (Part II). Zach lives in Cambridge, MA, and is a former teacher and school leader who now teaches English teachers as a faculty member at Relay GSE. He is a self-taught finance nerd who dispenses advice to his wife, friends, family and anyone else willing to listen. Follow Zach on Twitter @Mr_Blattnerz.

The post Working the Plan appeared first on HumbleDollar.

This Week/Oct. 8-14

GET A FREE CREDIT SCORE. You can learn your score at sites such as Credit.com, CreditCards.com, CreditKarma.com, CreditSesame.com, NerdWallet.com, Quizzle.com and WalletHub.com. Scores are also available from Capital One, Chase and Discover, even if you aren’t a customer. Not all these sites will tell you your FICO score—the most widely used scoring system.

The post This Week/Oct. 8-14 appeared first on HumbleDollar.

October’s Newsletter

IT’S BEEN AN EXTRAORDINARY eight-year stock market run. Result: Many of us find ourselves far closer to our target retirement nest egg. Maybe we even have enough salted away to call it quits. Does that mean we should declare victory and cut back our portfolio’s risk level? I wrestle with that issue in October’s newsletter.

The post October’s Newsletter appeared first on HumbleDollar.

Enough Already

“WHEN YOU’VE WON THE GAME, stop playing with the money you really need.” That’s something my longtime friend and fellow author William Bernstein is fond of saying—and lately it’s been on my mind.

There’s been much handwringing over 2017’s stock market rally. Looked at objectively, it hasn’t been that startling. As of Sept. 29, the S&P 500 was up 14.2% for the year-to-date, with dividends reinvested—a good year, but nothing compared to the 25%-plus years we saw in 1991, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2009 and 2013. Moreover, this year’s gain follows two years when the market notched an average 6.5% a year, so arguably we aren’t exactly on a hot streak.

On the other hand, the S&P has soared an average 13.8% a year over the past eight years and U.S. stock market valuations are undoubtedly rich. Moreover, it appears memories of the 2007-09 market collapse have finally faded. It took many years and a huge stock market rally, but it seems not owning stocks is now the one investment strategy that’ll draw looks of pity at the neighborhood cocktail party.

In recent years, I’ve comforted myself by occasionally rebalancing back to my portfolio’s target percentages and by noting that foreign markets—which account for more than 40% of my stock exposure—are much better value. But lately, this hasn’t been all that comforting.

The reality is, if U.S. stocks dropped sharply, foreign stocks would likely also swoon and my nest egg would take a huge hit. To make matters worse, I have less time to recover from a market decline and less regular monthly savings to take advantage of lower stock prices.

Ten years ago, the world looked very different. My 44-year-old self would be rooting for a bear market, knowing that I was still saving voraciously and still had decades to retirement. But I’m not 44, but rather 54, and as I eye retirement, I think about Bill Bernstein’s comment. If I have already won the game, why would I keep playing?

Risk Unrewarded. As I see it, if you own a globally diversified portfolio of index funds, there are only four legitimate reasons to ease up on stocks. First, you might sell as part of a regular rebalancing program. Second, you might unload stocks as you approach retirement—and continue to do so once retired—as you look to draw income from your portfolio. Third, you might sell if you no longer need to take so much risk, because you’re financially well ahead of where you need to be. Fourth, you should probably lighten up on stocks if you can’t afford to take so much risk, because the consequences of a big market decline would be so devastating.

In a 2015 article for The Wall Street Journal, Bill offered a series of benchmarks: You should aim to have at least 25 years of required portfolio withdrawals socked away if you retire at age 60, 20 years if you retire at 65 and 17 years if you retire at 70. Need $40,000 from your portfolio and plan to call it quits at 60? Bill’s rule suggests you need a $1 million portfolio.

“The fear, of course, is that we arrive at modest long-run stock returns by having atrocious short-run results.”

What if your nest egg is smaller than Bill’s benchmarks? He argues you should favor a more conservative portfolio, perhaps with 60% in bonds. That way, you run less risk that your need for income—coupled with a vicious stock market decline—will eviscerate your portfolio and leave you eating cat food.

Those who are at, or comfortably above, Bill’s benchmarks have more of a financial cushion—and can afford to keep more in stocks. But should you? You’ve won the game. Should you continue to play aggressively, with a view to enriching your heirs or your favorite charities, or dial down the risk, so you can live out your days knowing that only financial Armageddon could derail your comfortable retirement? Bill’s article is available online, but you may need to subscribe.

Calling It Quits. I think Bill’s benchmarks are a great guide. But I’d throw in an additional caveat: It strikes me that the range of possible U.S. stock returns is especially large right now. As I discussed in a relatively recent blog, we have unusually high valuations, historically fat profit margins and an economy destined to grow slowly because the labor force is growing slowly.

This is a recipe for modest long-run stock returns. Those returns should be better than bonds, which will likely fare even worse, given today’s low bond yields. And if that’s what we get every year—modest stock returns that are somewhat better than bonds—we should consider ourselves lucky.

The fear, of course, is that we arrive at those modest long-run stock returns by having atrocious short-run results. That’s not a problem for younger workers, who will be able to buy shares at bargain prices. But it’s a grave danger for those near or in retirement: Selling stocks at fire-sale prices, either out of panic or because you need income, can cause massive financial damage.

What are the portfolio implications? My assumption is that a global stock portfolio will return 5% to 6% a year over the long haul and a mix of high-quality corporate and government bonds might return 2.5% to 3%, while inflation runs at 2%. Let’s assume results come in at the lower end of the range, with stocks at 5% and bonds at 2.5%.

Let’s also assume we’re aiming to fund a 30-year retirement. We want a portfolio that permits us to withdraw 4% in the first year, equal to $4,000 for every $100,000 saved, and thereafter allows us to step up our annual withdrawals with inflation. To make it through 30 years without running out of money, our investments need to earn an average 3.4% a year if inflation is 2%. Based on my assumed returns, investors could hit that 3.4% with a mix of 36% stocks and 64% bonds.

This calculation is, I admit, a tad unrealistic, because it assumes we earn the same return year after year. Depending on whether we get good or bad results early in retirement, we might need a lower or higher average return. Still, it gives a sense of how conservative investors could potentially be.

And yet I’m not about to cut my stock holdings to 36%. Not even close. Partly, it’s because I would like to earn more than 3.4%, so there’s more money left over for my children. Partly, it’s because my retirement might last longer than 30 years—and taking a little additional risk should deliver a higher portfolio return and give me a financial cushion.

But truth be told, I’m also not yet ready to quit the game—which suggests that perhaps I’m not being entirely rational.

Getting Exercised

MY GOAL IS TO WORKOUT for at least 40 minutes every day, pretty much no matter what’s happening in my life. I figure that, if I’m saving for a 30-year retirement, I should make sure my body lasts almost as long as my money. During my daily 40 minutes, I get to see my fellow humans at play. This can be a source of some consternation. A few examples:

Those who hold phone conversations while running. Are the folks on the other end of the line at all bothered? Or did they dial a 900 number and are happily paying to be recipients of heavy breathing?
Those who slump, unmoving, on the exercise equipment for minutes at a time. Surely the couch would be a better place to take a nap?
Those who eat while exercising. I remember a gentleman on the neighboring exercise bike at a Beverly Hills hotel, who talked to a friend and ate a muffin while slowly pedaling. All I could think was, “speed up, my good man, or you’ll take on more calories than you’re shedding.”

September’s Greatest Hits

HERE ARE THE SEVEN most popular blogs from last month:

Stop Thief
Driving Down Costs
Parting Thoughts
A Price on Your Head
Investment Taxes: 10 Questions to Ask
Late? That’ll Cost You 50%
Moving On

September also saw continued heavy traffic for the various 10 question blogs that HumbleDollar first published in July and August. Also check out two other lists, one with the 10 most popular blogs for 2017’s first nine months and the other showing the top blogs for this year’s third quarter.

The post Enough Already appeared first on HumbleDollar.