January 2009

Happy Friday, everyone. :) Here’s a few of my favorites from the week:

Taxes

Taxgirl answers a question from a reader about how to report/deal with under the table payments from an employer.

From my tax blog, one old and one new:

Investing

Monevator explains time value of money. (Side note: I find it odd that this concept isn’t discussed more frequently on investing/personal finance blogs, as it’s definitely one of the most fundamental concepts.)

Amateur Asset Allocator shares his retirement plan wishlist. This post is actually several months old, but I hadn’t seen it until just this week. I found it pretty insightful.

ABCs of Investing explains Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS).

Personal Finance

MoneyNing offers 40 precautions for preventing identity theft.

Yielding Wealth asks what really motivates us to build wealth?

Frugal Dad explains how to save money (and the environment) by eliminating vampire power sucking.

Bargaineering shares what I think is probably the second best fortune cookie fortune I’ve ever seen.

Hope you all have fun at your Super Bowl parties. :)

January 30, 2009 0 comments

In case you haven’t noticed from earlier posts, I have some complaints about the common use of the word “risk.”

I think I’ve finally figured out what it is that bothers me so much: We use the word “risk” to encompass several distinct concepts that should really be kept separate. For example:

  • We call investing in a stock “risky” because the company might go out of business.
  • We call investing in stocks via a mutual fund “risky” because the stock market is volatile.
  • Long-term bonds are “risky” because they’re subject to price volatility resulting from changes in market interest rates.
  • Foreign investments are “risky” due to fluctuations in exchange rates.
  • Savings accounts and CDs are “risky” because inflation can consume your entire return.

In my opinion, trying to have an intelligent conversation using the word “risk” (as opposed to indicating what kind of risk) is comparable to having a conversation using the word “investments” without ever distinguishing between stocks, bonds, CDs, or real estate. In a few instances it will work, but most of the time it’s just going to cause problems.

We’re Causing Confusion

Imprecise definitions certainly make writing difficult, but more importantly they cause confusion. I think the fact that we refer to so many different concepts using the same word causes severe misunderstandings among the investing public.

[Actually, I suppose this is worse than causing confusion. When you're confused, you know it. When you misunderstand something, you're not even aware that you don't understand it properly.]

Let’s use an example. Imagine that we tell somebody “Investing in the stock market can be risky. Every few years we have a bear market, and share prices drop.”

What we mean: “The stock market is volatile. If you’re going to need your money soon, investing in the market isn’t a great idea, because you could lose your money.”

What (I suspect) people hear: “The stock market is risky. Every few years, you lose a bunch of money.”

See the difference?

We’ve made it easy for people to come to the conclusion that a decline in the market is the same thing as a loss of money, when in reality, that’s only true if you’re going to be selling soon.

And–now that we’ve convinced investors that market decline = loss of money–can we really blame them when they get out of the market after a big drop? After all, if you were thinking “Oh my god! Everyday I stay in the market, I’m losing more and more money!” …you’d want to get out of the market too, right?

Too bad we didn’t explain what we meant when we said the market was risky.

I think we could all benefit from being more precise with our wording when we call something risky.

January 29, 2009 2 comments

Given that I’m currently working on a narrative-style investment book, I figured it would be a good idea to read some of the others in the field. A couple weeks ago I read (and thoroughly enjoyed) The Richest Man in Babylon, and over the last couple days, I read David Chilton’s The Wealthy Barber.

The most recent version of the book has a copyright date of 1998. And boy does it show! (And I’m not even talking about the references to saving up for a VCR, which must have been left in from a version even earlier than ’98.) I’m talking about the assumed rate of returns in all the investment examples.

Over and over, Chilton uses an assumed annual rate of return of 15% for investments in equity mutual funds. 15%! He also states that an “ultraconservative allocation” should easily be able to earn an 8% rate of return. Funny: Just the other day I was predicting an 8% long-term return in the stock market–and I was saying that we should be excited about it!

I find it fascinating that Chilton–an author who expounds the virtues of conservative investing (i.e., suggesting CDs in IRAs for people in their late 20′s)–was caught up in the absurdly optimistic expectations of the era. I guess it’s hard to escape.

Maybe, just maybe, we’re seeing the exact opposite going on right now. ;)

By the way, for anybody who’s curious: From January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2008, the market’s actual annual return was a mere 1.03%. Looks like he was a little off! Hehe.

January 28, 2009 0 comments

Kalinda (my wife) recently started a cooking blog. What this means for me–aside from an abundance of delicious, homemade meals–is that I end up dicing/chopping vegetables most nights. A recent close call with a chef knife got me thinking.

Asian Orange Tofu Stir Fry

A few observations about chef knives:

  • If used improperly, they’re dangerous.
  • If used for the wrong job, they’re dangerous.
  • When used correctly, and for the right purpose, they get the job done in a (fairly) safe manner.

Stocks are rather like a sharp chef knife:

  • If used improperly (buying and selling with great frequency, or owning a portfolio that’s not sufficiently diversified), they’re dangerous.
  • If used for the wrong job (short-term savings, for instance) they’re dangerous.
  • When used correctly, they get the job done in a fairly safe way.

How to use stocks properly and safely?

  1. Own a diversified portfolio via a low-cost fund.
  2. Hold them forever (or as close to forever as you can manage).

January 27, 2009 0 comments

Since Kyle’s on vacation, some other bloggers (myself included) are helping out at Amateur Asset Allocator this week. My guest post went up today: Profiting from Stats Class: Reversion to the Mean.

If you like it, please vote for it on Tipd or make a comment over at AAA. :)

January 26, 2009 0 comments

As we’ve previously discussed, over (very) extended periods, the market’s return is made up almost entirely of dividend yield and earnings growth. In other words, one of the best methods for predicting the long-term rate of return for the entire market is to simply add the current market dividend yield (3% at the moment) to our economy’s average rate of earnings growth (5-6%).

This tells us that for every dollar we put into the market right now, we can expect a long-term rate of return in the 8-9% range. Many people may see that number and get disappointed. After all, you don’t get rich quick(ly) with an 8% rate of return. That said, I look at this number and see two great reasons for investing in the market.

It hasn’t looked this good for quite a while.

When was the last time that the market was offering a dividend yield of 3%? Almost two decades ago: 1991. If you’re feeling scared to invest in the market right now, take a moment to ponder that. The market’s expected rate of return hasn’t looked this good since before Clinton was in office.

It’s a heck of a lot better than what we can expect from bonds.

Right now, 10-year treasury bonds are yielding roughly 2.5%. In other words, the stock market’s dividend yield alone is enough to make it more attractive than the alternative. Once we add in the future earnings growth, we get a very substantial difference in long-term expected rates of return. We haven’t seen this kind of discrepency between bond yields and expected market return in a long while either.

Just for comparison, if we look back a few years ago to 2006, the market’s dividend yield was about 1.77%, giving a projected market return of roughly 7%. That’s barely any higher than the bond rate (about 6% at the time). And yet, people were confident investing in the market.

What to do?

  • The numbers tell us that now is a great time to invest–better than it’s been in over a decade.
  • The media tells us that the stock market is dangerous and we need to “wait until things settle down.”

Who do you believe? :)

January 26, 2009 8 comments

Disclaimer #1: Many of the links on this site are affiliate links. That means that if you click through from my link and buy the linked-to product, or sign up for the linked-to service, I receive a commission. For example, if you click through to Amazon via one of my links, I receive a commission of approximately 7% for any product you purchase.


Disclaimer #2: By using this site, you explicitly agree to its Terms of Use and agree not to hold Simple Subjects, LLC or any of its members liable in any way for damages arising from decisions you make based on the information made available on this site. I am not a financial or investment advisor, and the information on this site is for informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.


Copyright 2012 Simple Subjects, LLC - All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Policy