Year End Tax Planning Opportunities

By Chris Chen CFP | Financial Planning , Retirement Planning , Tax Planning

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) was the most consequential tax reform package in this generation. It changed many of the ways that we think about reducing taxes.

According to the Tax Policy Center, we know that about 80% of taxpayers pay less income tax in 2018 than before the TCJA , about 5% pay more, and the balance of taxpayers pay about the same amount. On balance, the TCJA seems to have delivered on its promises.

A key item of the TCJA is that it increased the standard deduction, reducing the impact of the elimination of State and Local Taxes (SALT) under $10,000 and the elimination of personal deductions. As a result, about 84% of taxpayers claim the standard deduction and do not itemize. By comparison, about 56% of taxpayers itemized before the enactment of the TCJA. The vast majority of taxpayers are no longer subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), since two of its key drivers, the deductibility of state and local taxes and personal deductions, are no longer a practical issue for most people. And in 2018, only 1,700 estates were subject to the federal estate and gift tax. So for most people, the TCJA has made taxes simpler to deal with. What’s there not to like about a simpler tax return ?

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Impact of the TCJA on the Federal Deficit

As predicted, the TCJA worsened the federal deficit bringing it to nearly a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2019. That was in spite of an increase in tax revenue due to the continuing improvement in the economic climate. Of course, the federal deficit continues to be driven by federal spending on the sacred cows of modern US politics: Defense, Social Security, and Medicare. Interest on the federal debt is also a major budget item that needs to be paid. While our continuing regime of low interest rates is helping control the interest on the debt, it is clear that the future may change that.

What will happen to tax rates?

Tax rates are lower now than they have been since the 1970s and 80s. Hence, industry insiders tend to think that tax rates have nowhere to go but up.  That is also what’s is predicted by the TCJA, which is largely designed to sunset in 2025. Should the American people turn on Republicans at the 2020 election, it’s possible that the TCJA will see a premature end. However, it seems that the possibility that the American people might elect a progressive in 2020 is largely discounted when it comes to tax rate forecasting: most people assume that tax rates will increase.

Year-End Planning

Political forecasting aside, there are still things that we can do to lower our taxes . It should be noted that many of the techniques in this article are not limited to the year-end. Furthermore, we all have different situations that may or may not be appropriate for these techniques. 

Tax Loss Harvesting

Even though we have had a pretty good year overall, many of us may still have positions in which we have paper losses. Tax-loss harvesting consists of selling these positions to realize the losses. This becomes valuable when you sell the equivalent amount of shares in which you have gains. So if you sell some shares with $10,000 in losses, and some with $10,000 in gains, you have effectively canceled out the taxes on the gains.

You then have to reinvest the shares sold into another investment. Be careful not to buy back the exact same shares that you sold. That would disallow the tax loss harvesting!

At the same time, it makes sense to review your portfolio and see if there are other changes that you would like to make. We are not fans of frequent changes for its own sake. However, periodically our needs change, the markets change, and we need to adapt.

Income Tax Planning

While tax loss harvesting is mostly about managing Capital Gains taxes, it is also important to keep an eye on income tax planning . This is a good time of year to estimate your income and your taxes for the year. When comparing your estimated Adjusted Gross Income with the tax tables, you will see if you might be creeping up into the next tax bracket. For instance, if you are single and your estimated AGI is $169,501 (and you have no other complexity), you are right at the 32% tax bracket (after you remove the $12,000 standard deduction).  In this example, that means that for every dollar above that amount you would owe 32 cents in federal income tax, and a little bit more for state income tax, if that applies to you.

If your income is from a business, you may possibly defer some of that income to next year. If your income comes from wages, another way to manage this is to plan an additional contribution to a retirement account. In the best of cases your $1,000 contribution would reduce your taxes by $320, and a little bit more for state taxes.

In some cases, you might have a significant dip in income. Perhaps if you have a business, you reported some large purchases, or you booked a loss or just had a bad year for income. It may make sense at this point to take advantage of your temporarily low tax rate to do a Roth conversion. Check with your wealth manager or tax preparer.

If your income does not straddle two tax brackets, the decision to invest in a Traditional IRA or a Roth IRA is still worth considering.

Charitable Contributions

By increasing standard deductions, the TCJA has made it more difficult for people to deduct charitable contributions . As a result, charitable contributions bring few if any tax benefits for most people.

One way around that situation is to bundle or lump charitable gifts. Instead of giving every year, you can give 2, 3 or more years worth of donations at one time. That would allow your charity to receive the contribution, and, potentially, for you to take a tax deduction. 

Pushing the bundling concept further, you could give even more to a Donor Advised Fund (DAF). With that option, you could take a tax deduction, and give every year from the DAF. That allows you to control your donations, reduce your income in the year that you donate, and potentially reduce income taxes and Medicare premiums. Consult your wealth strategist to ensure that taxes, income, and donations are optimized.

Retirement Accounts

First, it is important to review Required Minimum Distribution (RMDs). Anyone who is 70 ½ years of age or older is subject to RMDs. Please make sure to connect with your financial advisor to make sure that the RMD is properly withdrawn before the year-end.

The RMD is a perennial subject of irritation for people . Obviously, if your retirement income plan includes the use of RMDs, it’s not so much of an issue. However, if it is not required, it can be irritating. That is because RMD distributions are subject to income taxes that may even push you into the next tax bracket or increase your Medicare premium. There are, however, some ways that you can deal with that.  

For instance, if you take a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD) from your IRA and have the distribution given directly to a charity, the distribution will not be income to you. Hence you won’t pay income taxes on that distribution, and it will not be counted toward the income used to calculate your Medicare premium. However, it will fulfill your RMD, thus taking care of that pesky issue.

Generally, we advocate planning for lifetime taxes rather than for any one given year. Lifetime financial planning has the potential to result in even more benefits. It should be noted that many of the possibilities outlined in this article can be used throughout the year, not just at year-end. We encourage you to have that conversation with your wealth management team to plan for the long term!

Is A Health Savings Account Right For You?

By Chris Chen CFP | Divorce Planning , Financial Planning , Investment Planning , Tax Planning

It is health insurance plan signup season . Whether you subscribe to your employer’s health care insurance plan or you buy your own directly, it is the time of the year when you have to sign up all over again. Unless you have specific circumstances such as a change of employer, a divorce, or new baby, this is the one time in the year when you get to change your health care insurance plan.

If you have been keeping abreast of the popular financial media, you may have come across the Health Savings Account (HSA).  According to AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans), 22 million people had HSA accounts in 2018.  Financial Planners love HSA. It is potentially the most tax advantageous vehicle that exists.  Contributions to HSAs are pre-tax, the money is invested tax-free, and distributions are tax-free if used for health purposes. Triple tax-free. HSAs are even better than Roth retirement accounts !

The reality is that we all have health care expenses, and they can be substantial . Having the ability to pay with tax-free money is a critical advantage. If you have to pay a $100 hospital invoice, you might have to earn $150 or more first, pay Federal income taxes, Social security taxes, state income taxes, before you can have $100 to pay your bill. With an HSA, there is no income tax, you pay with $100 of your earnings. 

A Health Savings Account is effectively an alternative to the Flexible Spending Account (FSA) , the more traditional way to pay for health care expenses that are not covered by insurance. The FSA allows employees to save pre-tax from earnings, and then to spend it on health care expenses without paying taxes on the earnings.  Money in FSAs, however, is not invested, and it must be spent by year-end or be forfeited. It has to be spent, or it will be lost. HSA funds, on the other hand, can be invested, and funds from HSA accounts can be carried over into the future. Thus, HSAs can be spent in a way that is similar to other retirement savings accounts such as the IRA or the Roth IRA.

	IRA	Roth IRA	529	FSA	HSA
Contributions are pre-tax	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Funds are invested tax-free	Yes	Yes	Yes	N/A	Yes
Distributions are tax-free (1)	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Distributions can be taken in the future	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

1. If used as intended for retirement, education or health expenses respectively

What’s in it for the employer?

In order to contribute to an HSA, you must have chosen a High Deductible Health Plan with your employer. 

According to the IRS, for 2019, a high deductible is defined as $1,350  ($1,400 in 2020) for an individual or $2,700 for a family ($2,800 in 2020.) On top of this high deductible, annual out of pocket expenses (including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance) cannot exceed $6,750 for an individual or $13,500 for a family. Those numbers increase in 2020 to $6,900 for an individual and $13,800 for a family. 

For employers, offering high deductible health insurance plans is more cost effective than other plans. Therefore, they will prefer that their employees sign up for high deductible plans. Many employers will contribute directly to HSA accounts to encourage their workforce to choose a high deductible health insurance plan.

Theoretically, if employees have to pay out of pocket or out of their HSA for their health care expenses, they will be more careful about their choices.  While the funds in the HSA remain available to be used for health care expenses immediately if needed, the designers of the HSA believe that the ability to carry over HSA balances to future years will motivate employees to be better health care shoppers when choosing treatments or, indeed, when choosing to be treated in the first place. The net result is that high deductible health plans help employers contain health care expenses, and shift the burden on their employees. 

From an employee’s point of view, high deductible plans can make a lot of sense . If you don’t believe that you will need (much) health care in the coming year, you can benefit from a lower cost plan, and from the savings and investment opportunity.  

Financial Benefit 

And how do you maximize the value of the HSA? By contributing to the maximum, and investing it. A dollar contributed may be worth many times its value in the future when invested.

The Internal Revenue Service allows individuals in 2020 to contribute up to $3,550 to their HSAs. Families may contribute up to $7,100.  Both individuals and families can benefit from a catch-up provision of $1,100 if they are over 55.

According to Debbie Taylor, a CPA and tax expert, many people make the mistake of not investing their HSA contributions and keeping them in money market. Because one of the key benefits of HSAs is that the contributions can grow tax-free , not investing them is a grievous and expensive mistake. 

However, it’s worth noting that an HSA may need to be invested differently from your retirement accounts , especially if you plan to use your HSA at different times than you might use your retirement accounts. Consult your wealth manager for more insight.

If you are choosing the high deductible plan to save money, but you are not able to contribute to your HSA, you are putting yourself at risk if you have an unforeseen health event. Not having enough saved to cover the cost of the health care you need means that you may have to go into debt until you have met your plan’s deductible. 

So, if you have a tight budget, please think twice before trying to save money with a high deductible plan. It may just backfire on you.

Unintended Consequences

A question that is often minimized at enrollment time is what happens to the HSA if you have miscalculated, and you happen to have a significant health care expense in the year that you are contributing? 

First, if it is a major event, you may consider using funds in your HSA account. However the health care insurance will eventually kick in and cover most of the cost. So as a subscriber to a high deductible plan, you are still protected from the catastrophic consequences of an unexpected health issue. While you may not harvest all the benefits of the HSA, and you will likely lose the cost savings of choosing a high deductible plan, you are protected from financial disaster.

What if it is not a really major event, just a somewhat major event like, say, a trip to the emergency room for a temporary issue that you will easily recover from?

In that case, you also have the option to use your funds in the HSA to pay for those expenses. Your contributions will have been pre-tax as with an FSA. You will not have enjoyed much investment growth. Your distribution will still be tax-free. You are giving up the future benefits of the HSA, but you are dealing with your more immediate issues. Basically, your HSA will have functioned like an FSA. You will also lose the savings benefits of choosing a lower cost high deductible plan over a higher cost low deductible plan.

What if instead, you decide to pay for your trip to the emergency room out of pocket with post-tax savings and save your HSA for the future, as your wealth manager told you that you should? The real cost of your $5,000 trip depends on your income and tax bracket. If you happen to be in the 32% Federal tax bracket and you live in Massachusetts, the cost of the $5,000 emergency room trip will be around 58% higher.  

HSAs provide some tremendous benefits that should be considered by everyone who is looking to enhance their health care and their retirement situation. However, the decision to choose a Health Savings Account should be based on more than just taxes and the cost of your health care insurance. It is important to consider the very real costs of unforeseen events and to be realistic about your health insurance needs. 

McKenzie Bezos: 4 Wealth Strategy Concerns

By Chris Chen CFP | Divorce Planning , Financial Planning , Tax Planning

McKenzie Bezos: 4 Wealth Strategy Concerns

On April 4th, it was announced that McKenzie Bezos would be receiving 36 billion dollars worth of assets from her divorce from Jeff.  

First of all, congratulations to Jeff and McKenzie for keeping this divorce process short, out of the media as much as possible, and out of the courts. We are not going to know the details of the Bezos’ agreement. However, some information has been disclosed in the press.

As reported by CNN, McKenzie is keeping 4% of their Amazon stock, worth approximately 36 billion dollars. Jeff retains voting power for her shares as well as ownership of the Washington Post and Blue Origin, their space exploration venture. According to The Economist, this makes the Bezos divorce the most expensive in history by a long shot.

As a post-divorce financial planner, I feel a little silly thinking of what I would tell McKenzie to do with her money now. The magnitude of her portfolio is well beyond run of the mill high net worth divorces with assets only in the millions or tens of millions of dollars. McKenzie can buy $100M or $200M houses and condos wherever she wants. She can have her own jets and her own yachts. She could buy an island or two.

Unsurprisingly, McKenzie’s wealth is concentrated in AMZN stock. That has worked out well for the Bezos’ for the past several years. It is likely to continue to be a great source of wealth for both of them in the future. As it stands, McKenzie is now the third richest woman in the world. Who knows, if she holds onto AMZN stock, she could become the richest woman in the world one day! McKenzie’s concerns with budgeting, taxes, and wealth strategy will soon be in a class of their own.

There are, however, some lingering considerations for McKenzie, particularly when it comes to capital gains taxes, portfolio management, philanthropy and wealth transfer.

Capital Gains Taxes

McKenzie probably has an enormous tax liability built into her AMZN holdings. While I am not privy to her cost basis, it is not unreasonable to assume that it is close to zero since the Bezos’ have owned Amazon stock since the company’s inception. Should McKenzie sell her AMZN stock, the entire amount would likely be subject to capital gains taxes. As such McKenzie may not be worth quite $36 Billion after taxes are accounted for .

A benefit of keeping the stock until her death is that her estate will benefit from a step up in cost basis. This would mean that the IRS would consider the cost of the stock to be equal to the value at her death. This favorable tax treatment would wipe out her capital gains tax liability.

Portfolio Management

Nevertheless, the standard advice that wealth strategists give clients with ordinary wealth applies to Ms. Bezos as well: it would be in McKenzie’s best financial interest to diversify her holdings. Diversifying would help her reduce the risk of having her wealth concentrated into a single stock. It is a problem that McKenzie (and Jeff) share with many employees of technology and biotech startups.

McKenzie might not want to sell all of her AMZN stock or even most of it. Although we have not read their separation agreement, she has probably agreed with Jeff that she would retain the bulk of her holding. She may also believe enough in AMZN and Jeff’s leadership to sincerely want to keep it. Regardless, McKenzie should still diversify her portfolio to protect herself against AMZN specific risks.

Philanthropy

An advantage of having more money than you need is that you have the option to use the excess to have a measurable impact on the world through philanthropy. In 2018, Jeff and McKenzie created a $2B fund, the Bezos Day One Fund, to help fight homelessness. Given that the home page of the fund now only features Jeff’s signature, this may mean that Jeff is keeping this also. McKenzie will likely organize her own charity. What will her cause be?

Philanthropy can be an effective tax and estate management tool , primarily because, within limits, the IRS allows you to deduct your donations against your income thus helping you manage current and future taxes. For McKenzie, it is about deciding what to do with the money, instead of letting Congress decide.

Wealth Transfer

McKenzie’s net worth is far in excess of the current limits of federal and state estate taxes. Unless she previously planned for it during her marriage, she will have to revise her estate plan.  Even though she would benefit from a step up in basis on her AMZN stock if she chooses not to diversify, she would still be subject to estate taxes, potentially in the billions of dollars.

Of course, no matter how much estate tax McKenzie ends up paying, it is likely that she will have plenty to leave to her heirs.

Financially, McKenzie Bezos has what wealth strategists would consider as ‘good financial problems’ . She has the financial freedom to focus on the important aspects of life: family, relationships and making a difference.

 

A version of this post appeared in Kiplinger on April 12, 2019

Should You Buy An Annuity?

By Chris Chen CFP | Capital Markets

Should You Buy An Annuity?

Annuities are a popular retirement planning device. According to Investment News, sales broke a record in 2018. Yet, they continue to be misunderstood. There are several types of annuities, with fixed, fixed indexed, and variable being some of the most common. Unfortunately, annuities are so complex, that salespeople often have difficulty communicating their values and shortcomings to clients. It is sometimes said, humorously, that the greatest value of an annuity is the steak dinner that it comes with.

 

Joking aside, the point is that annuities are complex and most of their benefits are intangible, except for the steak. As a client, you will eventually have to decide that if you are not going to become an expert with annuities, you will have to trust a salesperson.

Annuities have value. However, their value must be balanced with costs and lost opportunity considerations. In addition to the direct costs of the annuity, like “mortality and expense”, the expense ratio of the investments or the costs of the “riders”, and indirect opportunity costs what are the value of the benefits you might be giving up to get an annuity?.

First, what does an annuity get you?

Fixed Income

The most commonly advertised benefit of an annuity is fixed income. The insurance company that sells and manages the annuity will be paying you periodically, usually monthly, for the rest of your life (usually).  That payment is presented as fixed: it will never decrease. Obviously, that is appealing to a lot of people: finally a financial instrument with some safety built in.

Rarely does the salesperson point out the obvious: the periodic payment amount will never increase either.

Why does it matter yo have your payment increase? In an age where people ought to be planning for retirement for 20 or 30 years or more, a periodic payment that does not increase is basically a payment that continuously loses value to inflation. While you may not notice it from one year to the next,  inflation is pernicious: it will slowly eat away your purchasing power.

For instance, the table below shows that with inflation of 3%, the value in today’s dollars of a $5,000 annuity payment that you might receive today goes down to $2,803 in 20 years. In other words, you would be losing almost $2,200 of purchasing power automatically. Needless to say, this is something that you would want to know before buying the annuity.

Source: Insight Financial Strategists LLC

Tax Advantage

Also, annuities are Tax-advantaged. Americans love tax-advantaged investments, almost as much as they like tax-free investments. That is a key point to note: the money that you contribute to an annuity is not taxable when it distributes in retirement because, presumably, you have already paid taxes on it. Therefore, when the annuities distribute in retirement, part of the distribution is your own money that comes back to you tax-free. The gains, however, come back to you taxable as ordinary income.  

Now, how does the tax treatment of annuities compare to other methods of investing, like for example investing in equities and fixed income outside of an annuity?  As with annuities, contributions to your investment are not taxed again when they are distributed. However, your gains will usually be taxable as capital gains. This is important because for many people capital gains tax rates are lower than ordinary income tax rates. In other words, you may very well be paying more taxes by putting your money in an annuity than if you had invested outside of it if the right circumstances are met.

Guarantee

Another attractive benefit of annuities is that the payment amounts are Guaranteed.  Financial Planners are not usually able to say that anything is guaranteed, because we do not know the future.  However, financial salespeople can say that about annuities, because the benefits are guaranteed by the insurance company. Obviously, that is a very powerful statement, especially in the absence of comparable guarantees for traditional investment products.

The bottom line is that traditional investments are not guaranteed. We know from watching the market or hearing about it on TV that anything can happen. In particular, the stock market can drop.

Hence if we could protect ourselves from the risk of the stock market going down, it would obviously be a good thing. We know that in any given year the market could go down. In fact, according to Logan Kane, on any random day, we have a 47 percent chance of stocks falling and a 53% chance of stocks rising. In any given year, we have a 75% chance of stocks rising.

We also know that on average the stock market goes up. In fact, even when it goes down, we know that in any rolling five year period it will also go up as demonstrated with the S&P500 on the following graph.

Source: bespokepremium.com

Therefore, when we protect ourselves against the downsides of the stock market with annuities we give up a lot of upside opportunity cost in return.  

Investments

Annuity companies tend to be shy about disclosing how your contributions are invested, except for variable annuities where the regulatory disclosure requirements are well developed. Variable annuities are invested in a mix of stock and bond funds. You can get a thorough description in their disclosure document.

Otherwise, insurance companies will rather have a root canal than tell you how their fixed annuities are invested. Perhaps it does not matter since the insurance company guarantees the payments. Maybe we don’t need to know.

Fixed index annuities are another matter.  These instruments allow for the potential for growth.  Mind you, in the typical words of a self-described “industry-leading financial organization”, ” your money is not actually invested in or exposed to the market”.

They can get away with this statement because it is, most likely, technically true. However, in order to make the returns that they claim that their annuities can make, the insurance companies have to invest in something more than cash. Fixed index annuities put their money, your money, in derivatives: stock options and futures. Technically, it saves you stock market volatility by being outside of it. Instead, you get derivatives market volatility which is even greater.

This has to be one of the most misleading sales pitches that financial salespeople make about fixed index annuities. Still, if the insurance company guarantees the returns, maybe it’s okay anyway?

Costs

Lastly, what about the costs??

Insurance companies tend to be less than forthcoming about the costs of their annuities, except when regulations force them to disclose them. For instance, variable annuities typically disclose a lot of information. When you read the prospectus you will find that it discloses various kinds of fees: administration, mortality and expense, mutual fund subaccount, turnover ratio, and death benefit being some of the most common. According to the Motley Fool, you might find that the total ongoing cost of your variable annuity can be anywhere from 2.46% to 5.94% a year.  

Disclosure requirements for fixed and fixed index annuities are much less developed, which may be why insurance companies don’t typically disclose them.  However, disclosure notwithstanding, there is definitely a cost that goes to paying your salesperson’s commission or the complicated options and futures strategies on your fixed index.

Value

The primary value of annuity products is not in the income or guarantee or tax benefit that they provide. The primary value of annuities is that they absorb risks that you as an investor are not willing to take in the market. Annuities give you a guaranteed fixed income. In exchange, they limit the possibility of growth in your capital or your income.

They do that by balancing your risks with other people like you. As we suspect, most of us will not have an average life expectancy. We are either above average or below average. As Bill Sharpe, a Nobel prize winner in economics reminds us, buying an annuity allows us to share those risks, and for those of us who are above average, an annuity may well be a great bargain.

As the organizer of the annuity party, the insurance company absorbs some of the risks as well. When we buy an annuity, we are transferring the risk of investing on our own to the insurance company. If the insurance fails in its investments, it commits to paying us anyway. That is valuable, but does the benefit need to cost that much? Could it be overpriced?

Annuities can provide incredible value. However, the simplicity of providing guaranteed monthly income is well overtaken by the complexity, direct costs and the opportunity cost. It is important to understand what you are getting and what you are giving up with an annuity, You can make sure that it meets your needs first by getting advice that is in your best interest by a fee-only financial planner.  You can find one at NAPFA or XYPN. Both are organizations of Certified Financial Planners that are committed to giving you advice that is in your best interest.

Seven Year End Wealth Strategies

By Chris Chen CFP | Financial Planning , Investment Planning , Retirement Planning , Tax Planning

As we approach the end of the year, there is still time to improve your financial position with a few well-placed year-end moves.
Maybe because we are working against a deadline, many year-end planning opportunities seem to be tax-related. Tax moves, however, should be made with your overall long-term financial and investment planning context in mind. So make sure to check in with your financial and tax advisors.
Here are seven important moves to focus your efforts on that will help you make the best of the rest of your financial year.

1) Harvest your Tax Losses in Your Taxable Accounts

As of October 22, the Dow Jones is up 16.57%, and the S&P500 is up just 21% for the year. Unfortunately, there are still stocks and mutual funds that are down for the year. Therefore you are likely to have some items in your portfolio that show up in red when you check the “unrealized gains and losses” column on your brokerage statement.
You can still make lemonade out of these lemons by harvesting your losses for tax purposes. However, the IRS individual deduction for capital losses is limited to a maximum of $3,000 for 2018. So, if you only dispose of your losers, you could end up with a tax loss carryforward, i.e., tax losses you would have to use in future years. This is not an ideal scenario!
However, you can also offset your losses against gains. For example, suppose you were to sell some losers and hypothetically accumulate $10,000 in losses. In that case, you could then also sell some winners. Then, if the gains in your winners sold add to $10,000, you have offset your gains with losses, and you will not owe capital gain taxes on that joint trade!
This could be a great tool to help you rebalance your portfolio with a low tax impact. Beware though, you have to wait 30 days before buying back the positions you have sold to stay clear of the wash sale rule.

2) Reassess your Investment Planning

Tax-loss harvesting is a great tactic to use for short-term advantage. However, as an important side benefit, it allows you to focus on more fundamental issues. So why did you buy these securities that you just sold? Presumably, they played an important role in your investing strategy. And now that you have accumulated cash, it’s important to re-invest mindfully.
You may be tempted to stay on the sideline for a while and see how the market shakes out. Although we may have been spoiled into complacency after the Great Recession, the last month has reminded us that volatility happens.
No one knows when the next bear market will happen if it has not started already. Therefore, it is high time to ask yourself whether you and your portfolio are ready for a significant potential downturn.
Take the opportunity to review your goals, ensure that your portfolio risk matches your goals, and your asset allocation matches your risk target. Then, reach out to your Wealth Strategist about that.

3) Check on your Retirement Planning

It is not too late to top out your retirement account! In 2021, you may contribute a maximum of $19,500 from your salary, including employer match to a 401(k), TSP, 403(b), or 457 retirement plan, subject to the terms of your plan. In addition, those who are age 50 or over may contribute an additional $6,500 for the year.

If you have contributed less than the limit to your plan, there may still be time! You have until December 31 to maximize contributions for 2021, reduce your 2021 taxable income (if you contribute to a Traditional plan), and give a boost to your retirement planning.

Alternatively to deferring a portion of your salary to your employer’s Traditional plan on a pretax basis, you may be able to contribute to a Roth account if that is a plan option for your employer. As with a Roth IRA, contributions to the Roth 401(k) are made after-tax, while distributions in retirement are tax-free.

Many employers have added the Roth feature to their employee retirement plans. If yours has not, have a chat with your HR department!

Although the media has popularized the Roth account as tax-free, bear in mind that it is not. Roth accounts are merely taxed differently. Check-in with your Certified Financial Planner practitioner to determine whether electing to defer a portion of your salary on a pretax basis or to a Roth account on a post-tax basis would suit your situation better.

4) Roth Conversions

The current tax environment is especially favorable to Roth conversions. Under the current law, income tax rates are scheduled to go back up in 2026; hence Roth conversions could be suitable for more people until then. And, of course, it is possible that Congress will vote for tax rates to go up before the end of the year.
With a Roth conversion, you withdraw money from a Traditional retirement account where assets grow tax-deferred, pay income taxes on the withdrawal, and roll the assets into a Roth account. Once in a Roth account, the assets can grow and be withdrawn tax-free, provided certain requirements are met. If you believe that your tax bracket will be higher in the future than it is now, you could be a good candidate for a Roth conversion.

Read more about the new tax law and Roth conversions

5) Pick your Health Plan Carefully

It is health insurance re-enrollment season! The annual ritual of picking a health insurance plan is on to us. This could be one of your more significant financial decisions for the short term. Not only is health insurance expensive, it is only getting more so.
First, you need to decide whether to subscribe to a traditional plan with a “low” deductible or a high deductible option. The tradeoff is that the high deductible option has a less expensive premium. However, should you have a lot of health issues, you might end up spending more. High deductible plans are paired with Health Savings Accounts (HSA).
The HSA is a unique instrument. It allows you to save money pretax and to pay for qualified healthcare expenses tax-free. In addition, unlike Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), balances in HSAs may be carried over to future years and invested to allow for potential earnings growth. This last feature is really exciting to wealth managers: in the right situation, clients could end up saving a lot of money.
If you pick a high deductible plan, make sure to fund your HSA to the maximum. Employers will often contribute also to encourage you to choose that option. If you select a low deductible plan, make sure to put the appropriate amount in your Flexible Spending Account. FSAs are used to pay for medical expenses on a pretax basis. Unlike with an HSA, you cannot roll over unspent amounts to future years.

6) If you are past 70, plan your RMDs

If you are past 70, make sure to take your Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) each year. The 50% penalty for not taking the RMD is steep. You must withdraw your first minimum distribution by April 1 of the year following the year in which you turn 70 ½, and then by December 31 for each year after.
Perhaps you don’t need the RMD? Instead, you may want to redirect the money to another cause. For instance, you may want to fund a grandchild’s 529 educational account. 529 accounts are tax-advantaged accounts for education. Although contributions are post-tax, growth and distributions are tax-free if they are used for educational purposes.
Or, you may want to plan for a Qualified Charitable Distribution from the IRA. The distribution must be directly from the IRA to the charity. It is excluded from taxable income and can count towards your RMD under certain conditions.

7) Plan your charitable donations

Speaking of charitable donations, they can also reduce taxable income and provide financial planning benefits. However, due to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), it may be more complicated than in previous years. One significant difference of the TCJA is that standard deductions are $12,550 for individuals and $25,100 for joint filers. So, practically, what that means is that you need to accumulate $12,550 or $25,100 of deductible items before you can feel the tax savings benefit.
In other words, if a married couple filing jointly has $8,000 in real estate taxes and $5,000 of state income taxes for a total of $13,000 of deductions, they are better off taking the standard $24,000 deduction. They would have to donate $7,000 before they could start to feel the tax benefit of their donation. One way to deal with that is to bundle your gifts in a given year instead of spreading them over many years. Or, within certain limits, to give directly from your IRA.
For instance, if you plan to give in 2021 and also in 2022, consider bundling your donations and giving just in 2021. In this way, you are more likely to be able to exceed the standard deduction limit.
If your thinking wheels are running after reading this article, you may want to check in with your Wealth Strategist or financial planner: there may be other things that you could or should do before the end of the year!

 

Check these other wealth management posts:

Is the TCJA an opportunity for Roth conversions?

New Year Resolution

How to Implement a New Year Resolution

Tax Season Dilemna: Invest ina Traditional IRA or a Roth IRA 

Note: The information herein is general and educational in nature and should not be construed as legal, tax, or investment advice. We make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented.  To determine investments that may be appropriate for you, consult with your financial planner before investing. Tax laws and regulations are complex and subject to change, which can materially impact investment results. Views expressed are as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions.We make no representation as to the completeness or accuracy of information provided at the websites linked in this newsletter. When you access one of these websites, you assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the websites to which you are linking. We are not liable for any direct or indirect technical or system issues or any consequences arising out of your access to or your use of third-party technologies, websites, information, and programs made available through this website.  

Market Perspectives – October 2018

By Chris Chen CFP | Capital Markets

Should we panic yet?

September 2018 marked the 10 year anniversary of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy in 2008, that ushered several months of extreme activity in the financial markets. The market slide from December 2007 to March 2009 was one of the steepest and scariest that we remember.

Yet, ten years later, the S&P 500 has enjoyed the longest bull market in US history, having lasted 3,453 days from March 9, 2009, until the end of September 2018. (footnote: Dow Jones Indices and Washington Post) As has been the case throughout its history US markets have recovered and more than made up the losses of the last downturn. According to Morningstar, the S&P 500 returned an annual 12% from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2018. On a cumulative basis, the S&P 500 has returned by 210%.

This rally has been largely fueled by the easy monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, which moved short-term interest rates effectively to zero in the wake of the 2008-2009 bear market, promoting risky behaviors, especially with corporate borrowing, which have helped drive the U.S. stock market upwards since then.

We all want to know when the next market downturn will occur. Some may think that it has started already with the October 2018 volatility. Since we cannot predict the future with any accuracy, we’ll stipulate that it may well have. However, we believe that the October market reflects a reversal to the greater volatility that the financial markets have historically displayed instead of the placid pace that we have been accustomed to since the Great Recession. We should get used to more of the same in the future.

We are likely to be in the late innings of the current economic expansion. However, there are reasons for a cautiously positive outlook for the short term. Either for the short or long run, it continues to be important to match the risks of your investments with the need you will have for the funds.  (If you are not sure what I am talking about here, drop me a line). If your needs for your money is in the short term, invest appropriately.

With proper matching of asset risk and liability timing, you can be well prepared for the downturns that will inevitably come.

A New Round of Tariffs

In late September, the U.S. placed an additional round of tariffs on $200B of Chinese goods. They are expected to affect a wide range of products, from computer electronics to forestry and fishing.

In response, China accused the Trump administration of bullying and applied their own tariffs on $60B worth of goods. If the Chinese response looks weak, it is only because China imports a lot less from the US than we do from them!  That should not be reassuring as China has many other tools to retaliate with besides imposing tariffs on American goods.

According to Fitch, the rating agency, these trade escalations will have a negative impact on global growth. As a result, they lowered their economic growth forecasts slightly from 3.2% to 3.1%.

In its simplest form, a tariff is a tax imposed on imported goods. Eventually, it gets paid by consumers. There are already anecdotes of the effects of the tariffs on the price and availability of some products. Coupled with the tariffs imposed by China, we expect that they will work themselves in the numbers in quarters to come.

Consumer Confidence Near All-time High

American consumers continue to be oblivious to the effects of trade and tariff risks. The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index hit an 18-year high and sits very close to an all-time high, due in part to a strong outlook on economic growth and low unemployment.

Speaking of unemployment: it fell to 3.7% in September 2018, well below the 50- year average of 6.2%. Normally, we expect low unemployment to be associated with wage inflation. Fortunately for employers, although not for workers, wage growth has remained stagnant well below historical averages.

The Era of Easy Money is Coming to an End

In each of the last four quarters, the Federal Reserve increased the Fed Funds rate 25 basis points (bps). It now stands at a level of 2.00% – 2.25%. We have had three increases already in 2018 and 8 since 2015. It is possible that the volatility that we experienced in October 2o18 may delay the projected December 2018 increases. However, at this time, owing to the otherwise strong economy, we expect that the increase will come through, and will be followed by two more increases in 2019.

Inflation Is Stable

The Core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures), a measure of inflation, is running right around the Fed target of 2%. From the Federal Reserve perspective, that is good news, as inflation has persisted below this mark for the last several years. Inflation is one of the key economic measures that the Fed watches very closely. When interest rates climb faster than anticipated, it may signal an overheating economy and inflation. The Fed may then increase interest rates more quickly.  

U.S. Equity

Reversing last quarter when small-cap stocks outperformed large-cap stocks, this quarter saw large-cap stocks outperform their small-cap counterparts as trade and tariff talk dissipated. In addition, large-cap stocks are still benefiting from the effects of the tax cut. Even so, on a year-to-date basis, small-cap stocks have still outpaced large-cap stocks 11.5% to 10.5% as of the end of September.

From a style perspective, the last quarter continued to increase the gap between growth and value stocks. On a year-to-date basis, large-cap growth stocks, as represented by the Russell 1000 Growth, have outperformed large value stocks, as represented by the Russell 1000 Value by 13.2% (17.1% vs. 3.9%).

Non-U.S. Equity

International equities have continued to lag their U.S. counterparts in 3Q2018. In fact, the MSCI EAFE was the only major international equity index we follow that earned a positive return during the quarter (1.4%). Additionally, each of the four major international equity indexes we follow have fallen on a YTD basis.

During 3Q, much of the conversation in emerging markets surrounded Turkey and Argentina. Turkey’s direct impact on the overall return of the MSCI Emerging Markets index was minimal as it comprises only 0.6% of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. However, because Argentina comprises almost 16% of the MSCI Frontier Markets Index, its troubles certainly had a greater impact on returns. We expect that MSCI will reclassify Argentina into the MSCI Emerging Markets Index in mid-2019.

Emerging markets continue to have strong growth and attractive fundamentals. Specifically, they are considerably less expensive from a P/E ratio perspective and pay higher dividends.

However, the Fed rate increases have hurt, as US rate hikes have a tendency to increase the value of the dollar, and decrease the attractiveness of emerging market investments. Also, while the U.S. comprises 55% of global market capitalization, 45% continues to come from outside our borders.

Therefore, despite occasional challenges, we believe that it is important for investors to be diversified in markets outside the U.S. Investors should keep in mind that investing domestically vs. internationally should not be an all-or-nothing endeavor. We continue to believe that global diversification is important.

Fixed Income

Fixed income investments continue to be challenged in a rising rate environment. Specifically, Treasury investments have yielded negative returns over the last 12 months. The picture worsens with longer maturities and most other fixed-income categories.

We continue to keep an eye on the shape of the yield curve. When the 2 year and 10 year Treasuries (the yield curve) come to close together, it is often a precursor of recession. That happens when investors no longer believe that they are being adequately compensated for holding longer maturities. This year the gap between the two has continued to narrow and therefore has fueled speculation. As of now, the curve has not inverted (ie short-term rates are still lower than long-term rates). Therefore, the best we can say is that this indicator is inconclusive at this time.

In anticipation of continued fixed income market turmoil due to rising rates and other factors, our fixed income portfolio is weighted toward shorter maturities and floating rate instruments. We believe that this provides an adequate return at an acceptable risk.

 

Check our blog post on the Seven Year End Wealth Management Strategies

 

Note: The information herein is general and educational in nature and should not be construed as legal, tax, or investment advice. Views expressed are the opinions of Insight Financial Strategists LLC as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions. We make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented. This communication should not be construed as a solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any securities or investments. To determine investments that may be appropriate for you, consult with your financial planner before investing. Market conditions, tax laws, and regulations are complex and subject to change, which can materially impact investment results. Index performance information, financial conditions, inflationary and future risk and return information is provided for illustrative purposes only. One cannot invest directly in an index. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Individual investor performance may vary depending on asset allocation, the timing of investment, fees, rebalancing, and other circumstances. All investments are subject to risk, including the loss of principal.

Insight Financial Strategists LLC is a Massachusetts Registered Investment Adviser.

Divorce is Getting Even More Expensive

By Chris Chen CFP | Capital Markets

Ten months later we are still finding out what the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) passed with great fanfare in December 2017 really does for us. If you think that you might join the ranks of divorced people this year or in the future, there are provisions of the TCJA that you may want to pay attention to.  

Some of these provisions include eliminating exemptions and most deductions, lowering federal tax rates,  and raising the limit for the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

However, there are two main areas where the TCJA affects divorcing couples specifically: child support and alimony.

Exemptions and Child Support

The TCJA eliminates the value of the personal and dependent exemptions that were so familiar in years past. It also increases standard deductions from their 2017 values of $6,350 to $12,000 for single filers, $9,350 to $18,000 for Head of Household filers and, $12,700 to $24,000 for Married Filing Jointly filers.

As a result, claiming a Head of Household (HOH) status can make a measurable difference for a newly single parent. To claim it, the taxpayer needs to be unmarried, pay for more than 50% of the household expenses and have a dependent who has lived in the household for more than 50% of the time. If there is one child, only one parent can claim to be HOH for this family.

One child For divorcing couples, the incremental savings for being Head of Household instead of Single mean that this is likely to be a significant point of discussion in divorce negotiations.

The parent who is Head of Household can also claim the expanded $2,000 Child Tax Credit for each qualifying child, including $1,400 that are reimbursable (i.e., you need to earn income to get it). Tax credits are much more valuable than exemptions. Whereas exemptions reduce taxable income, tax credits directly reduce the amount of tax itself.

In the past, parents could alternate taking children as exemptions using IRS form 8332. Of course, children exemptions helped reduce taxable income. As a result, exemptions have been an important clause in separation agreements. However, under the new tax law, exemptions no longer result in a reduction in taxable income.

With TCJA, it is not clear that the Child Tax Credit will be tradeable. Effectively, it would require the IRS to publish a regulation that allows trading of the Child Tax Credit between parents and a form that makes it possible. So far, the IRS has not released that regulation. This is sure to frustrate some parents, as they try to arrange their finances for their post-divorce reality.  Their best bet is to negotiate as if the Child Tax Credit will not be tradeable, but write in the agreement that it may be traded if allowed by laws and regulations. Parents could then work on dividing the economic benefits of the credit instead.

The Child Tax Credit and the HOH status provide a measurable boost to the after-tax income of the beneficiary. Thus, they will become an essential consideration of any divorce negotiation involving children.

Alimony

Starting with agreements that will be signed on January 1, 2019, or later, alimony will no longer be deductible from taxable income by the payor or taxable as income to the recipient.  The TCJA ends a longstanding practice that allowed divorcing couples to liberate tax money from the federal government to enhance their post-divorce joint income. Because typically the payor of alimony has a higher income and is usually in a higher tax bracket than the recipient, taxpayers were able to arbitrage the two tax rates and enjoy additional cash flow that would not have been available otherwise. For many, deducting alimony from taxable income was a welcome sweetener to the bitterness of having to pay it.

Abolishing the deductibility of alimony ripples through its other provisions: no longer do divorcing couples have to worry about structuring their alimony to make it comply with tax law. From 2019 on alimony will be considered a simple property transfer pursuant to divorce with no income tax consequences.

The change in the law effectively makes alimony more burdensome to payors.  With deductibility, alimony reduced a payor’s income taxes. Thus the net impact to the payor’s cash flow was the alimony paid minus the taxes saved. Now that deductibility is eliminated, the impact on cash flow is just alimony.

Conversely, recipients will no longer have to pay income taxes on their alimony, theoretically resulting in higher cash flow. However, it is the view of this writer that as a result of this change, alimony awards will trend down to take into consideration the cash flow impact on the payor. In all likelihood, recipients will end up paying the price.

This clawback of tax revenue was projected to raise $8B over ten years, a trifle compared to the $1.5 trillion cost of TCJA.

While this change in alimony treatment comes in 2019, separation agreements concluded in 2018 and before will abide by the old rules unless the divorce agreement specifies otherwise. Speak with your mediator or your lawyer: there may still be time to complete a separation agreement before the end of the year.

A Last Word

Much of the TCJA sunsets in 2025, reverting in 2026 to the rules that were in force until 2017, with one notable exception: alimony which, under the current law, will continue to be non-deductible in 2026 and later. As a result, separation agreements should take into account that they may be subject to one set of tax rules until 2025, and then may have to revert to another one in 2026.

Can we count on Congress to extend the TCJA beyond 2025, as it did with the Bush tax cuts in 2013? Perhaps. Lawmakers are loath to vote for anything that could appear as a tax increase. However, it would not be prudent to count on Congress’ good heart! Thus, separation agreements should maintain sufficient flexibility to take future changes in the tax environment into account.

Overall the TCJA will likely be a net cost to divorcing couples, especially those with child support or alimony obligations. However, knowing the rules can still improve a divorcing situation. Checking with a Divorce Financial Planner is likely to pay dividends.

A previous version of this post was published in Kiplinger on October 5, 2018

 

Check out other interesting articles:

In Divorce, Can We Share a CDFA?

Pension Division in Divorce

Post-Divorce Investments 

 

Note: A previous version of this post was published in Kiplinger on October 5, 2018

Note: The information herein is general and educational in nature and should not be construed as legal, tax, or investment advice. We make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information presented.  To determine a course of action that may be appropriate for you, consult with your attorney, financial planner or tax advisor before implementing any plan.. Tax laws and regulations are complex and subject to change, which can materially impact investment results.

 

Financial Planner or Estate Planner: Which Do You Need?

By Anna Byrne | Financial Planning , Retirement Planning , Tax Planning

Financial Planners and Estate Planners are two different professions that are often confused. There is some overlap between professionals in these fields, but their roles are rather distinct. When you are striving to make a long-term plan for a strong financial future, both financial planners and estate planners play a crucial role.

In fact, when you consider some of the most recent personal finance statistics, it becomes very clear that many Americans could really benefit from retaining the services of both a financial planner AND an estate planner. For instance, 33% of Americans have no money saved for retirement, 60% lack any form of an estate plan, and only 46% have money saved for emergencies. Better planning starts with understanding what both types of planners do.

What is a Financial Planner?

A financial planner is a professional who offers a wide range of services that can assist both individuals and businesses to accomplish their long-term financial goals and accumulate wealth. They fall into two categories:

• Registered Investment Advisor
• Certified Financial Planner

Certified Financial Planners (CFP) are required to comply with the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, which means they have a basic level of expertise backed by a larger organization. Ethically they have to work in your best interest.

Services provided by both financial advisors and CFPs include:

• Insurance and tax planning
• Financial risk management
• Retirement planning
• Investment planning
• Cash flow management

What is an Estate Planner?

The goal of a financial planner is to assist with wealth accumulation. On the other hand, an estate planner can help you to make financial plans associated with your passing, which includes protecting the wealth that you have accumulated .

While you might believe only wealthy individuals need to work with an estate planner, you should consider the fact that everything you have accumulated in your life comprises your estate. Accumulated assets such as vehicles, furniture, bank accounts, life insurance, your home, and other personal possessions are all included in your estate.

Your assets become the property of the state if you die without a will or an estate plan in place , and your family members will not be able to claim them without paying legal fees and taxes. They will also have to face the stress of potential disagreements with other family members over how your property should be divided.

Besides planning for your passing, estate planning also involves creating a clear plan for your care if you become disabled , and it also covers naming guardians for underage children. Estate planning is a way to protect your family and your assets while reducing taxes and legal fees .

Which Do You Need?

The roles of financial planners and estate planners are unique, and for this reason, you will benefit from working with both . While your financial planner helps you accumulate wealth, he or she can also prepare you for a meeting with an estate planner as part of your long-term strategy. This includes providing the estate planner with lists of beneficiaries, tax return documentation, lists of investments and a breakdown of income and expenses.

When you work with both a financial planner and an estate planner, they will keep you accountable by periodically reviewing your documentation and beneficiaries and making sure everything is updated and reviewed as necessary. By taking the time to work with both these professionals, no important decisions will be overlooked, and you will take control of your financial future.

 

Note: This article was authored by Kristin Dzialo, a partner at Eckert Byrne LLC, a Cambridge, MA law firm that provides tailored estate planning. Eckert Byrne LLC and Insight Financial Strategists LLC are separate and unaffiliated companies. This article is provided for educational and informational purposes only. While Insight Financial Strategists LLC believes the sources to be reliable, it makes no representations or warranties as to this or other third party content it makes available on its website and/or newsletter,  nor does it explicitly or implicitly endorse or approve the information provided.  

3 Simple Ways to Avoid Ruining Your Retirement

By Eric Weigel | Investment Planning , Retirement Planning , Sustainable Investing

 

What’s your “Probability of Ruin”?

Many people considering retirement or in the early phases of this new stage in life worry about outliving their assets.  

These individuals no longer have the luxury of a steady paycheck, and unless they are one of the lucky ones with a defined benefit plan and/or a large portfolio of liquid investments, they will have to dip into their 401k’s and savings to fund their lifestyle.

Somebody in the de-accumulation phase will naturally worry about how long their money will last and whether they can maintain their lifestyles.

People are living longer these days and it is not unheard of for a newly minted retiree to live another 30 years.  

Let’s look at the data. According to the Social Security Actuarial Life Table (2014) estimates, life expectancy for a 65 male is 17.81 years and for a female 20.36 years.  Somebody in above average health may live even longer – these are just median numbers. If you want to conduct your own calculations, you can refer to How Long Will You Live?

David Blanchett of Morningstar uses the 2012 Society of Actuaries annuity table to estimate the likelihood of living to a certain age using the methodology outlined in his 2013 FPA journal article. This cohort of individuals comes from a higher than average socio-economic group and tends to live longer than average.

Table 1 highlights the calculations from the perspective of a 65-year-old. There is a 50% chance that a male lives to age 89 with a female living to age 91.

Table 1

 

Source: David Blanchett, Morningstar

The point of these projections is that most people should plan for a long period in retirement. The good news is that we are living longer today but the bad news is that we need to make our retirement savings last longer if we are to maintain a certain lifestyle.

Some people retire with very healthy nest eggs that, barring a cataclysmic event, will provide plenty of cash to fund their lifestyles.  They need not worry much as long as assets vastly outstrip expenses.  They have a high margin of safety.

For most retirees, however, the margin of safety provided by their financial assets in relation to their expenses is slimmer.  They do need to worry about how much they are spending, how their investments are performing and how long they may need their portfolio assets to last.  They may have other sources of income such as Social Security but still need to make their investment portfolios work hard to bridge the gap between lifestyle expenses and sources of income.

Most people in retirement face a balancing act

They can control their expenses to some extent (putting off non-essential expenses).  They can plan and make sure that their investment portfolios are structured in accordance with their appetite and need for risk-taking (maybe requiring the help of a financial professional). But what they can’t control are capital market returns and how long they need to tap into their retirement accounts (how long they will live).

One way to identify the various trade-offs required to ensure the sustainability of an investment portfolio is to come up with a CHRIS, a Comprehensive Holistic Retirement Investment Strategy with the help of a financial professional.  A good plan should clearly outline what actions you need to take and what type of minimum portfolio return you will need to achieve to ensure that the probability of running out of money before you or your partner/spouse die is within your comfort zone.

Another alternative is to forego a formal financial plan and utilize some sort of rule of thumb such as William Bengen’s 4% rule. According to this highly popular rule published in 1994, you can safely withdraw 4% of your capital every year in retirement.  The research contains a number of key assumptions (such as a 50/50 stock/bond allocation) often ignored in the popular press, but the Bengen rule is not only well known but popular among many retirees.

Should one just jump ahead in and rely on the Bengen 4% rule? Our view is that before you do so, you really should understand the probability of running out of money.

Milevsky and Robinson provide a simple approach in their highly touted article “A Sustainable Spending Rate without Simulation” to calculating what they call the “probability of ruin.”

Milevsky and Robinson identify three important factors: your rate of consumption, the risk/reward structure of your portfolio, and how long you live. Visually, these concepts can be illustrated in a Retirement Finances Triangle as depicted in Figure 1.

Without going into the mathematics of the Milevsky and Robinson approach for calculating a “probability of ruin” lets us think a bit more deeply about what makes retirement planning complicated in the first place.

 Figure 1

The first aspect that makes retirement planning difficult is the uncertainty surrounding how long you and your spouse/partner are going to live. People are living longer, on average, than in previous generations. But an average does not necessarily help you.  Your physical and mental health could be dramatically different from the “average” individual.

The other variable that is highly uncertain and makes retirement planning more difficult relates to the variability of investment outcomes on your retirement portfolio.  While history is a guide as to what to reasonably expect in terms of key asset class returns and risks over the long-term, in any given year returns could fall within a wide range.

As most people already know, stock returns exhibit more variability in outcomes than bonds.  The “probability of ruin” calculation using the Milevsky and Robinson formula incorporates the ability of individuals to evaluate the implications of various forms of asset allocation with varying levels of expected risk and return.

As you have probably figured out by now, calculating the “probability of ruin” is extremely important in planning your retirement.

The Setting:

To make the situation more realistic let’s look through the eyes of George and Mandy, both aged 65 and about to retire from their corporate jobs.  They have saved diligently over the years and now have a portfolio worth $1,000,000 that they will tap to fund their lifestyle in retirement.

The Problem:

George and Mandy estimate that they will need $90,000 a year to maintain their lifestyle.  Their Certified Financial Planner has also told them that their Social Security income will be $50,000 a year.  They face an annual gap of $40,000. They expect to tap into their retirement portfolio to fund this gap.

They are in reasonably good health and based on discussions with their financial planner they assume that they will live to age 90. To be safe, they assume a retirement horizon of 30 years.

Their starting portfolio value is $1,000,000 and they wish to withdraw $40,000 a year to fund their living expenses.

Capital Market Assumptions:

We assume that inflation will run 3% per year, on average.  Currently, inflation is running a bit lower than 3% in the US but the historical average is only slightly north of 3%.

What sort of investment risk and return assumptions should people use to calculate the probability of running out of money under this scenario?

Past returns are often a poor guide in forecasting returns and George and Mandy decide as a starting point to use the current Insight Financial Strategists long-term capital market assumed risk and return numbers as outlined in Table 2. These numbers are derived from expected long-term growth, profitability and starting valuation relationships.  They should be viewed as purely hypothetical and subject to great variation.

For illustrative purposes only, Insight Financial Strategists has aggregated all the asset class risk and return numbers into six multi-asset class strategy portfolios according to investment risk – Conservative, Moderate Conservative, Moderate, Moderate Aggressive, Aggressive and the industry convention of a 60/40 balanced strategy.

Table 2

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

Let’s start out gently – the Case of No Uncertainty:

It always helps to start off with a hypothetical scenario where all decision elements are known with certainty up front. We assume that George and Mandy own a 60/40 portfolio returning 4.9% per year and an annual inflation rate of 3%.

If they were to withdraw the equivalent of $40,000 a year in inflation-adjusted terms what would the required distribution look like over their retirement years?

Figure 1

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

The red line in Figure 1 depicts what would happen to their expenses in retirement if inflation were to rise every year by 3%.

What started off as a withdrawal of $40,000 turns into a much larger number over time. For example, after ten years they would need to withdraw $52,000 each year to fund their lifestyle (assuming that their Social Security checks are adjusted annually for inflation as is the current practice).

After 20 years they would need to withdraw $70,000 from their portfolio each year and after 30 years (their last year in their calculations) the number would increase to $94,000 annually. Inflation can sure take a bite!

In terms of George and Mandy’s portfolio, the assumption is that it will yield 4.9% per year or in inflation-adjusted terms, 1.9% per year. After withdrawals are taken out of the portfolio by George and Mandy to fund their lifestyle net of portfolio returns (the assumed 4.9% nominal return per year) the assumed value of the portfolio is depicted in Figure 2.

 Figure 2

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

At the end of the 30th year, the portfolio is expected to be worth $277K.  As long as George and Mandy only live 30 years in retirement and the assumed inflation and portfolio returns prove spot on (accurate) then things should be ok.  They will glide through retirement and even have some assets left over.

The problem occurs if either George and/or Mandy live past age 95. According to the actuarial data in Table 1, there is a 25% chance that George will live to age 99 and Mandy will live to age 101.

Now what? Their current $1,000,000 portfolio is now insufficient to fund their retirement expenses past the age of 97.  They will run out of money and not be able to rely on portfolio income anymore.

What could they do to prevent such an unpleasant outcome?

For starters, they could spend less. For example, they could cut back their annual spending to $30,000.

They could also shoot for higher portfolio returns by taking on a bit more investment risk.  George and Mandy understand that higher portfolio returns are not generated out of thin air.  Higher prospective returns are tied to higher risks.

But does the real world work like this?

Is it just a matter of pulling some levers here and there and voila you have wished for the perfect outcome?

Unfortunately, referring to the Retirement Finances Triangle depicted in Figure 1 although there are some things that George and Mandy can control such as their expenses but when it comes to how long they will live and how their portfolio will actually perform over their retirement years there are lots of unknowns.

Let’s deal with the real world – Introducing Uncertainty:

What if George and/or Mandy live longer than the assumed 30-year lifespan? This is what professionals refer to as longevity risk.  Living a high quality, long life is a very noble and common goal. Outliving your assets is a real fear.

What if portfolio returns do not measure up to our assumed returns? This is referred to as investment risk. What happens if investment returns are significantly below expectations and portfolio income proves insufficient to maintain your desired lifestyle?  Most retirees seek some margin of safety in their investments for this exact reason.

The Milevsky and Robinson formula is designed to take these uncertainties into account by modeling the likely distribution of portfolio returns and longevity.  The end output is a probability of running out of money at some point in time over the retirement horizon.  They refer to this number as the “probability of ruin”.

Let’s start by looking at the implications of the various portfolios strategies presented in Table 1. The Conservative strategy is the least risky approach but also has the lowest prospective returns. This strategy is exclusively composed of bonds.

The Aggressive strategy is exclusively composed of equities and is expected to have the highest returns as well as the highest risk of all of our strategies.

The 60/40 strategy falls along the middle in terms of prospective portfolio returns and risk.

What do the different risk and return profiles of the strategies imply in terms of the probability of ruin of George and Mandy’s portfolio?

Figure 3 depicts graphically the output from the Milevsky and Robinson formula.

Figure 3

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

What immediately jumps out from the bar charts is that the probability of ruin for the various portfolios is quite high. No longer assuming that everything is perfect creates, not surprisingly, more difficult likely outcomes.

For example, if George and Mandy were to employ the Conservative strategy yielding an assumed 2.3% annual return there is an 80% probability of them running out of money at some point in retirement.  Being conservative has its drawbacks!

What if they had the internal fortitude to employ the all-equity Aggressive strategy yielding a prospective return of 6.8% with a volatility of 17%? Their probability of ruin would drop to 37%.

Even if they employed the conventional 60/40 strategy, their probability of ruin would still exceed 45%.

What if the probability of running out of money is too high? 

Well, for starters they could reduce their rate of consumption, i.e. spend less. Maybe not what they wanted to hear but possible.

Let’s assume that instead of taking out $40,000 a year from their investment accounts they withdraw only $30,000? Let’s also assume that they invest in the traditional 60/40 portfolio. The only thing that has changed from the previous scenario is that now George and Mandy are spending only 3% of their initial portfolio to fund their lifestyle.

By spending less and thus depleting their investment assets at a slower rate, they lower their probability of running out of money at some point over their remaining lives to 30%. George and Mandy start thinking that maybe searching for a more inexpensive vacation option makes sense and allow them to worry less about outliving their assets.

 Figure 4

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

 

What else can they do to shift the odds in their favor?

Besides spending less, another option is to work a bit longer and postpone their retirement date. Let’s say they both work five years longer than originally planned.   What would happen assuming that they still intend to withdraw $40,000 in portfolio income and they invest in the 60/40 strategy?

Figure 5

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

By delaying retirement for five years George and Mandy lower the probability of running out of money to below 38%. Not bad but maybe not quite to their satisfaction.

Could George and Mandy restructure their investment portfolio to improve their odds?

Yes, that is certainly a feasible approach as we already outlined in Figure 3.  Higher return strategies carry higher risk but when held over the long-term tend to lower the probability of running out of money.

But not everybody is equally comfortable taking investment risk even if it is likely to result in higher ending portfolio values over the long-term.

Is there another approach to design a more suitable retirement portfolio?

While risk and return are inextricably intertwined, recent financial research has identified the “low volatility” anomaly where lower volatility stocks outperform their higher volatility cohorts on a risk-adjusted basis.  See this note for an introduction to the low volatility anomaly.

Let’s say that instead of assuming a 10.4% volatility for the 60/40 portfolio we are able to utilize a mixture of similar investment vehicles designed to exhibit lower levels of volatility but equivalent returns. Say the volatility of this strategy is now 8.4% and uses a range of lower volatility fixed income and equity approaches plus possibly an allocation to a guaranteed annuity.

Figure 6 illustrates the implications of using the lower volatility investment strategy.  The probability of ruin goes down marginally to below 42%.  Good but not great in the eyes of George and Mandy.

Figure 6

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

What else can George and Mandy do? 

After all, they have evaluated the impact of lowering their expenses, deferring their retirement date and structuring a more suitable investment portfolio and they still are uncomfortable with a probability of ruin in the 30% range.

The short answer as in many areas of life is to do a bunch of small things.  They could elect to just lower their spending from 4% to 3% and the probability of running out of money would drop to about 30%.

But George and Mandy realize that they could do even better by doing all three things:

• Spending less
• Working a bit longer
• Structuring a more suitable investment portfolio

Figure 7 highlights the various alternative courses of action that they could take to increase the odds of not running out of money in retirement.

Figure 7

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

There are no guarantees in life, but spending less, delaying retirement and designing a more suitable portfolio lowers the probability of running out of money to about 20%.

While we all strive for control, George and Mandy are comfortable with this approach and the sacrifices required. To them leading a fulfilling life in retirement is more than just about money and sacrificing a bit in order to gain peace of mind is a worthwhile trade-off.

_________________________________________________________________________

What does calculating the probability of running out of money in retirement teach us?

Is the trade-off that George and Mandy are making appropriate for you? Maybe, but maybe not. At the very least, understanding your own circumstances and your own probability of running out of money may lead to vastly different choices.

Your retirement could extend for 30+ years. Having enough resources to fund your retirement is important to maintain your lifestyle and achieve peace of mind.

While much of life is beyond our control, everybody can still exert some influence over their retirement planning.  In this article we highlighted three general strategies:

• Adjusting your spending
• Delaying when you tap your retirement resources
• Designing an investment portfolio that suitably balances risk and reward

As people enter retirement, they can’t eliminate either longevity or investment risk. What they can do is manage the risks and remain open to adapting their plan should things change.

At Insight Financial Strategists we don’t believe in shortcuts. A CHRIS, a Comprehensive Holistic Retirement Income Strategy, gives you the best chance of full understanding your circumstances and what needs to happen to fund your lifestyle in retirement.

Barring a full financial plan, at a minimum people should evaluate the likelihood of running out of money. Applying the Milevsky and Robinson formula represents a starting point for an in-depth conversation about your needs, goals and especially your attitude toward risk and capacity to absorb losses.

Interested in having the professionals at Insight Financial Strategists guide you? Please request a complimentary strategy session here.

______________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer:

Information presented herein is for discussion and illustrative purposes only and is not a recommendation or an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Views expressed are as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions. References to specific investment themes are for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as recommendations or investment advice. Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s own goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk. Material presented is believed to be from reliable sources and no representations are made by our firm as to another parties’ informational accuracy or completeness. All information or ideas provided should be discussed in detail with an advisor, accountant or legal counsel prior to implementation.

This piece may contain assumptions that are “forward-looking statements,” which are based on certain assumptions of future events. Actual events are difficult to predict and may differ from those assumed. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will materialize or that actual returns or results will not be materially different from those described here.

Stock and bond markets are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. Investing involves risk, including the risk of loss.

 

Is Your Caution Today Hurting Your Tomorrow?

By Eric Weigel | Financial Planning , Investment Planning , Retirement Planning , Sustainable Investing

How our brain works:

We all think that we are fully rational all the time but in reality the way our brains operate that is not always the case.

One of the key functions of the brain is self-defense. When the brain perceives danger it makes automatic adjustments to protect itself.  When it perceives discomfort it seeks to engage in an action that removes the stress.

In his book “Thinking Fast and Slow” Nobel Prize Winner Daniel Kahneman explains how we all have a two way system of thinking that we use to make decisions.  He labels the two components as System 1 (Thinking Fast) and System 2 (Thinking Slow).

System 1 is automatic, fast responding and emotional. System 2 is slower, reflective and analytical.

Think of your System 1 as your gut reaction and your System 2 as your conscious, logical thought.

While we all like to think that our key life decisions are governed by our logical thought (System 2) research has shown that even major decisions are often driven by our gut feel.

Which System do we use to make a decision? That depends on the problem. If we have seen the problem many times before such as what to do when see a red light we default to our automatic System 1 thinking.

When we face a challenge or issue that we have not seen before or maybe infrequently we tend to use System 2, our more reflective and analytical capabilities.

Kahneman’s research shows that we spend most of our time in System 1. While most people think of themselves as being rational and deliberate in their decision making, the reality is that we often employ “short-cuts” or heuristics to make decisions.

Most of the time, these “short-cuts” work just fine but occasionally for more difficult or complex problems the impressions arrived from System 1 thinking can lead us astray.

Why? Above all else, System 1 thinking seeks to create quick and coherent stories based on first impressions.  These impressions are a function of what our brain is sensing at that moment in time.

According to Kahneman, conclusions are easily reached despite often contradictory information as System 1 has little knowledge of logic and statistics. He calls this phenomenon – WYSIATI – for “what you see is all there is”.

The main implication from WYSIATI is that people often over-emphasize evidence that they are familiar with and ignore evidence that may be much more relevant to the problem at hand but that they are not fully aware of.

System 1 conclusions therefore may be biased and lead to decision “short-cuts” or heuristics that seriously impair the quality of a decision.

What makes making “money” decisions so hard?

When it comes to investing people often rely too much on System 1 or automatic thinking. The research shows that we are not infallible and we in fact often make behavioral mistakes. Sometimes we over-rely on our gut feel without properly evaluating the consequences of our actions.

Often our brain perceives of the dangers first and sends us a warning signal to be careful.  Losing money puts us on red alert.

Behavioral finance research (for example in the book Nudge) has shown that losing money makes you twice as miserable as gaining the same amount makes you happy. People are loss averse.

Loss aversion makes people overvalue what they have due to a reluctance to incur any losses should they make a change. What they give up, sometimes unknowingly, is potential upside.

Loss aversion creates inertia. Inertia often works against investors that overvalue the attractiveness of their current holdings.

There are different degrees of loss aversion.  According to Prospect Theory, all investors value gains less than losses but some exhibit an extreme dislike for potential losses that significantly hinders their long-term wealth creation potential.

Nobody likes to lose money, but taking on risk in order to compound your hard earned savings is an integral feature of how capital markets work.  You don’t get a higher reward unless you take additional risk.

Most investors know that stocks do better than bonds over the long-term but that the price of these higher returns is more risk.  Investors also understand that bonds do better most of the time than simply purchasing a CD at the local bank or investing in a money market mutual fund.

But knowledge stored in your logical and analytical System 2 thinking does not always make it through in the face of stress or uncertainty.

People can become too risk averse for a couple of reasons:

• Case A: They let their fears and emotions guide their investment decision making and give disproportionate importance to avoiding any losses
• Case B: They fail to calibrate their expectations to the likely frequency of outcomes.

In Case A, investors seek the perceived safety of bonds often not realizing that as interest rates go up bonds can lose money.  Or they simply pile into CD’s not realizing that their returns most often fail to keep up with inflation. Stocks are frowned upon because you can lose money.

Investors in Case A let their decisions be driven by emotion and fear and will over-value the importance of safety and under-value the importance of future portfolio growth.  Their account balances will not go down much when capital markets experience distress, but neither will they go up much during equity bull markets.

In Case B investors mis-calibrate their expectations for various investment outcomes and the consequences can be as dire as in the first situation.  Behavioral finance research has shown that investors frequently over-estimate the likelihood and magnitude of extreme events such as stock market corrections.

Investors often become fixated on what could happen should an equity market correction occur, but they fail to properly evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of such a correction in relation to historical precedents.  They also importantly fail to properly calibrate the probability of observing a recovery after going through such a correction.

What are the implications for investors playing it too safe?

Let’s consider the case of investors currently working and saving a portion of their income to fund a long-term goal such as retirement. These individuals are in the accumulation phase of their financial lives.

Somebody in the accumulation phase will naturally worry more about how fast they can grow their portfolio over time and whether they will reach their “number”.  People in the accumulation phase care primarily about their balances going up year after year. They are in “growth” mode.

The Hypothetical Setting:

To better illustrate this situation let’s look through the eyes of a recent college grad called Pablo earning $40,000 a year. Pablo is aware of the need to save part of his salary and invest for the long-term.  He just turned 22 and expects to work for 40 years.

Pablo will also be receiving annual 2.5% merit salary increases which will allow him to save a greater amount each year in the future.

The Problem:

Pablo faces two key decisions – what percentage of his salary to save each year and the aggressiveness of his portfolio which in turn will determine its most likely return.

He is conflicted. He has never made this much money before and worries about losing money. He also understands that he alone is responsible for his long-term financial success.

Pablo knows that there is a trade off between risk and return but he wants to make a smart decision. His System 1 thinking is saying play it safe and don’t expose yourself to potential loses.

At the same time his rational and informed System 2 thinking is influenced by a couple of finance and economics classes he recently took while in college.

Pablo can succumb to automatic System 1 thinking and invest in a very conservative portfolio. Or he can rely on his System 2 thinking and invest in a higher risk and commensurately higher return portfolio.

One Alternative – Save 10% of his Income and play it safe investing

For simplicity sake assume that Pablo decides to put 10% of his salary into an investment fund. The fund consists primarily of high grade bonds such as those contained in the AGG exchange traded fund.

From the knowledge gained in his econ and finance classes Pablo estimates that this portfolio should return about 4% per year – a bit below the historical norm for bonds but consistent with market interest rates as of August 2018.

Pablo also understands that such a portfolio will have a bit of variability from year to year. He estimates that the volatility of this portfolio is likely to be about 6% per year. Again, this estimate is in line with current bond market behavior as of August of 2018.

He knows that this is a low risk, low return portfolio but the chances of this portfolio suffering a catastrophic loss are negligible. He is petrified of losing money so this portfolio might fit the bill.

How large could his portfolio be expected grow to over 40 years of saving and investing in this conservative manner?  We built a spreadsheet to figure this out. We assumed a 4% portfolio return on principal, 2.5% annual salary increases and a half year of investment returns on annual contributions also at 4%.  Remember that this is a hypothetical example with no guarantee of returns.

At the end of 40 years Pablo’s salary is assumed to have grown to $107,403 and his portfolio, invested in this conservative manner, would have a balance of $575,540.  The growth of this portfolio (identified as 10_4) is shown in Figure 1. The naming convention for the portfolios corresponds to the savings rate followed by the assumed hypothetical rate of return on the strategy.

Figure 1

Source: Insight Financial Strategists, Hypothetical Example

Pablo knows that his portfolio will not exactly return 4% every year. Some years will be better, other years much worse but over the next 40 years the returns are likely to average close to 4%.

But Pablo does not feel comfortable just dealing in averages.  If things go bad, how bad could it be?

Given the volatility of this conservative portfolio there is a 10% chance of losing 3.6% in any given year. These numbers are calculated by Insight Financial Strategists based on an approximation of a log-normal simulation and are available upon request. Not catastrophic but nobody likes losing money.

Figure 2 shows the 90^th and 10^th probability bands for this conservative portfolio. These bands are estimated based on the expected average return of the portfolio and its volatility.

The actual portfolio return would be expected to lie about 2/3 of the time within these bands. In the short-term, say 1 to 2 years out, the portfolio returns are more unpredictable.  Over longer horizons, the average return to this conservative portfolio should fall within much tighter bands given the assumed risk and return numbers in the log-normal simulation.

Based on the calculations, the average returns over ten years should range between 6.3% and 1.4% per annum. Clearly, even this conservative portfolio has some risk especially in the short-term, but over longer holding periods returns should smooth out.

Figure 2

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

Another Alternative – Save 20% of his Income and continue investing in a conservative portfolio

Assuming the same 2.5% annual salary increases, the final salary would have been the same but his nest egg would have grown to $1,151,080. Pablo keeps looking at Figure 1 (the 20_4 line representing a 20% savings rate invested at an assumed 4%) and starts thinking that maybe a bit of extra saving would be a very good thing.

He still has a 10% probability of being down 3.6% in any given year, but if his budget allows, he feels that he can forego some frills until later.

Now, Pablo is starting to get excited and wonders what would happen if he invested more aggressively, say in a variety of equity funds?

Yet Another Alternative – Keep saving the same amount but invest more aggressively

The likely returns would go up but so would his risk. He estimates that based on current market conditions and the history of stock market returns (obtained from Professor Damodaran of NYU) that this more aggressive portfolio should have about an 8% annual rate of return with a volatility of around 14% per year. These estimates are both a bit lower than the 1926-2017 average reflecting higher current (as of August 2018) valuations and lower levels of overall market volatility.

He is thinking that maybe by taking more risk in his portfolio during his working years he will be able to build a nest egg that may even allow him for some luxuries down the road.

He also knows that things do not always work out every year as expected. Pablo is pretty confident that 8% is a reasonable expectation averaged over many years, but how bad could it be in any given year?

A log-normal simulation was conducted using the assumed risk and return numbers – same approach as before.

Figure 3 shows the 90^th and 10^th percentile bands for this portfolio.

Figure 3

Source: Insight Financial Strategists

Given the volatility of this equity-oriented portfolio, there is a 10% chance of losing 9.2% in any given year (based on the simulations). Ouch, the reality of equity investing is starting to sink in for Pablo.

But Pablo is also encouraged to see that his returns in any given year are equally likely to be about 26% or higher. That would be nice!

Especially when it comes to equities there is a wide range of potential returns but over time these year by year fluctuations should average out to a much narrower range of outcomes. While our best estimate is that this portfolio will return on average 8% per year over a ten-year window the range of expected outcomes should be between a high of 12.9% and a low of 1.6%.

Pablo decides to research the history of stock, bond, and cash returns by reading our April Blog on Understanding Asset Class Risk and Return and looking at a chart of long-term returns from Morningstar (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Source: Morningstar

He is surprised to find that over the long-term equities do not seem as risky as he previously thought. He is also quite surprised by the wide gap in wealth created by stocks versus bonds and cash.

The research makes Pablo re-calibrate his expectations and he starts wondering whether the short-term discomfort of owning equities is worth it in the long run.

____________________________________________________________________

The “Aha!” Moment:

Pablo’s System 1 thinking is on high alert and his first thought after seeing how much he could lose investing in equities is to run back to the safety of the bond portfolio.

But something tells him to slow down a bit and think harder. This is a big decision for him and his System 2 thinking is kicking in. Before he throws the towel in on the equity-oriented portfolio he glances again at Figure 1 to see what might happen if he invests more aggressively.

What he sees astounds him. It is one thing to see compounding in capital market charts and yet another to see it in action on your behalf. Small differences over the short term amount to very large numbers over long periods of time.

If Pablo were to invest in the more aggressive portfolio there would be more hiccups over the years but his ending account balance should be $1,440,075 if he consistently put aside 10% of his salary every year.

If he saved 20% the ending portfolio balance would double in size.

Decision Time – Picking among the alternatives

Pablo is now faced with a tough decision.  Does he play it safe and go with the conservative portfolio? Or, does he go for more risk hoping to end up with a much larger nest egg but knowing that the ride may be rough at times?

Beyond the numbers, he realizes that he needs to look within to make the best possible decision.  His System 1 thinking is telling him to flee, but his System 2 thinking is asking him to think more logically about his choices.  He also needs to deal with how much he is planning to save from his salary.

Fear versus Greed:

He needs to come to terms with how much risk he is willing to take and whether he can stomach the dips in account balance when investing in riskier assets.  As Mike Tyson used to say, “Everybody has a plan until they get hit in the face”.

In structuring his investment portfolio Pablo needs to balance fear with greed.  Paying attention to risk is absolutely necessary but always in moderation and in the context of historical precedents.  If Pablo lets his fears run amuck he may have to accept much lower returns.

With the benefit of hindsight, he may come to regret his caution. On the other hand, the blind pursuit of greed and a disregard for risk may also in hindsight come back to bite him.  Pablo needs to find that happy medium but only he can decide what is right for him. Risk questionnaires can help in this regard. Try ours if you like!

Consumption Today versus Tomorrow:

Pablo also needs to come to grips with how much current consumption he is willing to forego in order to save and invest.  We live in an impulse oriented society. Spending is easy, saving is hard.

Saving is hard especially when you are starting out.  On the other hand, over time the saving habit becomes an ingrained behavior.  The saving habit goes a long way toward ensuring financial health and the sooner people start the better.

Will Pablo be able to save 10% of his salary? Or, even better will he be able to squeeze out some additional expenditures and raise his saving to 20%?

If possible Pablo should consider putting as much money in tax-deferred investment vehicles such as a 401(k). He should also have these contributions and any other savings automatically deducted from his paycheck. That way he won’t get used to spending that money. Pablo may come to see these deductions from his paycheck as a “bonus” funding future consumption.

“The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one”

— ELBERT HUBBARD

___________________________________________

Lessons Learned:

This has been an eye-opening experience for our hypothetical friend Pablo.  He was not expecting such a difference in potential performance.  He now realizes the importance of maximizing saving for tomorrow as well as not succumbing to fear when investing for the long-term.

He has learned several invaluable lessons that also apply to individuals in the accumulation phase of their financial lives

Lesson 1: The Importance of Saving

• Delaying consumption today allows you fund your lifestyle in the future
• Saving even small amounts makes a big difference over the long-term

Lesson 2: The value of patience and a long-term perspective

• In the early years you may not notice much of a difference in portfolio values
• Keep saving and investing – disregard short-term market noise and stick to a plan

Lesson 3: Small differences in returns can amount to huge differences in portfolio values

• Seemingly tiny differences in returns can result in large differences in portfolio values
• Compounding is magic – take advantage of it when you can

Lesson 4: The importance of dealing with your fear of losing money

• Letting your first instinct to avoid risky investments dictate what you own will work against you
• Investing involves risk – best to manage rather than avoid risk
• The pain and agony of losing money in any given year is alleviated over the long term by the higher returns typically accruing to higher risk investments

Lesson 5: Investing in your financial education pays off

• Gaining a proper understanding of capital market relationships is an invaluable skill to possess
• Leaning on financial experts to expedite your learning is no different than when athletes hire a coach

____________________________________________________________________

Now what should you do?

Avoid all risks, save a lot and watch your investment account grow slowly but smoothly? Or, take some risk and grow your portfolio more rapidly but with some hiccups?

Are a couple of restless night’s worth the higher potential returns in your portfolio? On

Also, are you willing to delay some current consumption in order to invest for the future?

The answer depends on you – your needs, goals and especially your attitude toward risk and your capacity to absorb losses.

Interested in having the professionals at IFS identify your risk tolerance, time horizon, and financial needs? Please schedule a complimentary consultation here.

____________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer:

Much of the data used in these illustrations comes courtesy of Professor Aswath Domodaran from NYU and covers US annual asset returns from 1928 to 2017. Information presented herein is for discussion and illustrative purposes only and is not a recommendation or an offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities. Views expressed are as of the date indicated, based on the information available at that time, and may change based on market and other conditions. References to specific investment themes are for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as recommendations or investment advice. Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s own goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk.

This piece may contain assumptions that are “forward-looking statements,” which are based on certain assumptions of future events. Actual events are difficult to predict and may differ from those assumed. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will materialize or that actual returns or results will not be materially different from those described here.

Stock and bond markets are volatile and can decline significantly in response to adverse issuer, political, regulatory, market, or economic developments. Investing involves risk, including risk of loss.