Rich people: fortunate, lucky, selfish, and arrogant? Or highly educated, caring, brilliant individuals? Becoming rich isn't hard, but it does require a bit of time and knowledge. Having time to get rich, educating oneself, and buying assets are the three key factors in attaining untold wealth.
Rich people usually either have or make time to get rich. Most people that now own huge mansions, have wonderful riches, and drive the nicest cars usually begin taking the road to riches in their spare time. One plan, the most common, is to work at a low-risk, steady job until one has enough money to invest in something that will feed one for the rest of their life. But before one can invest in anything, one first has to educate oneself.
Although the best way to educate oneself in a particular investment is to have a mentor, and thereby gaining valuable hands-on experience, another excellent way to do this is to listen to tapes and CDs and to read books on the subject. I have done both, mainly pertaining to real estate, but also I have read a wonderful book about making money on the Internet, called Multiple Streams of Internet Income, by Robert Allen.
Lastly, after creating time to get rich, and educating oneself, one simply MUST buy assets that will create money for one, and not liabilities and toys such as a new car every other year, and boats. These come only after one can prove that he is capable of handling and keeping money. Simply put, according to multi-millionaire Robert Kiyosaki: "Assets will feed you, and liabilities will eat you." An example of an asset is a rent-house, or stocks and bonds in a certain company. Only, that is, if the company is good and the stocks are ultimately going up in value.
In conclusion, we see that the three most important ways the rich keep getting richer are: having or making time, subject education, and buying assets. These are the key factors influencing wealth. I personally plan on educating myself in real estate, as it seems the simplest and safest way of getting rich.**
**Note: If you'd like to use this article, feel free to do so, but please remember to include this message, and my resource box in every copy. Thank you!
Aaron Kater has been writing articles for quite a while, and has his own weekly newsletter, Katerzine! If you'd like to subscribe, please visit his website at www.aaronkater.4t.com, or send him an email at aaron_kater@yahoo.com
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
How to Analyze the Veracity of Investment Newsletters
When trying to analyze whether a promotional ad for an investment newsletter or a market timing investment trading system is worthy of investigation, the following questions should be asked:
Does the strategy have a track record? Without this you are really allowing your emotions to be in play. All of us want to believe that if someone says something it must be true. Yet the sad fact is the truth is probably just the opposite. Most ads and promotions are put in print for self interests first, and all else second. One has to view anything on the web with a skeptical eye. The minimum that an investment strategy should give you is a previous track record. The longer the track record is the better. Something that has worked for a matter of months is usually not long enough in the trading world to be considered successful. Some promoters do not release their track records because they say that "past performance is not an indication of future results". This is true but certainly no performance is not an indication of future results either. Some promoters do not release their track records because they say "we used to do a track record but subscribers got upset if the strategy lost money when they subscribed even though it made money over a yearly period." That may also be true but it is also part of the game. Subscribers can not expect to make money from day one when trading a long term strategy. However, that should be self evident in the track record. And some promoters do not release their track records simply because they don't have one or they have a bad one. It's as simple as that no matter what they say.
Is the track record that they are promoting in real time or was it simulated in a computer based on past data? What does this really mean? Real time means that the trading signals that were used to produce the track record results were actually generated at that specific moment in time. In reality. Most track records on the investment web sites are not real time even when they say they are. Even if they did not use a computer and it was done by hand, if the data taken from the last five years but the web site is only a year old then it can't be so. Why is this so important? Because trading is not trading if human emotions are removed. No greed, no complacency, no panic, no hysteria. Almost all computer-generated trading programs fail miserably when actually implemented because either the data was too short a time period or the human factor was ignored. That is assuming the human that input the data did it without human emotion. I once had an acquaintance who told me he had a system that returned 80% per month for the last 6 months. He said he implemented it 6 months in real time. I asked how much he had invested in this strategy. He said nothing because he was paper trading. I said that there is no such thing. He proceeded to tell me what paper trading was. I replied that I knew what he thought paper trading was but it is not trading because when you paper trade your emotions are not in play. Human greed and ego has a way of making you believe something to be real without looking objectively at the data. But once actual real money is at risk the complexion of the situation dramatically changes.
How can you tell if the track is in real time if they lie about it being in real ti�e? This is not always easy but there are some basic tell tale signs. If it is a short term system that risks very little and trades often, say 10-50 times per month. Yet it has an 80-90% trade success ratio, which is almost impossible statistically. Most day traders and position traders are doing well if they are winning 40-50% of the time. If they risk more and do not use tight stops, then the win loss ratio goes up but the size of the drawdowns or the size of the largest loss has to go up. Longer term trader may have a slightly better win loss ratio but only if their risk is also larger. To make a general statement, the larger the win loss ratio is the more I would be skeptical.
What if the track record is a combination of partly historically back tested signals and partly real time signals. How should I analyze that? The first thing to look at is if the win loss ratio has changed dramatically over the track record time period. For example, if it is a 5 year time period, and the promoter claims that the trade signals went live 2 years ago yet the win loss ratio changed dramatically only 6 months ago, beware. The hardest thing to detect on the web is when you're being conned about a hypothetical track record because there is no real way to tell when a web sites track record was edited deleted or revised. Some web sites use an independent tracking site but there are no real ways for a consumer to know other than that.
I hope that the previous ideas will help to determine fact from fiction in the world of investment newsletter promotions.
John McKeon
Rye,NH
Does the strategy have a track record? Without this you are really allowing your emotions to be in play. All of us want to believe that if someone says something it must be true. Yet the sad fact is the truth is probably just the opposite. Most ads and promotions are put in print for self interests first, and all else second. One has to view anything on the web with a skeptical eye. The minimum that an investment strategy should give you is a previous track record. The longer the track record is the better. Something that has worked for a matter of months is usually not long enough in the trading world to be considered successful. Some promoters do not release their track records because they say that "past performance is not an indication of future results". This is true but certainly no performance is not an indication of future results either. Some promoters do not release their track records because they say "we used to do a track record but subscribers got upset if the strategy lost money when they subscribed even though it made money over a yearly period." That may also be true but it is also part of the game. Subscribers can not expect to make money from day one when trading a long term strategy. However, that should be self evident in the track record. And some promoters do not release their track records simply because they don't have one or they have a bad one. It's as simple as that no matter what they say.
Is the track record that they are promoting in real time or was it simulated in a computer based on past data? What does this really mean? Real time means that the trading signals that were used to produce the track record results were actually generated at that specific moment in time. In reality. Most track records on the investment web sites are not real time even when they say they are. Even if they did not use a computer and it was done by hand, if the data taken from the last five years but the web site is only a year old then it can't be so. Why is this so important? Because trading is not trading if human emotions are removed. No greed, no complacency, no panic, no hysteria. Almost all computer-generated trading programs fail miserably when actually implemented because either the data was too short a time period or the human factor was ignored. That is assuming the human that input the data did it without human emotion. I once had an acquaintance who told me he had a system that returned 80% per month for the last 6 months. He said he implemented it 6 months in real time. I asked how much he had invested in this strategy. He said nothing because he was paper trading. I said that there is no such thing. He proceeded to tell me what paper trading was. I replied that I knew what he thought paper trading was but it is not trading because when you paper trade your emotions are not in play. Human greed and ego has a way of making you believe something to be real without looking objectively at the data. But once actual real money is at risk the complexion of the situation dramatically changes.
How can you tell if the track is in real time if they lie about it being in real ti�e? This is not always easy but there are some basic tell tale signs. If it is a short term system that risks very little and trades often, say 10-50 times per month. Yet it has an 80-90% trade success ratio, which is almost impossible statistically. Most day traders and position traders are doing well if they are winning 40-50% of the time. If they risk more and do not use tight stops, then the win loss ratio goes up but the size of the drawdowns or the size of the largest loss has to go up. Longer term trader may have a slightly better win loss ratio but only if their risk is also larger. To make a general statement, the larger the win loss ratio is the more I would be skeptical.
What if the track record is a combination of partly historically back tested signals and partly real time signals. How should I analyze that? The first thing to look at is if the win loss ratio has changed dramatically over the track record time period. For example, if it is a 5 year time period, and the promoter claims that the trade signals went live 2 years ago yet the win loss ratio changed dramatically only 6 months ago, beware. The hardest thing to detect on the web is when you're being conned about a hypothetical track record because there is no real way to tell when a web sites track record was edited deleted or revised. Some web sites use an independent tracking site but there are no real ways for a consumer to know other than that.
I hope that the previous ideas will help to determine fact from fiction in the world of investment newsletter promotions.
John McKeon
Rye,NH
Economic Survival in the 21st Century - the Three Key Questions to Ask
In this "special report", I want to pose a few important "philosophical questions" to my readers. Firstly -- our Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, addressed the effects and implications of our aging population on things such as Social Security again in a speech that he made last Friday. Readers may remember that I also briefly mentioned this issue in my June 24th commentary. I urge you to keep this worldwide phenomenon of the aging population firmly on the back of your minds. If you are like most people, then you earn you living by producing a certain thing - such as a consumer good, or a service that the masses want. Let's face it - how many people really "struck it rich" by being pure traders or investment managers? The stock market and other financial markets are definitely very important to us investors/traders but this "super secular trend" of the aging of the worldwide population will impact every aspect of our lives, whether it is losing our relative competitiveness on the world arena, increasing pension and healthcare costs, or even a potential fundamental change of our political system.
The second question that I want my readers to think about is the potential end to the era of cheap energy prices - an era which we have basically enjoyed for the last two decades without thinking of the long-term repercussions. The United States, with less than five percent of the world's population, currently consume approximately 25% of the world's energy each year. Supply is maturing while demand continues to surge - as exemplified by the surging in demand from China and India. In the meantime, spare energy-producing capacity and inventory levels have been at all-time lows - potential for a perfect storm?
Finally, I want to ask my readers the following question: What kind of investor are you? What investing style do you adopt and what investing style are you most comfortable with? Can you be a contrarian and buy when the crowd is selling or are you merely a follower who is only comfortable if you fit in? These are straightforward questions - but these are questions that you really need to ask yourselves in order to truly make money in investing over the long run. If my readers take the time out to thinking about these three questions or issues - and ultimately have a firm grasp of even just one of the issues - then you will be in a much better economic situation than most Americans five to ten years from now.
To begin, what are the potential implications of the "aging population" phenomenon? Readers my recall that in my June 24th commentary, I stated: "Assuming that the current level of benefits remain into the future and assuming the level of taxes is not raised, then public benefits to retirees would dramatically increase going forward. On the extreme end, Japan and Spain will see a more than 100% increase in their outlays to retirees. Clearly, this is not sustainable. Either things such as defense or education spending will need to be cut, or the above countries will need to raise their taxes. Neither of the two scenarios is optimal. Borrowing more of their funds is not a long-term solution. Cutting funding in defense and education will comprise a country's future, and raising ta�es will place a huge social and financial burden on the population of the developed world - where taxes are already at a historically high level. Think about this: If you were a bright, young, French industrialist and you were forced to pay 60% of your income as taxes to support the elderly, what would you do? Why, you would vote with your feet and relocate to another country that is more tax-friendly and business-friendly - and so will other great talent that may have been a great contribution to the French economy. The governments of the developed world recognize this - but there are no easy solutions.
"This picture gets grimmer when one takes note of a study that was done by the Bank Credit Analyst. In that study, the BCA predicts that by the year 2050, the percentage share of the developed countries of the global population will drop from over 30% in 1950 to less than 14% -- or about equal to the population of the Islamic nations of the world. Similarly, Yemen will be more populous than Germany in 2050; while Iraq will be 30% more populous than Italy (Iraq is less than 40% the size of Italy today). Russia's population is projected to continue to decrease - at a rate such that the population of Iran will be even higher to that of Russia's in 2050. India will be the most populous nation in the world, and Pakistan will only lag the U.S. by approximately 50 million people. If the developed countries of today do not choose to work harder or become more efficient, then they will ultimately lose their comparative advantage, as the younger population of the world is inherently more hard-working, energetic, innovative, and creative. In today's globalized world, this will be a killer for the average worker in the developed countries - the more so once the language barrier is eliminated (the successful commercialization of universal language translators is projected to happen in ten to fifteen years). I am generally more optimistic, as the elimination of the language barrier will greatly enhance business opportunities and efficiencies, but a person such as the average American worker will loss his or her comparative advantage in the global workforce. The availability of a huge supply of labor should also drive down wages in the global marketplace - and most probably increase the maldistribution of wealth in today's developed countries."
Like I have mentioned before, there are no easy solutions. If the average American sees an increase of 10 years in his or her life expectancy, can he or she reasonably or logically retire at the current normal retirement age of 65 (which was determined during the Roosevelt administration during the 1930s) without placing an undue burden on the system? The answer is most probably "no." Applying the same working-years-to-retirement-years ratio to his or her new life expectancy, then the average American should probably work around five to six years more - thus giving a revised normal retirement age of 70 or so. Moreover, all this analysis is based on the outdated population distribution in the form of a pyramid - where the younger and more able workers represent a majority of the population (and where the elderly represents only a small minority of the general population). The pyramid distribution has historically facilitated government support of the elderly - as the monetary and social burdens have been shouldered by a relatively large younger population. The current experience of Europe and Japan suggests a more uniform distribution in the population of those countries going forward - as the birthrate in those countries are now dismally below the replacement rate of the population. The situation in the United States is not currently as drastic (given our relatively lax immigration policy) but we are heading towards the same direction. Thus to maintain the current standard of living at retirement, my guess is that the general population will not only have to work longer, but work longer hours in the present (and save more) as well.
The situation is more alarming when one considers that the combined population of China and India makes up over 1/3 of the world's population. The number of unemployed workers in China is greater than the entire labor force of the United States. The competition for relatively unskilled jobs will continue, and it promises to accelerate going forward. The average American who does not stay ahead of the curve or does not keep pace of the trend will find his or her job being outsourced - not to mention the average wage being driven down by global competition. I, for one, believe that this continuing trend of globalization will make the world a better place, as hundreds of thousands of people will finally be empowered as they climb out of absolute poverty (again, over half of the world's population currently live on less than two dollars a day) - and as the prices of consumer goods are driven down still further. The average American will probably disagree, but the trend of globalization and "offshoring" will not stop. The last time the United States adopted economic and military isolationism we had a Great Depression and subsequently, World War II. I sincerely do not think that this was a coincidence.
The trend of the general aging population and globalization will have a profound impact on all Americans. Ultimately, I think all Americans will benefit - although it may not be clear to people who are losing their jobs today. For the initiated and nimble, you will not only survive but thrive in these "interesting new times." Imagine a market for your product that is over ten times the size of the population in the United States. China and India has historically disappointed - as the citizens of those countries have historically been too poor to consume much U.S. goods and services. Globalization and offshoring will change all these. A world more equalized economically will also mean a much more secure and less conflictive world.
Now, I want to address a similar concern of all Americans - as the era of cheap energy (basically the cheap energy prices as experienced by Americans for the last twenty years) comes to a close. While I think oil prices will decline in the short-term (i.e. for the next few months), I am longer-term bullish on both oil and natural gas prices (I will only discuss oil in this commentary). Consider the following:
The world supply of oil is flattening out. Readers may not know this, but the United States today still produce enough oil to satisfy approximately 40% of total domestic demand. The United States also had 22.7 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2004, eleventh highest in the world. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States produced around 7.9 million barrels per day during 2003. This is down sharply from the 10.6 million barrels averaged in 1985. The peak of domestic oil supply occurred sometime during the 1970s. Today, total domestic production is at 50-year lows - and still falling.
While Saudi Arabia (the world's top exporter and contains 25% of the world's reported reserves) has claimed that there are and will be no supply problems for the next few decades, they have not been transparent with their reserves data. According to Simmons & Company International, five to seven key fields in Saudi Arabia produce 90% to 95% of its total oil output - all but two fields are extremely old - with the last major find reported in 1968. The last publicized reserves data was in 1975 - when Saudi Aramco was still managed by Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and Texaco. In that report, the world's best experts determined that all the key fields at that time contained 108 billion barrels of oil in recoverable reserves. If this holds true, then the peak of supply in Saudi Arabia will come soon. Moreover, if the report is correct, then there is really no "plan B" (unlike during the 1970s when the center of power shifted from the Texas Railroad Commission to OPEC due to the peaking of supply in the United States) - crude oil prices will soar.
The "last frontier" for the production of oil (namely the North Sea, Siberia, and Alaska) is now aging. Most companies are now struggling in order to even maintain their current production levels.
World oil demand continues to grow. Oil demand in the early 1990s stayed relatively flat (at around 66 to 68 million barrels per day) but over the next ten years to today, world oil demand increased 14 million barrels per day. Today, total world oil demand is greater than 82 million barrels per day. The energy "experts" who in the early 1990s predicted a flattening of oil demand growth and who wrote off demand growth in developing countries were dead wrong.
No new refineries have been built in the United States for the past two decades, even as refineries have been closing every year during that same time period. Refining capacity from 1981 to the mid 1990s also dropped drastically (this author estimates a drop of approximately 6 million barrels per day in refining capacity during that time period). Since 1994, however, an expansion in refining capacity at existing refineries has contributed to an increase in refining capacity from 15.0 million barrels per day to 16.7 million barrels per day (as of today). Despite this expansion, however, domestic refining capacity is still stretched to the limit, as utilization at U.S. refineries is now averaging nearly 90% -- leaving no cushion room if something unforeseen happens.
There are currently three factors at work which should contribute to a continued increase in the world oil price - the maturing of supply, growing demand, and the lack of a cushion in refining capacity and low inventories. The "culprit" has usually been labeled as China, but it is interesting to note that the United States has had virtually no domestic energy policy (in terms of conservation and encouraging the development of alternative fuels) for the last twenty-something years. China demand, however, has soared over the last few years. It is now the second biggest oil consumer, having just surpassed Japan for the title. Demand for oil in China has more than doubled over the last 10 years (to today's 6 million barrels per day), and this amazing increase is projected to continue, especially given the fact that oil demand in China is still a lowly 2 barrels per person per year (compared to 25 barrels per person here in the United States). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the number of cars in China only totaled 700,000 as late as 1993 and 1.8 million as late as 2001. Today, the number of cars in China totaled more than 7 million - and this number could potentially have been much higher if not for the Chinese government intervention in limiting the number of cars that could be sold and driven each year. Now the most scary part: Current oil demand in India is only 0.7 barrels per person per year - given this fact, oil demand in India could potentially explode over the next decade - barring a huge worldwide economic recession or depression.
I believe my readers should be made aware of the current energy supply/demand situation. Given the above, what is the best course of action for the average American? How about the best course of action if you were the head of a motor company like GM or an airline pilot employed by a legacy airline like Delta? How about the best course of action for a mutual fund manager or a commodity fund manager? Since there are no easy solutions, there should be no easy answers either. In the short-run (three to five years), Americans will have to pay up if we want to drive gas-guzzling SUVs, and legacy airlines like Delta will have to continue to cut costs by probably further slashing labor costs as their first priority. A further improvement in extraction technology should help, but the serious development of alternative fuels will have to start now. I also believe that the next serious decline will be induced by a combination of an "oil shock" and a rise in interest rates. Readers may recall the relative strength chart that I developed in my August 15th commentary showing the AMEX Oil Index vs. the S&P 500 and the huge potential inverse heads and shoulders pattern in that chart. For now, the relative strength line should bounce around the neckline (the line drawn on that chart) - possibly even for a few years - but once the relative strength line convincingly breaks above the neckline, crude oil prices could rise to $80 or even $100 a barrel. I sure hope that my readers would not be taken by surprise if gas prices at the pump soars to $4.00 a gallon five to six years from now.
Finally, I want to pose to my readers the following question: Have you taken the time out to learn more about your psychological makeup and how it has affected your investment or trading decisions? What type of person are you when it comes to the market? Are you a so-called buy-and-holder, a swing trader, or a day trader? An independent thinker, a contrarian, a momentum investor or merely a follower? I am asking you these questions because of my following considerations:
This author believes that we are currently in a secular bear market in domestic common stocks. While I believe that this current rally still have more room to go, I believe that a cyclical bear market will emerge in due time - this upcoming cyclical bear market may even take us back or below the lows that we hit during October 2002. If this is true, then a buy-and-hold portfolio would definitely not work - unless you were in natural resources or precious metals mining stocks.
When this cyclical bull market tops out, all your friends, relatives, and the popular media will be telling you to buy more or to hold your common stocks. The bears and all bearish thoughts will be ostracized and frowned upon. This has happened in every bull market in everything in all human history. If you are in cash now, would you be able to remain in cash when the top finally comes or will you be unable to resist and buy in because you are afraid of "the train leaving the station without you," so to speak?
Most people are inherently not good day traders or even swing traders. To be good in even the latter, you need a huge amount of dedication and discipline.
Investing or trading has always been dominated by emotions and always will be. My thinking in starting www.marketthoughts.com has always been that that if I can get my readers to buy in now, it will be a much easier decision for them to sell and hold cash once the DJIA reaches 11,000 or 12,000 or so - as opposed to being in cash and staying out for the rest of this secular bear market. 99% of Americans are just not disciplined or dedicated enough to stay in cash during a secular bear market - not to mention staying in cash during the entirety of a secular bear market and buying and holding common stocks during the entirety of a subsequent secular bull market. The average human psyche is just not capable of doing this. Because of this, I sincerely believe that success in the stock market (for most people) during the next five to ten years would involve catching the swings at the right or near-right times. For readers who just cannot resist, I am also going to continue to recommend some common stocks at opportune times, but in no way should my readers take my recommendations as gospel and in no way should my readers put all their eggs in one basket. If you are a person who can stay in cash for the next ten years and wait until the Dow Industrials has a P/E below 10 and a dividend yield of over 5%, then more power to you - you are either already rich who have no need to make money in the market anyway or you are a very disciplined and independent-thinking person. Most Americans just cannot do that - but I am here to help.
Henry To, CFA is the managing member of Independence Partners, LP, a SEC registered hedge fund.
He is also editor of the investment website, www.marketthoughts.com.
The second question that I want my readers to think about is the potential end to the era of cheap energy prices - an era which we have basically enjoyed for the last two decades without thinking of the long-term repercussions. The United States, with less than five percent of the world's population, currently consume approximately 25% of the world's energy each year. Supply is maturing while demand continues to surge - as exemplified by the surging in demand from China and India. In the meantime, spare energy-producing capacity and inventory levels have been at all-time lows - potential for a perfect storm?
Finally, I want to ask my readers the following question: What kind of investor are you? What investing style do you adopt and what investing style are you most comfortable with? Can you be a contrarian and buy when the crowd is selling or are you merely a follower who is only comfortable if you fit in? These are straightforward questions - but these are questions that you really need to ask yourselves in order to truly make money in investing over the long run. If my readers take the time out to thinking about these three questions or issues - and ultimately have a firm grasp of even just one of the issues - then you will be in a much better economic situation than most Americans five to ten years from now.
To begin, what are the potential implications of the "aging population" phenomenon? Readers my recall that in my June 24th commentary, I stated: "Assuming that the current level of benefits remain into the future and assuming the level of taxes is not raised, then public benefits to retirees would dramatically increase going forward. On the extreme end, Japan and Spain will see a more than 100% increase in their outlays to retirees. Clearly, this is not sustainable. Either things such as defense or education spending will need to be cut, or the above countries will need to raise their taxes. Neither of the two scenarios is optimal. Borrowing more of their funds is not a long-term solution. Cutting funding in defense and education will comprise a country's future, and raising ta�es will place a huge social and financial burden on the population of the developed world - where taxes are already at a historically high level. Think about this: If you were a bright, young, French industrialist and you were forced to pay 60% of your income as taxes to support the elderly, what would you do? Why, you would vote with your feet and relocate to another country that is more tax-friendly and business-friendly - and so will other great talent that may have been a great contribution to the French economy. The governments of the developed world recognize this - but there are no easy solutions.
"This picture gets grimmer when one takes note of a study that was done by the Bank Credit Analyst. In that study, the BCA predicts that by the year 2050, the percentage share of the developed countries of the global population will drop from over 30% in 1950 to less than 14% -- or about equal to the population of the Islamic nations of the world. Similarly, Yemen will be more populous than Germany in 2050; while Iraq will be 30% more populous than Italy (Iraq is less than 40% the size of Italy today). Russia's population is projected to continue to decrease - at a rate such that the population of Iran will be even higher to that of Russia's in 2050. India will be the most populous nation in the world, and Pakistan will only lag the U.S. by approximately 50 million people. If the developed countries of today do not choose to work harder or become more efficient, then they will ultimately lose their comparative advantage, as the younger population of the world is inherently more hard-working, energetic, innovative, and creative. In today's globalized world, this will be a killer for the average worker in the developed countries - the more so once the language barrier is eliminated (the successful commercialization of universal language translators is projected to happen in ten to fifteen years). I am generally more optimistic, as the elimination of the language barrier will greatly enhance business opportunities and efficiencies, but a person such as the average American worker will loss his or her comparative advantage in the global workforce. The availability of a huge supply of labor should also drive down wages in the global marketplace - and most probably increase the maldistribution of wealth in today's developed countries."
Like I have mentioned before, there are no easy solutions. If the average American sees an increase of 10 years in his or her life expectancy, can he or she reasonably or logically retire at the current normal retirement age of 65 (which was determined during the Roosevelt administration during the 1930s) without placing an undue burden on the system? The answer is most probably "no." Applying the same working-years-to-retirement-years ratio to his or her new life expectancy, then the average American should probably work around five to six years more - thus giving a revised normal retirement age of 70 or so. Moreover, all this analysis is based on the outdated population distribution in the form of a pyramid - where the younger and more able workers represent a majority of the population (and where the elderly represents only a small minority of the general population). The pyramid distribution has historically facilitated government support of the elderly - as the monetary and social burdens have been shouldered by a relatively large younger population. The current experience of Europe and Japan suggests a more uniform distribution in the population of those countries going forward - as the birthrate in those countries are now dismally below the replacement rate of the population. The situation in the United States is not currently as drastic (given our relatively lax immigration policy) but we are heading towards the same direction. Thus to maintain the current standard of living at retirement, my guess is that the general population will not only have to work longer, but work longer hours in the present (and save more) as well.
The situation is more alarming when one considers that the combined population of China and India makes up over 1/3 of the world's population. The number of unemployed workers in China is greater than the entire labor force of the United States. The competition for relatively unskilled jobs will continue, and it promises to accelerate going forward. The average American who does not stay ahead of the curve or does not keep pace of the trend will find his or her job being outsourced - not to mention the average wage being driven down by global competition. I, for one, believe that this continuing trend of globalization will make the world a better place, as hundreds of thousands of people will finally be empowered as they climb out of absolute poverty (again, over half of the world's population currently live on less than two dollars a day) - and as the prices of consumer goods are driven down still further. The average American will probably disagree, but the trend of globalization and "offshoring" will not stop. The last time the United States adopted economic and military isolationism we had a Great Depression and subsequently, World War II. I sincerely do not think that this was a coincidence.
The trend of the general aging population and globalization will have a profound impact on all Americans. Ultimately, I think all Americans will benefit - although it may not be clear to people who are losing their jobs today. For the initiated and nimble, you will not only survive but thrive in these "interesting new times." Imagine a market for your product that is over ten times the size of the population in the United States. China and India has historically disappointed - as the citizens of those countries have historically been too poor to consume much U.S. goods and services. Globalization and offshoring will change all these. A world more equalized economically will also mean a much more secure and less conflictive world.
Now, I want to address a similar concern of all Americans - as the era of cheap energy (basically the cheap energy prices as experienced by Americans for the last twenty years) comes to a close. While I think oil prices will decline in the short-term (i.e. for the next few months), I am longer-term bullish on both oil and natural gas prices (I will only discuss oil in this commentary). Consider the following:
The world supply of oil is flattening out. Readers may not know this, but the United States today still produce enough oil to satisfy approximately 40% of total domestic demand. The United States also had 22.7 billion barrels of proved oil reserves as of January 1, 2004, eleventh highest in the world. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States produced around 7.9 million barrels per day during 2003. This is down sharply from the 10.6 million barrels averaged in 1985. The peak of domestic oil supply occurred sometime during the 1970s. Today, total domestic production is at 50-year lows - and still falling.
While Saudi Arabia (the world's top exporter and contains 25% of the world's reported reserves) has claimed that there are and will be no supply problems for the next few decades, they have not been transparent with their reserves data. According to Simmons & Company International, five to seven key fields in Saudi Arabia produce 90% to 95% of its total oil output - all but two fields are extremely old - with the last major find reported in 1968. The last publicized reserves data was in 1975 - when Saudi Aramco was still managed by Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and Texaco. In that report, the world's best experts determined that all the key fields at that time contained 108 billion barrels of oil in recoverable reserves. If this holds true, then the peak of supply in Saudi Arabia will come soon. Moreover, if the report is correct, then there is really no "plan B" (unlike during the 1970s when the center of power shifted from the Texas Railroad Commission to OPEC due to the peaking of supply in the United States) - crude oil prices will soar.
The "last frontier" for the production of oil (namely the North Sea, Siberia, and Alaska) is now aging. Most companies are now struggling in order to even maintain their current production levels.
World oil demand continues to grow. Oil demand in the early 1990s stayed relatively flat (at around 66 to 68 million barrels per day) but over the next ten years to today, world oil demand increased 14 million barrels per day. Today, total world oil demand is greater than 82 million barrels per day. The energy "experts" who in the early 1990s predicted a flattening of oil demand growth and who wrote off demand growth in developing countries were dead wrong.
No new refineries have been built in the United States for the past two decades, even as refineries have been closing every year during that same time period. Refining capacity from 1981 to the mid 1990s also dropped drastically (this author estimates a drop of approximately 6 million barrels per day in refining capacity during that time period). Since 1994, however, an expansion in refining capacity at existing refineries has contributed to an increase in refining capacity from 15.0 million barrels per day to 16.7 million barrels per day (as of today). Despite this expansion, however, domestic refining capacity is still stretched to the limit, as utilization at U.S. refineries is now averaging nearly 90% -- leaving no cushion room if something unforeseen happens.
There are currently three factors at work which should contribute to a continued increase in the world oil price - the maturing of supply, growing demand, and the lack of a cushion in refining capacity and low inventories. The "culprit" has usually been labeled as China, but it is interesting to note that the United States has had virtually no domestic energy policy (in terms of conservation and encouraging the development of alternative fuels) for the last twenty-something years. China demand, however, has soared over the last few years. It is now the second biggest oil consumer, having just surpassed Japan for the title. Demand for oil in China has more than doubled over the last 10 years (to today's 6 million barrels per day), and this amazing increase is projected to continue, especially given the fact that oil demand in China is still a lowly 2 barrels per person per year (compared to 25 barrels per person here in the United States). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the number of cars in China only totaled 700,000 as late as 1993 and 1.8 million as late as 2001. Today, the number of cars in China totaled more than 7 million - and this number could potentially have been much higher if not for the Chinese government intervention in limiting the number of cars that could be sold and driven each year. Now the most scary part: Current oil demand in India is only 0.7 barrels per person per year - given this fact, oil demand in India could potentially explode over the next decade - barring a huge worldwide economic recession or depression.
I believe my readers should be made aware of the current energy supply/demand situation. Given the above, what is the best course of action for the average American? How about the best course of action if you were the head of a motor company like GM or an airline pilot employed by a legacy airline like Delta? How about the best course of action for a mutual fund manager or a commodity fund manager? Since there are no easy solutions, there should be no easy answers either. In the short-run (three to five years), Americans will have to pay up if we want to drive gas-guzzling SUVs, and legacy airlines like Delta will have to continue to cut costs by probably further slashing labor costs as their first priority. A further improvement in extraction technology should help, but the serious development of alternative fuels will have to start now. I also believe that the next serious decline will be induced by a combination of an "oil shock" and a rise in interest rates. Readers may recall the relative strength chart that I developed in my August 15th commentary showing the AMEX Oil Index vs. the S&P 500 and the huge potential inverse heads and shoulders pattern in that chart. For now, the relative strength line should bounce around the neckline (the line drawn on that chart) - possibly even for a few years - but once the relative strength line convincingly breaks above the neckline, crude oil prices could rise to $80 or even $100 a barrel. I sure hope that my readers would not be taken by surprise if gas prices at the pump soars to $4.00 a gallon five to six years from now.
Finally, I want to pose to my readers the following question: Have you taken the time out to learn more about your psychological makeup and how it has affected your investment or trading decisions? What type of person are you when it comes to the market? Are you a so-called buy-and-holder, a swing trader, or a day trader? An independent thinker, a contrarian, a momentum investor or merely a follower? I am asking you these questions because of my following considerations:
This author believes that we are currently in a secular bear market in domestic common stocks. While I believe that this current rally still have more room to go, I believe that a cyclical bear market will emerge in due time - this upcoming cyclical bear market may even take us back or below the lows that we hit during October 2002. If this is true, then a buy-and-hold portfolio would definitely not work - unless you were in natural resources or precious metals mining stocks.
When this cyclical bull market tops out, all your friends, relatives, and the popular media will be telling you to buy more or to hold your common stocks. The bears and all bearish thoughts will be ostracized and frowned upon. This has happened in every bull market in everything in all human history. If you are in cash now, would you be able to remain in cash when the top finally comes or will you be unable to resist and buy in because you are afraid of "the train leaving the station without you," so to speak?
Most people are inherently not good day traders or even swing traders. To be good in even the latter, you need a huge amount of dedication and discipline.
Investing or trading has always been dominated by emotions and always will be. My thinking in starting www.marketthoughts.com has always been that that if I can get my readers to buy in now, it will be a much easier decision for them to sell and hold cash once the DJIA reaches 11,000 or 12,000 or so - as opposed to being in cash and staying out for the rest of this secular bear market. 99% of Americans are just not disciplined or dedicated enough to stay in cash during a secular bear market - not to mention staying in cash during the entirety of a secular bear market and buying and holding common stocks during the entirety of a subsequent secular bull market. The average human psyche is just not capable of doing this. Because of this, I sincerely believe that success in the stock market (for most people) during the next five to ten years would involve catching the swings at the right or near-right times. For readers who just cannot resist, I am also going to continue to recommend some common stocks at opportune times, but in no way should my readers take my recommendations as gospel and in no way should my readers put all their eggs in one basket. If you are a person who can stay in cash for the next ten years and wait until the Dow Industrials has a P/E below 10 and a dividend yield of over 5%, then more power to you - you are either already rich who have no need to make money in the market anyway or you are a very disciplined and independent-thinking person. Most Americans just cannot do that - but I am here to help.
Henry To, CFA is the managing member of Independence Partners, LP, a SEC registered hedge fund.
He is also editor of the investment website, www.marketthoughts.com.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Value Investing
By definition, value investing is the process of selecting stocks that trade for less than their intrinsic value. A value investor typically selects stocks with lower than average price-to-book or price-to-earning ratios. Of course, it is not nearly this simple. Value investing is the corner stone of long-term growth. Those who practice it survive the ups and downs of the market and are more likely to emerge wealthy than those who ride the market, in principle, due to the higher quality of the companies falling under the prerequisites of the value investor. Value investing is essentially concerned with getting the most profit at the lowest cost. The basis of value is profit. Value investing is an investment style which favors good stocks at great prices over great stocks at good prices. Value investor extraordinaire Warren Buffett has used this style to become a billionaire.
It's important to keep in mind that value investing is not concerned with how much the price of a stock has risen or fallen necessarily, but rather what is the "intrinsic" or inherent value of the stock, and is it currently trading below that price, i.e. at a discount to it's intrinsic value. The important point here is that when looking at stocks that are trading at or above their intrinsic value, the only hope for gaining value is based on future events, since the stock price already represents what the company is worth. However, when dealing with stocks that are undervalued, or available at a discount, unforeseen events are unimportant in that without any new earnings or additional profits, the shares are already "poised" to return to that inherent value which they have.
The question now, of course, is "why would stock prices not always reflect the true value of the company and the intrinsic value of its shares?" In short, value investors believe that share prices are frequently wrong as indicators of the underlying value of the company and its shares. The efficient market theory suggests that share prices always reflect all available information about a company, and value investors refute this with the idea that investment opportunities are created by disagreements between the actual stock prices, and the calculated intrinsic value of those stocks.
Finding Value Stocks
Value investing is based on the answers to two simple questions:
1. What is the actual value of this company?
2. Can its shares be purchased for less than the actual (intrinsic) value?
Clearly, the important point here is, "how is the intrinsic value accurately determined?" An important point is that companies may be undervalued and overvalued regardless of what the overall markets are doing. Every investor should be aware of and prepared for the inherent market volatility, and the simple fact that stock prices will fluctuate, sometimes quite significantly. Benjamin Graham has often said that if investors cannot be prepared to accept a 50% decline in value without becoming riddled with panic, then investing may not be for them...or rather, successful investing, as it often takes significant losses in a particular security before gains are made, due to the idea that value investors do not try to time the market, and are focused on the underlying fundamentals of the companies. Furthermore, the quality of the compan�es targeted by the value investors' screening methods should be, over the long term, less volatile and susceptible to market "panic" than the average stock.
This is also a two way road of sorts. On one hand, there is no sense in worrying about depressions, upturns, and recoveries due to the underlying quality of the value investments. On the other hand, investments should only be made in companies which can flourish and do well in any market environment. Doing solid investment research and making equally solid investment decisions will take investors much further than trying to forecast the markets.
How Many Different Stocks?
In terms of diversification, there are many discrepancies over exactly how many different stocks a solid portfolio should be made up of. My personal view is that there should not be as many stock as normally make up a mutual fund. Many will disagree with this, but what it's worth, I think that owning a portfolio of 100, 200, or even more companies not only serves to limit risk, but it really limits the possibility for reward as well. Also, as Warren Buffett has said many times, the more companies you own, the less you know about each one.
As I write this, there are 42 stocks in our recommended portfolio. This number may very well grow in the coming months, as it may decrease in number, but one thing to keep in mind is, out of the thousands of companies available for purchase, only a very small percentage meet the stringent requirements of the diligent value investor. This is both a blessing and a curse. Very often, there is simply nothing to buy, and this is fine. The trap to avoid falling into is to lower your requirements for a stock when there simply isn't anything meeting the normal requirements. This is how many an investor has fallen into making poor investment decisions, putting money into companies not really adequate for their respective portfolio, and it will certainly have a long term effect on gains.
David Pakman has been writing about politics and investing for years now, and runs the websites www.heartheissues.com and http://pakman.thevividedge.com
It's important to keep in mind that value investing is not concerned with how much the price of a stock has risen or fallen necessarily, but rather what is the "intrinsic" or inherent value of the stock, and is it currently trading below that price, i.e. at a discount to it's intrinsic value. The important point here is that when looking at stocks that are trading at or above their intrinsic value, the only hope for gaining value is based on future events, since the stock price already represents what the company is worth. However, when dealing with stocks that are undervalued, or available at a discount, unforeseen events are unimportant in that without any new earnings or additional profits, the shares are already "poised" to return to that inherent value which they have.
The question now, of course, is "why would stock prices not always reflect the true value of the company and the intrinsic value of its shares?" In short, value investors believe that share prices are frequently wrong as indicators of the underlying value of the company and its shares. The efficient market theory suggests that share prices always reflect all available information about a company, and value investors refute this with the idea that investment opportunities are created by disagreements between the actual stock prices, and the calculated intrinsic value of those stocks.
Finding Value Stocks
Value investing is based on the answers to two simple questions:
1. What is the actual value of this company?
2. Can its shares be purchased for less than the actual (intrinsic) value?
Clearly, the important point here is, "how is the intrinsic value accurately determined?" An important point is that companies may be undervalued and overvalued regardless of what the overall markets are doing. Every investor should be aware of and prepared for the inherent market volatility, and the simple fact that stock prices will fluctuate, sometimes quite significantly. Benjamin Graham has often said that if investors cannot be prepared to accept a 50% decline in value without becoming riddled with panic, then investing may not be for them...or rather, successful investing, as it often takes significant losses in a particular security before gains are made, due to the idea that value investors do not try to time the market, and are focused on the underlying fundamentals of the companies. Furthermore, the quality of the compan�es targeted by the value investors' screening methods should be, over the long term, less volatile and susceptible to market "panic" than the average stock.
This is also a two way road of sorts. On one hand, there is no sense in worrying about depressions, upturns, and recoveries due to the underlying quality of the value investments. On the other hand, investments should only be made in companies which can flourish and do well in any market environment. Doing solid investment research and making equally solid investment decisions will take investors much further than trying to forecast the markets.
How Many Different Stocks?
In terms of diversification, there are many discrepancies over exactly how many different stocks a solid portfolio should be made up of. My personal view is that there should not be as many stock as normally make up a mutual fund. Many will disagree with this, but what it's worth, I think that owning a portfolio of 100, 200, or even more companies not only serves to limit risk, but it really limits the possibility for reward as well. Also, as Warren Buffett has said many times, the more companies you own, the less you know about each one.
As I write this, there are 42 stocks in our recommended portfolio. This number may very well grow in the coming months, as it may decrease in number, but one thing to keep in mind is, out of the thousands of companies available for purchase, only a very small percentage meet the stringent requirements of the diligent value investor. This is both a blessing and a curse. Very often, there is simply nothing to buy, and this is fine. The trap to avoid falling into is to lower your requirements for a stock when there simply isn't anything meeting the normal requirements. This is how many an investor has fallen into making poor investment decisions, putting money into companies not really adequate for their respective portfolio, and it will certainly have a long term effect on gains.
David Pakman has been writing about politics and investing for years now, and runs the websites www.heartheissues.com and http://pakman.thevividedge.com
Friday, January 5, 2007
Investors: Avoid These 5 Common Tax Mistakes
For many investors, and even some tax professionals, sorting through the complex IRS rules on investment taxes can be a nightmare. Pitfalls abound, and the penalties for even simple mistakes can be severe. As April 15 rolls around, keep the following five common tax mistakes in mind - and help keep a little more money in your own pocket.
1. Failing To Offset Gains
Normally, when you sell an investment for a profit, you owe a tax on the gain. One way to lower that tax burden is to also sell some of your losing investments. You can then use those losses to offset your gains.
Say you own two stocks. You have a gain of $1,000 on the first stock, and a loss of $1,000 on the second. If you sell your winning stock, you will owe tax on the $1,000 gain. But if you sell both stocks, your $1,000 gain will be offset by your $1,000 loss. That's good news from a tax standpoint, since it means you don't have to pay any taxes on either position.
Sounds like a good plan, right? Well, it is, but be aware it can get a bit complicated. Under what is commonly called the "wash sale rule," if you repurchase the losing stock within 30 days of selling it, you can't deduct your loss. In fact, not only are you precluded from repurchasing the same stock, you are precluded from purchasing stock that is "substantially identical" to it - a vague phrase that is a constant source of confusion to investors and tax professionals alike. Finally, the IRS mandates that you must match long-term and short-term gains and losses against each other first.
2. Miscalculating The Basis Of Mutual Funds
Calculating gains or losses from the sale of an individual stock is fairly straightforward. Your basis is simply the price you paid for the shares (including commissions), and the gain or loss is the difference between your basis and the net proceeds from the sale. However, it gets much more complicated when dealing with mutual funds.
When calculating your basis after selling a mutual fund, it's easy to forget to factor in the dividends and capital gains distributions you reinvested in the fund. The IRS considers these distributions as taxable earnings in the year they are made. As a result, you have already paid taxes on them. By failing to add these distributions to your basis, you will end up reporting a larger gain than you received from the sale, and ultimately paying more in taxes than necessary.
There is no easy solution to this problem, other than keeping good records and being diligent in organizing your dividend and distribution information. The extra paperwork may be a headache, but it could mean extra cash in your wallet at tax time.
3. Failing To Use Tax-managed Funds
Most investors hold their mutual funds for the long term. That's why they're often surprised when they get hit with a tax bill for short term gains realized by their funds. These gains result from sales of stock held by a fund for less than a year, and are passed on to shareholders to report on their own returns -- even if they never sold their mutual fund shares.
Recently, more mutual funds have been focusing on effective tax-management. These funds try to not only buy shares in good companies, but also minimize the tax burden on shareholders by hol�ing those shares for extended periods of time. By investing in funds geared towards "tax-managed" returns, you can increase your net gains and save yourself some tax-related headaches. To be worthwhile, though, a tax-efficient fund must have both ingredients: good investment performance and low taxable distributions to shareholders.
4. Missing Deadlines
Keogh plans, traditional IRAs, and Roth IRAs are great ways to stretch your investing dollars and provide for your future retirement. Sadly, millions of investors let these gems slip through their fingers by failing to make contributions before the applicable IRS deadlines. For Keogh plans, the deadline is December 31. For traditional and Roth IRA's, you have until April 15 to make contributions. Mark these dates in your calendar and make those deposits on time.
5. Putting Investments In The Wrong Accounts
Most investors have two types of investment accounts: tax-advantaged, such as an IRA or 401(k), and traditional. What many people don't realize is that holding the right type of assets in each account can save them thousands of dollars each year in unnecessary taxes.
Generally, investments that produce lots of taxable income or short-term capital gains should be held in tax advantaged accounts, while investments that pay dividends or produce long-term capital gains should be held in traditional accounts. For example, let's say you own 200 shares of Duke Power, and intend to hold the shares for several years. This investment will generate a quarterly stream of dividend payments, which will be taxed at 15% or less, and a long-term capital gain or loss once it is finally sold, which will also be taxed at 15% or less. Consequently, since these shares already have a favorable tax treatment, there is no need to shelter them in a tax-advantaged account.
In contrast, most treasury and corporate bond funds produce a steady stream of interest income. Since, this income does not qualify for special tax treatment like dividends, you will have to pay taxes on it at your marginal rate. Unless you are in a very low tax bracket, holding these funds in a tax-advantaged account makes sense because it allows you to defer these tax payments far into the future, or possibly avoid them altogether.
David Twibell is President and Chief Investment Officer of Flagship Capital Management, LLC, an investment advisory firm in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Flagship provides portfolio management services to high-net-worth individuals, corporations, and non-profit entities. For more information, please visit www.flagship-capital.com.
1. Failing To Offset Gains
Normally, when you sell an investment for a profit, you owe a tax on the gain. One way to lower that tax burden is to also sell some of your losing investments. You can then use those losses to offset your gains.
Say you own two stocks. You have a gain of $1,000 on the first stock, and a loss of $1,000 on the second. If you sell your winning stock, you will owe tax on the $1,000 gain. But if you sell both stocks, your $1,000 gain will be offset by your $1,000 loss. That's good news from a tax standpoint, since it means you don't have to pay any taxes on either position.
Sounds like a good plan, right? Well, it is, but be aware it can get a bit complicated. Under what is commonly called the "wash sale rule," if you repurchase the losing stock within 30 days of selling it, you can't deduct your loss. In fact, not only are you precluded from repurchasing the same stock, you are precluded from purchasing stock that is "substantially identical" to it - a vague phrase that is a constant source of confusion to investors and tax professionals alike. Finally, the IRS mandates that you must match long-term and short-term gains and losses against each other first.
2. Miscalculating The Basis Of Mutual Funds
Calculating gains or losses from the sale of an individual stock is fairly straightforward. Your basis is simply the price you paid for the shares (including commissions), and the gain or loss is the difference between your basis and the net proceeds from the sale. However, it gets much more complicated when dealing with mutual funds.
When calculating your basis after selling a mutual fund, it's easy to forget to factor in the dividends and capital gains distributions you reinvested in the fund. The IRS considers these distributions as taxable earnings in the year they are made. As a result, you have already paid taxes on them. By failing to add these distributions to your basis, you will end up reporting a larger gain than you received from the sale, and ultimately paying more in taxes than necessary.
There is no easy solution to this problem, other than keeping good records and being diligent in organizing your dividend and distribution information. The extra paperwork may be a headache, but it could mean extra cash in your wallet at tax time.
3. Failing To Use Tax-managed Funds
Most investors hold their mutual funds for the long term. That's why they're often surprised when they get hit with a tax bill for short term gains realized by their funds. These gains result from sales of stock held by a fund for less than a year, and are passed on to shareholders to report on their own returns -- even if they never sold their mutual fund shares.
Recently, more mutual funds have been focusing on effective tax-management. These funds try to not only buy shares in good companies, but also minimize the tax burden on shareholders by hol�ing those shares for extended periods of time. By investing in funds geared towards "tax-managed" returns, you can increase your net gains and save yourself some tax-related headaches. To be worthwhile, though, a tax-efficient fund must have both ingredients: good investment performance and low taxable distributions to shareholders.
4. Missing Deadlines
Keogh plans, traditional IRAs, and Roth IRAs are great ways to stretch your investing dollars and provide for your future retirement. Sadly, millions of investors let these gems slip through their fingers by failing to make contributions before the applicable IRS deadlines. For Keogh plans, the deadline is December 31. For traditional and Roth IRA's, you have until April 15 to make contributions. Mark these dates in your calendar and make those deposits on time.
5. Putting Investments In The Wrong Accounts
Most investors have two types of investment accounts: tax-advantaged, such as an IRA or 401(k), and traditional. What many people don't realize is that holding the right type of assets in each account can save them thousands of dollars each year in unnecessary taxes.
Generally, investments that produce lots of taxable income or short-term capital gains should be held in tax advantaged accounts, while investments that pay dividends or produce long-term capital gains should be held in traditional accounts. For example, let's say you own 200 shares of Duke Power, and intend to hold the shares for several years. This investment will generate a quarterly stream of dividend payments, which will be taxed at 15% or less, and a long-term capital gain or loss once it is finally sold, which will also be taxed at 15% or less. Consequently, since these shares already have a favorable tax treatment, there is no need to shelter them in a tax-advantaged account.
In contrast, most treasury and corporate bond funds produce a steady stream of interest income. Since, this income does not qualify for special tax treatment like dividends, you will have to pay taxes on it at your marginal rate. Unless you are in a very low tax bracket, holding these funds in a tax-advantaged account makes sense because it allows you to defer these tax payments far into the future, or possibly avoid them altogether.
David Twibell is President and Chief Investment Officer of Flagship Capital Management, LLC, an investment advisory firm in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Flagship provides portfolio management services to high-net-worth individuals, corporations, and non-profit entities. For more information, please visit www.flagship-capital.com.
Wednesday, January 3, 2007
Investing in Gwinnett
Korean business owners find success, home in the county
Dennis Han is White House-bound.
He is one of the many Korean-Americans who received a special invitation to the Washington, D.C. this month to commemorate the Centennial of Korean Immigration - an invite that Han sees as an honor.
The invite could also be seen as a testament to his success in business and to the increasing importance of commerce among his new and native countries. Not to mention his county.
"We've been seeking opportunities with Korea to invest in Georgia," says Han, president of Han Capital Partners in Duluth. "We're promoting Gwinnett on behalf of everyone here. We actually spend more time explaining Atlanta (and Gwinnett, specifically) than we do our product. We're constantly telling the Korean government to rely on us and we'll make the connections and grow together. This is the land, the state, the county of opportunity."
"A lot of people are drawn to the mild weather in Georgia," says Andy Kim, CEO of The Corman Group consulting firm in Suwanee. "And compared to LA, New York and New Jersey, the living costs are very low."
Gwinnett business owners such as Han and Kim promote Atlanta and Gwinnett County to investors in Korea. Recent relaxing of foreign investing restrictions in the country has businesspeople eager to find the best new markets.
"Georgia will soon be the third-largest Korean population, after LA and New York," Han says. "It's around 140,000 now, and will reach more than 200,000 in the next two or three years."
Korean businesses also help the county economically.
"The Koreans bring buying power, create new businesses and create more income for the government," Han says. In working with local partners and manufacturers in Korea, Han believes Gwinnett can become the next urban lifestyle hotspot. Soon, Han Capital Partners will begin investing in and developing mixed-use communities in addition to upscale shopping centers. "I'm trying to make Gwinnett the next Buckhead," he says.
Han first moved to the U.S. as a teenager in 1986. He became enamored of Atlanta during a trip with friends in 1999.
"From the plane I looked down at the city, and I was pretty sure there was something I could do," Han says.
Other cities, Han said, were too crowded - "and what I wanted to do was already there." After settling in Atlanta, Han began what is now Han Capital Partners, a real estate investment company. Recently, Han moved his offices to a new complex in Duluth, seeing that commercial and residential growth in Gwinnett was on the rise.
"I also fell in love with the county," Han says. "The Gwinnett chamber is very friendly and understanding. I continue to look for opportunities to grow here."
That's music to the ears of the chamber, which is working to recruit more Korean businesses.
"Once business people understand what's here and how it benefits them, it's amazing how barriers just melt away," says Tom Fricano, vice president of member services for the Gwinnett chamber. "It has been interesting to watch those relationships develop."
Korean churches are also a source of strong community ties, with around 200 in metro Atlanta. "The church is very strong and is a central area for communities," Fricano says. "It's a place to worship, socialize, network and plan a strategy."
It's a strong sense of community, Han says, that will help Korean business owners thrive in Gwinnett.
"One goal is helping the community," he says. "We just have to work together more closely and understand each other better."
According to Tom Fricano, it's the partnership with the county and the Korean community that will help strengthen Gwinnett County.
"We believe we're a stronger community together than we could ever be apart," Fricano says.
by Jill Von Wedel
Dennis Han is White House-bound.
He is one of the many Korean-Americans who received a special invitation to the Washington, D.C. this month to commemorate the Centennial of Korean Immigration - an invite that Han sees as an honor.
The invite could also be seen as a testament to his success in business and to the increasing importance of commerce among his new and native countries. Not to mention his county.
"We've been seeking opportunities with Korea to invest in Georgia," says Han, president of Han Capital Partners in Duluth. "We're promoting Gwinnett on behalf of everyone here. We actually spend more time explaining Atlanta (and Gwinnett, specifically) than we do our product. We're constantly telling the Korean government to rely on us and we'll make the connections and grow together. This is the land, the state, the county of opportunity."
"A lot of people are drawn to the mild weather in Georgia," says Andy Kim, CEO of The Corman Group consulting firm in Suwanee. "And compared to LA, New York and New Jersey, the living costs are very low."
Gwinnett business owners such as Han and Kim promote Atlanta and Gwinnett County to investors in Korea. Recent relaxing of foreign investing restrictions in the country has businesspeople eager to find the best new markets.
"Georgia will soon be the third-largest Korean population, after LA and New York," Han says. "It's around 140,000 now, and will reach more than 200,000 in the next two or three years."
Korean businesses also help the county economically.
"The Koreans bring buying power, create new businesses and create more income for the government," Han says. In working with local partners and manufacturers in Korea, Han believes Gwinnett can become the next urban lifestyle hotspot. Soon, Han Capital Partners will begin investing in and developing mixed-use communities in addition to upscale shopping centers. "I'm trying to make Gwinnett the next Buckhead," he says.
Han first moved to the U.S. as a teenager in 1986. He became enamored of Atlanta during a trip with friends in 1999.
"From the plane I looked down at the city, and I was pretty sure there was something I could do," Han says.
Other cities, Han said, were too crowded - "and what I wanted to do was already there." After settling in Atlanta, Han began what is now Han Capital Partners, a real estate investment company. Recently, Han moved his offices to a new complex in Duluth, seeing that commercial and residential growth in Gwinnett was on the rise.
"I also fell in love with the county," Han says. "The Gwinnett chamber is very friendly and understanding. I continue to look for opportunities to grow here."
That's music to the ears of the chamber, which is working to recruit more Korean businesses.
"Once business people understand what's here and how it benefits them, it's amazing how barriers just melt away," says Tom Fricano, vice president of member services for the Gwinnett chamber. "It has been interesting to watch those relationships develop."
Korean churches are also a source of strong community ties, with around 200 in metro Atlanta. "The church is very strong and is a central area for communities," Fricano says. "It's a place to worship, socialize, network and plan a strategy."
It's a strong sense of community, Han says, that will help Korean business owners thrive in Gwinnett.
"One goal is helping the community," he says. "We just have to work together more closely and understand each other better."
According to Tom Fricano, it's the partnership with the county and the Korean community that will help strengthen Gwinnett County.
"We believe we're a stronger community together than we could ever be apart," Fricano says.
by Jill Von Wedel
How Investment Plans Work
More people are choosing investment plans than ever before. With the rising cost of living and the growing insecurity about the availability of many retirement funds, many individuals are looking to investment plans to begin a nest egg or to make some additional money via investment without having to spend a lot of time purchasing stocks and bonds.
Investment plans allow individuals to simply purchase a specific amount of stocks, bonds, or indices on a regular repeating basis, cutting out a large part of the hassle while allowing for some of the main advantages of investment.
If you've been considering an investment plan but aren't completely sure what they might entail, the following information might help you to decide whether or not an investment plan is the right investment option for you.
The Mechanics of an Investment Plan
Basically, an investment plan is a method of making multiple investments over time at regular set intervals. The funds for the investment are taken from a cheque, savings, or money market account automatically, and are used to purchase stocks or bonds that you have decided upon beforehand. In most cases you can change the amount, frequency, or purchased stocks or bonds of the automatic investments at any time, though depending upon the broker through whom you're doing the investments you may be subject to fees or penalties especially if changing details relatively close to the next investment date. Most online investment firms offer investment plans that you can change at any time free of charge.
Deciding How Much to Invest
When deciding how much to invest each cycle with an investment plan, you should take care not to overextend your funds and bring yourself up short. Make sure that the amount that you choose is available and that you'll have it to spare each time your investment comes up. it can be difficult to plan for events in the future, and just because you have a surplus now doesn't mean that you won't find money running tight a few investment cycles from now.
If you feel that you're reaching a point where you won't be able to afford your regular investment, go ahead and reduce the investment amount or put a hold on the next scheduled investment. better to put less in than short yourself afterwards.
Choosing What to Invest In
Making the decision of which stocks and bonds to invest in can take some time, but it's worth it. this is your money that you're dealing with, and you shouldn't invest it without putting some thought and research into your decisions. Find stocks or bonds that have performed well over time, and that are likely to continue doing so. they may be expensive at times, but you aren't making your total investment all at once so it doesn't matter as much.
Don't be afraid to add new stocks or bonds to your plan later, either. this can help to diversify your portfolio.
Deciding On an Investment Interval
You also need to decide how often you wish to make your investments. this will largely depend upon the cycle of your paycheques and your monthly bills and expenses. You may decide to invest once per month, after everything has been paid, or you might want to invest a little from every paycheque.
The more often you invest, the lower the amount of each investme�t can be. after all, two or four small investments per month might end up purchasing more than one larger one.
Decide on what works best for your lifestyle, and modify it as needed later if it doesn't seem to work out for you.
by: John Mussi
Investment plans allow individuals to simply purchase a specific amount of stocks, bonds, or indices on a regular repeating basis, cutting out a large part of the hassle while allowing for some of the main advantages of investment.
If you've been considering an investment plan but aren't completely sure what they might entail, the following information might help you to decide whether or not an investment plan is the right investment option for you.
The Mechanics of an Investment Plan
Basically, an investment plan is a method of making multiple investments over time at regular set intervals. The funds for the investment are taken from a cheque, savings, or money market account automatically, and are used to purchase stocks or bonds that you have decided upon beforehand. In most cases you can change the amount, frequency, or purchased stocks or bonds of the automatic investments at any time, though depending upon the broker through whom you're doing the investments you may be subject to fees or penalties especially if changing details relatively close to the next investment date. Most online investment firms offer investment plans that you can change at any time free of charge.
Deciding How Much to Invest
When deciding how much to invest each cycle with an investment plan, you should take care not to overextend your funds and bring yourself up short. Make sure that the amount that you choose is available and that you'll have it to spare each time your investment comes up. it can be difficult to plan for events in the future, and just because you have a surplus now doesn't mean that you won't find money running tight a few investment cycles from now.
If you feel that you're reaching a point where you won't be able to afford your regular investment, go ahead and reduce the investment amount or put a hold on the next scheduled investment. better to put less in than short yourself afterwards.
Choosing What to Invest In
Making the decision of which stocks and bonds to invest in can take some time, but it's worth it. this is your money that you're dealing with, and you shouldn't invest it without putting some thought and research into your decisions. Find stocks or bonds that have performed well over time, and that are likely to continue doing so. they may be expensive at times, but you aren't making your total investment all at once so it doesn't matter as much.
Don't be afraid to add new stocks or bonds to your plan later, either. this can help to diversify your portfolio.
Deciding On an Investment Interval
You also need to decide how often you wish to make your investments. this will largely depend upon the cycle of your paycheques and your monthly bills and expenses. You may decide to invest once per month, after everything has been paid, or you might want to invest a little from every paycheque.
The more often you invest, the lower the amount of each investme�t can be. after all, two or four small investments per month might end up purchasing more than one larger one.
Decide on what works best for your lifestyle, and modify it as needed later if it doesn't seem to work out for you.
by: John Mussi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
