A Math Free Guide to Higher and Safer Returns

By Andrey Dashkov

I can make you instantly richer, and safely, by explaining a finance concept with a story about a dog.

There’s a hole in your pocket you probably don’t know about. You may feel instinctively that something is wrong, but unless you look in the right place, you won’t find the problem. The money you’re losing doesn’t appear in the minus column on your account statements, but you’re losing it nevertheless.

Frustrated? Don’t be. I’m going to tell you where to look and how to stop the drainage.

Volatility is every investor’s worst enemy. Over time, it poisons your returns. Unlike a 2008 style market drop, though, volatility poisons them slowly. There’s no obvious ailment to discuss with friends or hear about on CNBC. You only see it when you compare how much you lost to how much you could have earned—and looking back at your own mistakes is not a pleasant thing to do.

Here's the Replay of Last Nights Free Webinar....."Options and Premium Decay"

So instead let’s imagine two fictional companies: X-Cite, Inc., an amusement park operator with a volatile stock price that adventurous investors love; and Glacial Corp., a dull, defensive sloth of a corporation whose stock returns are consistent but often lower than those of its more glamorous counterpart.

Average return on both companies’ stocks was 5% for the past five years, but Glacial’s was less volatile. Safety is comfortable, but doesn’t higher volatility mean higher potential returns? Sometimes, but not always. When you accept high volatility, your returns might be higher at times, but they also might be lower. In other words, higher volatility generally means greater risk.

Nothing new so far, but the oft-overlooked point is that boring stocks make you richer over time.
The chart below shows each stock’s annual return over a five year period.

At first glance, Glacial Corp. appears to be the loser. It underperformed X-Cite in four out of five years. Both stocks returned 5% on average during these years, and X-Cite was almost always voted the prettiest girl in town. But for Year 3, it would be easy to persuade investors to buy X-Cite stock. Few would give Glacial a second glance.

Hold for the punchline: X-Cite, the stock your broker would have a much easier time selling you (before you read this article), would actually make you poorer. Let me explain.

I won’t get into any supercharged math here. Glacial is better because it makes you richer eventually. After five years, the total return on X-Cite is 25%. Not bad. Glacial? 27%. If you invested $10,000 in both (assuming no brokerage fees or taxes), at the end of Year 5 you would have earned $2,507 on X-Cite or $2,701 on Glacial.

	Year-End Account Balance
	X-Cite, Inc.	Glacial Corp.
Year 1	$10,500	$10,300
Year 2	$11,550	$11,021
Year 3	$10,164	$10,801
Year 4	$10,875	$11,341
Year 5	$12,507	$12,701
Total return	25%	27%

Where does the extra $194 come from? It comes from lower volatility. Although X-Cite looks like a winner most of the time, it has a higher standard deviation of returns. Note that X-Cite’s stock price dropped 12% in Year 3. The following year it increased 7%, while Glacial Corp.’s stock price only increased 5%—yet Glacial is still worth more from Year 3 onward. Why? X-Cite’s 7% jump is based on the previous year’s low.

But I promised to keep this note math-free, so imagine a person walking a dog instead. The shorter the leash, the less space the dog has to run around. The longer the leash, the more erratic the dog’s path will be. Standard deviation measures how much data tend to scatter around its mean—the path. As we just saw, low standard deviation also pays you money.

I could stop right here and hope that you take this lesson to heart, but I won’t. As much as I love describing finance concepts using clever company names and dogs, I want you to start making money right now.

I said this advice could make you instantly richer, and “instantly” doesn’t mean “maybe sometime in the future.” In the latest issue of Money Forever, we shared an opportunity to invest into a vehicle built to outperform the market by managing volatility. I was extremely excited to present it to our paid subscribers because I knew they’d love to earn more by risking less. Who wouldn’t?

So please pardon my blatant self-promotion. I work in an industry where 80% of the time the market is obsessed with the wrong stock, and the noise drowns out the right idea. I can silence the cacophony for you, though, and show you where to find the right ideas. And that goes beyond our most recent pick, although you do need it in your portfolio. Money Forever’s mission is to make your money last—plain and simple.

We think this pick will go a long way toward doing just that.

You can check it out and access our full portfolio immediately by subscribing risk free to Money Forever.

It’s about the price of Netflix, but unlike Netflix we won’t bother you if you decide to cancel. In fact, we’re so confident that the Money Forever portfolio can help you “earn more by risking less” that we’ll refund 100% of the cost if you decide to cancel within the first three months.

And we’ll even prorate your refund after that—it’s a no lose proposition. Click here to start earning more by risking less now.

The article A Math-Free Guide to Higher and Safer Returns was originally published at millersmoney.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Here is the Ideal Year End Portfolio Fix

By Dennis Miller

Some years back, my wife and I embarked on a cross country trip in our first motor home. Driving a 40 foot bus was a bit frightening at first. I was poking along in the center lane of I-75 and big tractor trailers were whizzing past me. The bus came with a Citizens Band radio. I tuned in to channel 19, listened to the truckers, and sure enough they were complaining about my slow driving. So I announced myself, told them I was a rookie and asked for their patience.

There was a brief pause. Then one savvy old trucker came on and said in a deep southern drawl, “Son, there is only one rule you need to know to stay safe. Keep’er ‘tween the lines!” That’s precisely what my team and I recommend every investor do this month: keep your portfolio between the lines. One of the more popular investment strategies is to ride your winners and dump your losers. It’s hard to argue with that approach. You can buy 10 stocks, have five winners and five losers, and still make a lot of money.

Another popular strategy is to buy and hold, particularly larger companies that are big, profitable, and not likely to go anywhere. Those who recommend this strategy point to historical gains. That’s all well and good; but as Mike Tyson said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.” Many of my friends were punched square in the jaw during the 2007-2008 meltdown.

Many had recently retired, taken a lump sum out of their 401(k)s, and invested 100% of their retirement savings in the market. Talk about a right hook! You work for the better part of 50 years, diligently make projections with your financial planner, and then your life savings shrinks by half... almost overnight. Follow that up with a trip to your advisor who says, “Trust me. Don’t worry. It will come back. It always does.”

Don’t worry?

In this case, they were right, eventually. The market recovered in less than six years. Does it always do that? Should we just hold an index fund and ride it out? The answer to both questions is “no.”

Protect Yourself Against the Next Right Hook

Portfolio rebalancing can be a very effective strategy, particularly with money earmarked for retirement. No one can guarantee the market will come back quickly from a downturn. Retirement investors must protect their principal because they might not have time to recover from a 40-50% drop in their net worth. Rebalancing your retirement portfolio is a critical step in protecting your assets. Instead of trying to maximize gains with excessive risk taking, anyone approaching retirement age should look to avoid catastrophic losses so that their portfolio can steadily provide income if and when they stop working.

The Best Protection

At Miller’s Money, protection starts with our three investment category allocations: 50% in Stocks, 20% in High Yield, and 30% in Stable Income (cash account substitutes). Within those categories we’ve implemented significant asset class and geographical diversification. We also recommend holding no more than 5% in any individual investment.

Rebalancing is nothing more than readjusting your portfolio at least annually to keep’er ‘tween the lines.
If you start with a $100,000 portfolio, then allocate $50,000 to your personal Stocks category with no more than $5,000 in any single investment. If you have a good year and your nest egg rises to $120,000, you adjust your stock allocation to $60,000 with no more than $6,000 in any single investment.

We hope that every year our portfolio grows and we have to sell some stocks at a gain to rebalance. Our strategy is to ride the winners and cut short any losses, minimizing the potential for Tyson style punches to the mouth. Buy and hold may work for 30 somethings, but it can be a death sentence for someone approaching retirement age.

Mr. Market does not care if you are working or retired; at some point there will be another sizable downturn. Rebalancing is key to keeping your wealth in tact when that happens. And, if you’re wondering where (if anywhere) bonds fit in to today’s best retirements plans, you can download a complimentary copy of the new Miller’s Money special report, The Truth About Bonds here.

The article The Ideal Year End Portfolio Fix was originally published at millers money

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Yield Hungry Baby Boomers Are on a Death March

By Dennis Miller

Today’s forecast: yield starved investors forced into the market by seemingly permanent low interest rates will continue to be collateral damage. For some, that collateral damage may involve more than the loss of income opportunities… many could be wiped out completely.

At the Casey Research Summit last month, I asked the participants in our discussion group: “If there were safe, fixed income opportunities available paying 5 - 7%, would you move a major portion of your portfolio out of the market?”

They all answered a resounding, “Absolutely.”

Participants relying on their nest eggs for retirement income said they felt forced into the market for yield. Their retirement projections weren’t based on 2% yields, the rough rate now available on fixed income investments. They’d planned on 6% or so. What other choice do they have now?

The Federal Reserve knows seniors and savers are collateral damage. Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has openly acknowledged that the Fed’s low interest rate policy is designed to prompt savers to take more chances with riskier investments. In their book Code Red, authors John Mauldin and Jonathan Tepper shine a harsh light on that policy, writing:

Central banks want people to take their money out of safe investments and put them into risky investments. They call it the “portfolio balance channel,” but you could call it “starve people for yield and they’ll buy anything.”

I have to agree with Mauldin and Tepper.

The collateral damage inflicted upon seniors and savers is twofold. First, it’s the loss of safe income opportunities. The Fed’s low interest rate policies have saved banks and the government an estimated $2 trillion in interest alone. $2 trillion added to the balances of 401(k) and IRA accounts would sure bolster a lot of desperate retirement plans.

But there’s no sign the Fed will reverse its low interest rate policies in the foreseeable future. So, yield starved investors, including throngs of baby boomers maturing into retirement age each day, play the market and risk their nest eggs in the process.

The Federal Reserve has succeeded in forcing savers to take billions of dollars out of fixed income investments to hunt for better yields. Take a look at the chart below showing the S&P 500’s performance since 2004. The Index has almost tripled since its 2009 bottom. There hasn’t been a major correction in well over 1,000 days.

When the bubble burst in 2007, the S&P took a 57% drop. I had friends just entering retirement who suffered 40-50% losses. Their stories are not uncommon, and some are now back at work—and not by choice.

This is the second form of collateral damage, and it can be much more devastating. It’s one thing to lose an income opportunity and call it collateral damage, but quite another to lose 50% or more of your life savings. If the market drops radically, as it did less than a decade ago, the life savings of many baby boomers could be destroyed.

No one knows when the next correction will occur. However, many pundits believe a major correction is due. Others say we can continue on the same track, much like Japan has done for 25 years. Here’s what we do know: the Fed has made it clear that it plans to hold interest rates down for quite some time.

When you invest money earmarked for retirement, you risk trying to time the market. Even seasoned investors would be foolhardy to think they’ll have enough time to easily exit their positions and lock in gains.

It never works that way.

Now is the time for caution. Whether you’re a do it yourself investor or work with an investment professional, it’s a good time for a complete portfolio analysis with an eye on this question:

What happens to my portfolio if the market completely collapses?

There are concrete steps you can take to avoid catastrophic collateral damage. Sticking to firm position limits, diversifying geographically (including international holdings), non correlated assets, setting trailing stop losses, and holding short-duration bonds come to mind.

Be wary of any advisor touting the “buy and hold” philosophy. They’d point to the chart above and note that the market went from 700 to 1,900+ in five years. If investors are patient, it will come back after the next drop. Unfortunately, seniors don’t have time to sit around and wait.

No one can guarantee the market will rebound as quickly as it did in the last decade. It’s not the “buy” in “buy and hold” that concerns me. There are excellent companies out there that pay healthy dividends and will rebound relatively quickly. Depending on your age and financial condition, it’s the indefinite holding that could be a problem.

If you’re not comfortable holding an investment for a decade or more, consider using a stop loss. After all, would you rather suffer a major loss and hope against hope that the market rebounds fast, or be proactive and keep your nest egg intact?

The best way to avoid becoming collateral damage is to take safety precautions before the next big, bad event takes place. One easy (and free) way to start strengthening your financial know how is to read our e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly. Each Thursday my team I cover hot button financial topics and share the tools income investors need to live rich in today’s low yield world.

Click here to begin receiving your complimentary copy today.

The article Yield Hungry Baby Boomers Are on a Death March was originally published at millers money

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Everything You Need to Know About the SP 500 Until Christmas

By Andrey Dashkov

When I need to clear my mind, I put on my beat up Saucony sneakers and drive to nearby Deer Lake Park in Burnaby, British Columbia. After a couple of miles, though, as my body gets into a rhythm, my mind wanders back to the thought that occupy it for hours each day: where will this market go next?

And I’ve thought a lot about what went on this summer. Since June 1st:

•  S&P 500 is up 2.7%, having set a new record high in September;

•  MSCI World index is down 0.5%;

•  10 year Treasury yield is down from 2.54% to 2.50%;

•  Brent Crude 0il is down 12.8%; and

•  Gold is down 2.2%.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the U.S. economy expanded by 4.6% year on year in the second quarter, up sharply from the first quarter’s disappointing 2.1% annual decline. Consensus estimates for annual GDP growth in the third and fourth quarters of this year are about 3%.

The stage seems to be set for the fifth straight year of positive economic growth in the US; however, we’re always cautious about government supplied information, especially during an election cycle.

At the moment, macro developments seem closely intertwined with stock market performance. Instead of slumping, the market was rather vibrant this summer. The S&P 500 showed resilience, reaching higher highs after a dip in late July and early August that coincided with increased uncertainty surrounding the Ukrainian crisis.

Geopolitics aside, the market was supported by GDP growth, which in turn was underpinned by strong corporate profits and margins. In fact, in the second quarter, the S&P 500 set a new record for profit margins: 9.1%. So much for “sell in May and go away.”

Expanding earnings and margins are great news on the fundamental front. Of the trends we observed this summer, at least two will benefit S&P 500 companies’ profitability. Cheaper oil may keep energy costs down, while consumers are more than willing to swipe their debit and credit cards. In August, consumer confidence jumped to its highest level since October 2007, having increased for four months in a row.

Loose Money Helping Stocks in the Short Term

The Fed has done its part, too. Long-term effects of its prolonged loose monetary policy aside, it’s hard to argue that it hasn’t helped stocks in the short term. With Treasury rates still low, debt options abound, and companies can obtain cheap funding for things like capital expenditures and buying back shares.

In the first quarter, 290 companies from the S&P 500 bought back shares at a cost of $159.3 billion, 59% more than a year ago. Dividends are up as well: in the first quarter, S&P 500 companies spent a record $241.2 billion on dividends and repurchases together, according to Standard & Poor’s.

Second quarter share repurchases were estimated at $106 billion, according to Financial Post. That’s much lower than first-quarter repurchases (though the official numbers aren’t out yet) and down 10% year on year.

Buyback Frenzy Is a Net Positive for Share Prices

However, the most important takeaway is that the cumulative effect of the recent buyback frenzy was positive for share prices and dividends. With fewer shares, it’s easier for companies to maintain dividend payments. Higher share prices may drive down dividend yields, but companies tend to increase dividends over time, which makes up for that in part. And despite the S&P 500’s significant growth over the past five years, dividend yields have not decreased as much as one would expect.

The chart below tracks the S&P 500’s median dividend yield since the first quarter of 2009.

The median dividend yield decreased just slightly over this period: from 1.9% in 1Q09 to 1.7% in 2Q14, and it’s held relatively steady over the past three years.

The good news is that S&P companies aren’t stretching their balance sheets too thin to cover these dividend payments—these payments are backed by earnings. The median dividend payout ratio (the ratio of dividends paid to net income), although up from five years ago, still looks solid.

S&P companies can successfully cover their dividends with earnings, so there’s no reason to fear that they’ll have to borrow to keep paying them. However, a lot of investors worry about leverage. On one hand, financial leverage boosts return on equity (ROE), and prudent borrowing can be a positive for investors. On the other hand, large amounts of leverage leads to volatility in earnings, a less stable balance sheet, and risk that affects valuations.

Debt and Cash Both Up

These are legitimate concerns, but our next chart shows that in the past five years, S&P companies have increased debt while also accumulating a lot of cash on their balance sheets.

Debt and cash grew at about the same pace during the last couple of years. There were many reasons for this trend, but two interrelated ones stand out: the abundance of cheap debt that S&P companies took advantage of (why spend your own cash when you can finance on such great terms and pay it back over a long period?); and the desire to keep interest on that debt as low as possible by making credit rating agencies happy and holding a lot of cash in the bank.

If a correction is in the cards for the near term, this cash, increased earnings, and the support coming from share buybacks will provide some cushion for these companies’ valuations.

Why We’re Not “Permabears”

So what’s ahead? I wish I knew. There are a lot of market bears out there who say this rally will come to a halt sooner rather than later, and the S&P will fall off a cliff. I stay away from calling tops and bottoms and wonder how many pundits actually have any skin in the game. Going short the market requires timing; so any “permabear” who puts money where his mouth is may lose a lot if his timing is wrong.
I’m not saying the rising market is somehow “wrong.” There are solid company level fundamentals and positive macro-level data points here and there that support a significant part of its growth.

Your Plan to Profit

We’re pragmatists at Miller’s Money. Quantitative easing and basement-level interest rates have flooded the market with dollars and eroded yields, but you should use these circumstances to capture some of the benefits they’ve created. No, you can’t earn much on CDs. No, dividend yields might not beat inflation (at least not all of them, and certainly not every estimate of inflation). And yes, the current rally will eventually end, one way or another. We just don’t know when or how. No one does.

What matters is that even in this situation you can protect your financial well being by sticking to our core strategy: diversify geographically and across sectors; and invest in assets that provide robust yield relative to risk and have the potential to rise in price. You can learn more about the Miller’s Money Forever core strategy here—a time-tested plan designed for seniors, savers and like-minded conservative investors.

The article Everything You Need to Know About the S&P Until Christmas was originally published at millers money.

Make sure to get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

How You Can Tell When a Company’s P/E is All Flash

By Andrey Dashkov

College reunions are toxic. Except for the few precious moments of genuine human connection, these parties are nothing but status pageants. Suits and watches are inconspicuously glanced at, vacation photos (carefully selected the night before) are passed around; compensations guesstimated; Platinum Master Cards flashed (“Oh no, let me take care of this round!”); spouses evaluated based on trophy-worthy qualities… and inconspicuously glanced at.

It’s hard to tell true, praiseworthy success from carefully crafted smoke and mirrors. Your college friend may have rented that car, watch, suit—and even his “spouse.” In fact, there are escort agencies out there that provide “dates” for single men to social occasions. Don’t ask me how I learned about it.

The point is, both people and companies like to project high status and success to the public. Not only do your friends from Beta Phi Delta want to look alpha (pun intended), but companies, too, often want you to think they earn more than they actually do.

There are many incentives to do that: management’s compensation may be tied to earnings-per-share (EPS) goals; the company may be trying to maintain an image of rapid growth; or it could be attempting to raise funds by issuing debt or shares. Higher EPS would benefit the company and the team at the helm in all of these cases.

The Illusory P/E Ratio

Another reason why companies try to massage their earnings is that millions of investors pay attention to the price-to-earnings ratio (P/E). It is one of the most intuitive financial metrics. Potential investors see it all across the Internet, on free finance sites and many trading platforms. However, despite its popularity, I’d argue that it’s one of the most illusory financial metrics that exists, and the blame is on the denominator, earnings. Let’s see how we can make better use of it.

“E” in the P/E ratio stands for earnings per share, which is a ratio itself. EPS is the company’s net income for the reported 12-month period (or forecasted net income for the next 12 months) divided by its shares outstanding. Without going into too much detail, here are some of the potential issues with the usefulness of reported historical, or trailing, earnings per share for investors:

• Seasonality. Earnings of a lot of companies fluctuate due to seasonal buying activity, weather, and other factors. In these cases, quarter-to-quarter comparisons are meaningless, and it’s necessary to understand the company’s operating cycles (annual, based on contract renewals, etc.) to make use of the reported earnings.

• Dilution. There are two broad measures of shares outstanding: basic (or common) and diluted. Diluted shares outstanding include common shares, options, warrants, convertible preferred shares, and convertible debt. All of these can potentially be converted to common stock and result in lower earnings per share because of the higher denominator in the EPS ratio. However, when you look at a P/E ratio on the Internet, it’s not always clear whether it was based on basic or diluted shares. The latter is more conservative, and we pay more attention to it than to the basic EPS.

• Accruals-based accounting, in which revenues are recognized at the moment they’re earned, and expenses are recognized when they’re incurred. In contrast, under cash-based accounting, revenues are recognized when cash is collected, and expenses are recognized when cash is paid.
  
  Accruals-based accounting has its advantages:

*  It allows the company to match revenues to expenses in time more closely (for example, the cost of a piece of equipment is depreciated over its useful life to match the revenues this equipment generates); and

*  It provides the market with information about the company’s operations as soon as it has enough objective evidence that the transaction will be fulfilled. For example, when a company sends an invoice to a customer, it records a receivable, which sends a signal to the market that a sale took place. We don’t need to wait until the actual funds are deposited in the company’s bank account, which may take a month or more, to become aware of this sale.

However, accrual accounting has two major drawbacks for analysts and investors:

*  Reported income and expenses do not mirror actual cash inflows and outflows; and

*  Management can accelerate or postpone recognition of revenue and expenses, which makes reported net income figures less reliable.

Consider a real-world example. A friend of mine—let’s call him Steven—spent several years as a credit manager. One of his responsibilities was to expense a “reserve” for anticipated credit losses. The first time he was about to charge the expenses, he estimated them realistically and quickly realized that it wouldn’t work. The reserve wasn’t there to cover the related losses calculated fairly and correctly.

After a discussion with the corporate accounting department (his superior), if they needed to find more profit to make their numbers, Steven would lower his reserve estimates. If they were having a good year, he was told to increase the reserve write-off to provide a cushion for the next quarter.

The beauty of it was that such draws and deposits are almost impossible to catch unless the amounts are outrageous, so any auditor would overlook them. Steven and his team were safe legally, but the practice misrepresented his company’s financial performance nevertheless.

When I asked another friend—let’s call him Jack—to share any stories about his company’s creative accounting, he said he too would get calls from the corporate accounting department at the end of each quarter. Another easy target to massage is insurance costs. To get the lowest prices, many of its insurance policies were paid annually, and the premium period did not correspond with the accounting year. If the company was having a good quarter or year, he was encouraged to write off the entire annual premium in that accounting period. Conversely, if it was struggling to make its numbers, the team would show the premiums for future months as “prepaid insurance,” effectively delaying the expense until the next accounting period.

The effect, as with our first example, was to smooth out period-to-period fluctuations to keep stockholders happy by “making their numbers” or beating them by a little bit. The justification was that they weren’t really manipulating profits—“in the long run, it all comes out in the wash.”

Part of Jack’s annual performance review was “being a good team player.” Helping the corporate team was part of that evaluation.

Other common revenue and expense “management” techniques include adjustments to how depreciation expense is calculated, which is doable within limits under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and can affect net income as desired; and adjustments to revenue recognition policies that technically comply with GAAP but distort the underlying economic reality to artificially boost the top line and thereby juice earnings.

Normalization Helps Solve the Numbers Game

The first two issues with earnings—seasonality and dilution—can be addressed simply: instead of looking at price to reported earnings per share, pay attention to P/E calculated from normalized earnings based on diluted shares outstanding. Normalization takes care of seasonality and some of the nonrecurring revenue and cost items. Using diluted share count instead of basic will return a more conservative number, because it assumes that all options, warrants, and convertible debt are converted into common shares. The more common shares there are, the lower the EPS.

As shareholders, we need those conservative estimates. Our returns (share price appreciation and dividend income) aren’t based on management achieving arbitrary earnings targets that can be fiddled with, but on how the company functions as a business. To get a clearer picture, using normalized diluted EPS should help.
Note that I wrote “clearer” but not “clear,” “true,” or “objective.” The reason we stay away from such absolutes is that it’s prohibitively difficult to say what’s going on with any company’s earnings with 100% accuracy.

One simple tip can help you make better use of P/E: use normalized earnings and diluted shares. These numbers are often available on free websites or in SEC filings.

Now I’ll go ahead and clear my browser history. Although reading about escort services for college reunions is a great study of the human condition, I’ll have a hard time explaining to my lovely wife why I need to do it for work.

And speaking of the work I do… you can receive more unique insights on better investing strategies by signing up for our free, retirement-focused e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly.

The article How You Can Tell When a Company’s P/E is All Flash was originally published at millersmoney.com.

Make sure to check out our "Beginners Guide to Trading Options"....Just Click Here!

Stop Investing in Leveraged ETFs

By Andrey Dashkov

Bigger, faster, better. That’s the turbocharged investment we all want. Miller’s Money Forever subscribers who pay close attention to our portfolio, though, will notice that we don’t hold leveraged ETFs—those with “2x” or “inverse” or “ultra” in their names, which some investors mistake for “better.”

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are a great tool for many portfolios. They allow investors to profit from movements in a huge variety of assets grouped by industry, geography, presence in a certain index, or other criteria. You can find ETFs tracking automobile producers, cotton futures, or cows.

For our purposes, ETFs make it easier to diversify within a certain group of companies—easier because you don’t have to buy them individually. You buy the ETF and leave it to its managers to balance the portfolio when needed.

We have several ETFs in the Money Forever portfolio, and they have served us well so far. They expose us to several universes, such as international stocks, foreign dividend-paying companies, convertible securities, and others.

Why Turbocharged Isn’t Always Better

So, if we think the underlying index or asset class will move in our favor, why wouldn’t we opt for the turbocharged version—the versions that use leverage (credit) to achieve gains two times higher?
First, because we’re very cautious about volatility, and leveraged ETFs are designed to be less stable than the underlying assets. Second, there is a trick to leveraged ETFs that can make your investment in them stink even if the underlying index or asset does well.

Before we get to the details, let me pose two questions:

• If the S&P 500 goes up by 5% over several days, how much would a 2x leveraged ETF based on the index earn?
• If the S&P 500 goes up and down, then rises, and after a while ends up flat, will our ETF end up flat too?
• 
  

If you answer 10% to the first question, you may be correct, and that’s the caveat: you won’t be correct 100% of the time. You can’t just multiply an index’s total gain by the ETF’s factor to gauge how much you’ll earn, because leveraged ETFs track daily gains, not total ones.

To show how that works, here’s a brief example that will also answer question number two.

Day #	Index Price	Daily Return		ETF Price
		Index	ETF
	1,900			$100.00
1	1,800	-5.26%	-10.53%	$89.47
2	1,870	3.89%	7.78%	$96.43
3	2,000	6.95%	13.90%	$109.84
4	1,900	-5.00%	-10.00%	$98.86
Total return	0.0%			-1.1%
Source: TheTradeSurfer

What you’re looking at here is a hypothetical index with a value of 1,900 at the beginning of our period. It goes up and down for four days, and then is back to 1,900 by the end of day 4. There is also an ETF that starts with a price of $100 and doubles the daily gains of the index.


On the first day, the index goes down to 1,800 for a daily loss of 5.26%. This forces the daily loss of the ETF to be 10.53% (including rounding error), and the resulting price of the ETF is $89.47. The next day the index is up 3.89%, forcing the ETF to grow by 7.78%, to $96.43, and so on.

We designed this table to show that even though the underlying index is back to 1,900 in five days, returning 0% in total gain, the ETF is down 1.1% by the end of day 4.

It works like this because ETFs are designed to track daily returns, not mirror longer-term performance of the underlying index, and because of how cumulative returns work. If one share of the ETF costs $100 at the beginning of the period and the market dropped 5%, we should expect double the drop. Our share would now be worth $90. If the next day it reverses and goes up 5%, we should expect double the increase. We would be right in doing so, but our share would be worth $99 now, not $100—because it increased 10% above the $90 closing price the day before.

Leveraged ETFs Are for Traders, Not Investors

If a trader is smart and lucky, she or he would buy the ETF at the beginning of day 3 at $96.43, sell at $109.84, and realize a gain of 14%. But if one bought at day 0 and held until the end of our period, one would lose money even though the underlying index ended up flat.

In general, no one can predict where an ETF will end up because it’s impossible to tell in advance what pattern the underlying index will follow. In practice, it means that an ETF only partially tracks the underlying index; its performance also depends on its own past results.

The ideal case for investing in an ETF (we assume it’s long the market) would be to buy it at the beginning of a multi-day, uninterrupted uptrend. In that case, it would come very close to doubling the market’s performance. But such winning streaks are impossible to forecast, and short-term trading like this is not our focus.

We don’t recommend leveraged ETFs in our portfolio because they’re geared for traders, and we take a longer-term perspective. We are investors.

The additional potential reward from a turbocharged ETF doesn’t warrant the additional risk, particularly when you’re investing retirement money. There are safer ways to maximize your retirement income. Learn more about our strategies for doing just that by signing up for Miller’s Money Weekly, our free weekly e-letter that educates conservative investors about timely investment strategies. You’ll receive ahead-of-the-curve financial insight and commentary right in your inbox every Thursday. Start building a rich retirement by signing up today.

The article Stop Investing in Leveraged ETFs was originally published at Millers Money

Make sure to check out our "Beginners Guide to Trading Options"....Just Click Here!

Beware of Flashy Stock Repurchases When The Market Is on The Rise

By Andrey Dashkov

Retail giant Bed Bath & Beyond just announced plans to buy back another $2 billion in shares, which the company will start doing after it completes its current share repurchase program. You’ve seen it before: Press releases emphasize that buybacks return value to shareholders, analysts sometimes rely on repurchases to spot a stock to write up next, and management likes to tout their focus on shareholder returns. But what’s the real story? Why would a company buy its own shares?


There are but a few situations when returning cash to shareholders instead of paying dividends or investing in new projects is prudent:

• The company has largely exhausted investment opportunities that would generate a positive net present value (NPV).
• The stock is trading below its intrinsic value; or
• The tax on dividends is so high compared to the capital gains tax that it makes sense to boost the share price and let shareholders enjoy the extra return instead of receiving heavily taxed dividends.

When these situations happen we support repurchases. In the reality, however, managers often have their own reasons to buy back shares; let’s look at the more popular ones.

First, management’s compensation is often based on share price performance or earnings based metrics like earnings per share (EPS), which buybacks are designed to boost.

Second, higher share price increases the value of a company’s options. Managers are often shareholders, too, but unlike you and me, they have direct access to the Treasury. When managers own a lot of their own company’s stock, they may have too much skin in the game. This may skew their preferences toward increasing the share price at the expense of long term business growth.

Third, share buybacks became a standard (and often abused) signal to the market that: a) the company’s stock is undervalued, and b) that management takes care of the shareholders. Both of these statements may be correct in isolation, based on the company’s fundamentals and management practices. Nonetheless, a buyback should not convince you that either is true.

One additional reason is often overlooked. Many a CEO has been fired for an acquisition that did not work out. When the decision is made to dump the acquisition, it is accompanied by a write off against earnings, sometimes worth billions of dollars. Wall Street armchair quarterbacks are quick to point out how much better off shareholders would have been if they had just paid out what they lost in dividends. Buying back company shares, with all the accompanied hoopla, is less likely to be a career threatening move.

Linking the two subjects together makes for nice copy; however, keep it in perspective. For example, a technology company that realizes their product line is becoming obsolete will often make acquisitions to increase their product line market share, or move them into a new business with long term potential. Buying back company stock, then having to go into the market and borrow at high interest rates, might be the exact wrong move. The key is making the right acquisitions for the company to continue to grow and pay dividends for the next generation.

In fact, managers have proven to be pretty bad stock pickers even when they have only one stock to pick. As my colleague Chris Wood showed in A Look at Stock Buybacks, managements have bought shares of their own companies at pretty bad times in the past. Moreover, the expectations of higher valuation based on higher EPS did not always materialize. Even though a lot of investors use P/E as their main gauge of value (which they shouldn’t), there is no convincing evidence that buybacks can support high valuation multiples in the long term.

Your Bottom Line

 

History has shown that the only value-creating buybacks were the ones carried out when stocks were deeply undervalued. In those instances, the repurchases helped companies outperform the market. But overall the optimism and confidence inducing press releases that accompany buybacks should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

As a rule of thumb, beware of increased buybacks when the market is on the rise (everybody is an investment guru when everything is going up) or when management compensation is closely tied to the share price performance or earnings based metrics. Companies with better corporate governance may fare better when it comes to managing conflicts of interest, but there is a significant vested interest there that investors should be aware of. Don’t mistake noise for a sign is all.

When it comes to returning value to shareholders, we appreciate companies that invest in long term projects—or pay dividends. Despite the potential tax implications, the yield strapped investors may be better served with a special dividend these days than with a promise of a better price in the future.

Learn more ways to cut through press rhetoric by signing up for our free weekly e-letter, Miller’s Money Weekly, where my colleagues and I share timely financial insight tailored for seniors and conservative investors alike.

Sign up here, and we’ll send a complimentary copy straight to your inbox every Thursday

The article Beware of Flashy Stock Repurchases When The Market Is on The Rise was originally published at Millers Money

Get the complete schedule for the Premier Trader University free trading webinars....Just Click Here!
 

And the Band Plays On

By Dennis Miller 

Quantitative Easing (QE) is no longer a surprise, but the fact that it's continued for so long is. Like many Miller’s Money readers, I believe the government cannot continue to pay its bills by having the Federal Reserve buy debt with newly created money forever. This has gone on much longer than I'd have ever dreamed possible.

Unemployment numbers dropped in December and the Federal Reserve tapered their money creation from $85 billion to $75 billion per month. Why did the unemployment rate drop? Primarily because people whose benefits have expired are no longer considered unemployed. The government classifies them as merely discouraged, but the fact remains that they don't have jobs.

So, what is the problem? Let's start with the magnitude of money creation. Tim Price sums it up well in an article on Sovereign Man:

"Last year, the U.S. Federal Reserve enjoyed its 100th anniversary, having been founded in a blaze of secrecy in 1913. By 2007, the Fed's balance sheet had grown to $800 billion. Under its current QE program (which may or may not get tapered according to the Fed's current intentions), the Fed is printing $1 trillion a year.

To put it another way, the Fed is printing roughly 100 years' worth of money every 12 months. (Now that's inflation.)"

As Doug Casey likes to remind us: Just because something is inevitable, does not mean it is imminent. Well, sooner or later imminent and inevitable are going to meet. Interest rates are depressed because the Federal Reserve is holding our debt. Eventually those creditors outside the Federal Reserve will demand much higher interest rates.

Currently, 30 year Treasuries are paying 3.59%. If interest rates rose by 2%—still below what was considered "normal" a decade ago—the interest cost to our government would jump by 30% or more. It's hard to imagine the huge budget cuts or tax increases it would take to pay for that.

In the meantime, investors are caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. We cannot invest in long- or medium-term, "safe," fixed income investments because they are no longer safe. They could easily destroy your buying power through inflation.

At the same time, the stock market is not trading on fundamentals. It is on thin ice. Just how thin is that ice? Take a look at what happened when the Federal Reserve stopped propping up the economy with money printing.

Each time they stopped with their stimulus the market dropped. In the summer of 2013, Bernanke made his famous "taper" remark and the market reacted negatively, immediately. The Fed has had to introduce more money into the system to stop the slide.

Investors who need yield know they have virtually no place else to go but the stock market. Most realize it is a huge bubble; they only hope to get out ahead of everyone else when the time comes. And we can't hold cash; inflation would clobber us. So, we've been forced into the market to protect and grow our nest eggs.
It reminds me of playing musical chairs as a kid. The piano player would slow down the tempo. We would all grab the back of a chair and get ready to sit. No one wanted to be the one left standing.

Today the band is playing the "Limbo Rock." Investors are in limbo, knowing the music will stop eventually. We're all going to have to grab a chair quickly—and the stakes are much higher now.

The chart below on margin debt comes courtesy of my friend and colleague at Casey Research, Bud Conrad.

Investors now have a dangerous amount of money invested on margin—meaning they borrowed money from their brokers to buy even more stock. There are strict margin requirements on how much one can borrow as a percentage of their holdings. If the stock price drops, the investor receives a margin call from his broker. That has to take place quickly under SEC requirements. The broker can also sell the holding at market to bring the client's account back into compliance.

Record margin debt, coupled with the thought of traders using computers to read the trend and automatically place orders in fractions of a second, paints an uneasy picture. The unemotional computers will not only sell their holdings, they may well initiate short sales to drive the market down even further.

As the lyrics from the "Limbo Rock" ask, "How low can you go?" When the market limbos down, it will likely be faster and further than we've imagined.

Why is 2014 different? I've been taking stock of 2013 as I prepare our tax filings. Our portfolio did very well last year, thanks in great measure to the analysts at Casey Research. With our Bulletproof Income strategy in place, I am very comfortable with our plans going forward.

At the same time, I am as jittery as a 9-year-old walking slowly around a circle of chairs, knowing that sooner or later the music will stop. The music has played for years now and we are in the game, whether we like it or not. Pundits have gone from saying "this is the year" to more tempered remarks like "this can't go on forever." They place their bets on inevitable, but hedge them on imminent.

What can we do? One of the mantras behind our Bulletproof Income strategy is: "Avoid catastrophic losses." Doug Casey has warned us that in a drastic correction most everyone gets hurt, so our goal is to minimize that damage and its impact on our retirement plans.

Here are a few things you can do to protect yourself.

• Diversify. Not all sectors rise and fall at the same speed. Optimal diversification requires more than just various stock picks across various sectors. Limit your overall stock market exposure according to your age. You don't have to be all in the market. There are still other ways to earn good, safe returns. International diversification will give you an added margin of safety, too, not only from a market downturn but also from inflation.
• Apply strict position limits. No more than 5% of your overall portfolio should be in any single investment. When I look at the record margin debt, I wonder how so many investors can go hog wild on a single investment. Planning for retirement demands a more measured approach.
• Set trailing stop losses. If you set trailing stop losses on your positions at no more than 20%, the most you could lose on any single trade is 1% of your overall portfolio. The beauty of trailing stops is the maximum loss seldom happens. As the stock rises the trailing stop rises with it, which will lock in some additional profits.
• Monitor regularly. As part of my regular annual review, I go over each one of my stop-loss positions. I use an online trading platform to keep track of them. Depending on the stock, you may want to place a stop-loss sell order or use an alert service that will notify you if the stock drops below your set point. Other investors prefer to use a third party for notification.
  
  So, why do I check my stop losses? My particular trading platform accepts the orders "GTC," meaning "good 'til cancelled." But GTC really means "Good for 60 days and then you have to re-enter the notification." Just read the small print.
  
  Also, sometimes stop losses need adjusting. As a stock gets closer to the projected target price, you may want to reduce the trailing stop loss to 15%, or maybe even 10%, to lock in more profits.

We all want to enjoy our retirement years and have some fun. I sleep well knowing we have several good circuit breakers in place. We may get stopped out of several positions and stuck temporarily holding more cash than we'd like. But that means we've avoided catastrophic loss and have cash to take advantage of the real bargains that are bound to appear.

And so the band plays on as baby boomers and retirees continue to limbo.

From the very first issue of Money Forever our goal—my mission­­—has been to help those who truly want to take control of their retirement finances. I want our subscribers to have more wealth, a better understanding of how to create a Bulletproof portfolio, and confidence their money will last throughout retirement.

With that in mind, I’d like to invite you to give Money Forever a try. The current the subscription rate is affordable – less than that of your daily senior vitamin supplements. The best part is you can take advantage of our 90-day, no-risk offer. You can cancel for any reason or even no reason at all, no questions asked, within the first 90 days and receive a full, immediate refund. As you might expect, our cancellation rates are very low, and we aim to keep it that way. Click here to find out more.

The article And the Band Plays On was originally published at Millers Money

The Ty Cobb Approach to Retirement Investing

By Dennis Miller

When baseball fans talk about players from the early 1900s, Babe Ruth is normally the first person mentioned. He was a great home run hitter with 714 career home runs, a record that stood for almost 40 years. Only two men have surpassed it. Ruth struck out 1,330 times, a record that also stood for several decades.


Most people think of Ty Cobb as a gritty player who held the career stolen base record for many years. But let’s look a bit deeper. Ty Cobb broke into major league baseball in 1905 at the age of 19 and hit .240 his first season. For the next 23 seasons, he hit over .300.

Cobb holds a lifetime batting average of .367, a record that still stands today: 85 years and counting. His career strikeout total is 357. He averaged 14.9 strikeouts per season, striking out 3.1% of the time, a remarkably low average.

Young people love to swing for the fences and hit those huge gains. With retirement money, an occasional home run is nice; however, our overriding goal is to preserve capital and avoid catastrophic losses. Ty Cobb didn’t hit as many home runs as Babe Ruth, but he was a model of consistency.

Once you’ve built your nest egg, you’re not trying to run up the score; you’re trying to stay ahead.
Anyone who has tried to play catch-up with his portfolio can tell you there’s no such thing as a five run homer. Newsletters touting the chance to double or triple your money can grab our attention, but experienced investors realize that those gains are only possible if you’re willing to take on the commensurate risk.

Swinging for the fences with retirement money won’t get the job done. With money that must last forever, putting your emotions aside and focusing on safety and consistency is paramount.

Safety First

 

Have you ever watched a thin-ice rescue scene? A person standing with all of his weight on thin ice can easily fall through as all his weight is concentrated. The rescuer trying to reach this person normally lies flat across the ice, spreading out his weight.

The same approach works for today’s retirement investor. Step one is to spread risk through diversification among (and within) asset classes, selective investments, position limits, and real-time monitoring of your portfolio via stop losses. While we like the income, avoiding catastrophic losses is our mantra.

It’s also worthwhile to reassess just what “safe” means. We can’t count on inflation remaining at historical 2% levels. FDIC insured CDs and US Treasuries are now guaranteed money losers when you factor in inflation. (“FDIC insured” does not shield us from inflation.)

This brings us to the Step two in the Ty Cobb approach: inflation protection. Investing in long-term, fixed-income investments during times of high inflation can result in catastrophic losses, precisely what we need to avoid.

Step three: find investments with low interest-rate sensitivity. Ross Perot coined the phrase “giant sucking sound” to describe jobs leaving the US. That will pale in comparison to the giant sucking sound when interest rates start to rise and everyone tries to exit the market at once. The scene after Bernanke’s tapering remark was a small preview. Interest-rate-sensitive investments will be hit hard and fast.

The long-term bond market offers a good example of interest rate sensitivity. Take an A rated, ten year corporate bond paying 3.68%, for example. Now imagine you bought $10,000 worth; you’d receive $368 per year in interest until maturity. If, however, market interest rates rise during that time, you’d have to discount your selling price to resell that bond in the aftermarket to compensate for its below market interest rate.

“Duration” is the term for calculating that discount. The duration for this bond is 8.41. For every 1% rise in market interest rates, the resale value of your bond will drop 8.41%, or $841.00—more than two years’ accumulated interest. Should this happen, you’d have two lousy choices: You could hold on to the bond at a lower than current market value interest rate until it matures; or you could sell your bond for less than you paid for it.

If inflation is the reason interest rates are rising, that decreases your buying power even further, particularly if you choose to hold on to the bond.

While top quality bonds are considered safe, that safety stops at the borrower’s ability to repay you. It does not protect your investment from a reduced resale value in the aftermarket, nor does it protect you from inflation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, let me repeat myself: holding long term, low interest paying bonds at the wrong time can produce catastrophic results.

Interest-rate sensitivity isn’t limited to bonds. The stock market now has a similar problem. Many companies paying high dividends are so flooded with cash that they’ve become interest-rate sensitive. Utility stocks, for one, come to mind. When Bernanke said “taper,” the prices of utility stocks tumbled.

It is important to understand that this is a distinct type of risk. Should the market rise dramatically, stocks and bonds with high interest-rate sensitivity will be extremely vulnerable.

The final step in the Ty Cobb approach is finding a way to maintain your quality of life while managing your portfolio. While “set it and forget it” isn’t an option, no one wants to spend all of his or her time fretting about money. Finding ways to accomplish your investment goals and to sleep comfortably at night is what it’s all about.

So, to recap, your overriding objectives are to:

• avoid catastrophic losses;
• protect ourselves from inflation;
• minimize interest rate sensitivity; and
• free up time to enjoy life.

Your Investment Pyramid

 

Core holdings should make up the base your investment pyramid. Core holdings—precious metals, farmland, foreign currencies—are about survival. Hopefully you never have to touch them. No, I’m not suggesting that you prepare for the apocalypse, but we all need survival insurance. Mentally and practically, it should be separate from your active portfolio.

On the other hand, the investments recommended in the Money Forever portfolio are for income and profit. These investments are meant to keep you going for the rest of your life.

Here are the allocations you should use in today’s market. As conditions change, you may have to make adjustments, but we’ll help you do just that as events unfold.

The Ty Cobb approach uses three investment asset classes:

1. Equities providing growth and income and a high margin of safety;
2. Investments made for higher yield coupled with appropriate safety measures; and
3. Conservative, stable income vehicles.

50-20-30 Equals Bulletproof

 

You can balance yield and safety in today’s market. How safe is the Miller’s Money Forever approach? Bulletproof, in my opinion. And that comes from a former Marine who understands that bulletproof is doggone safe—but nuclear trumps all. There are some cataclysmic events that are effectively impossible for individual investors to predict or protect against. So, unless you’re the “build a nuclear bunker” type, our approach should let you sleep well at night and enjoy retirement with minimal financial stress.

We currently recommend holding 50% of your portfolio in solid, diversified stocks. These stocks should provide dividend income and growth through appreciation. Invest no more than 5% in any single pick, and use a 20% trailing stop loss. This way, the most you can lose on any single pick is 1% of your portfolio. Sometimes we recommend tightening our stop losses on specific stocks—we’ll notify you of those circumstances in a timely fashion.

If you follow the 5% rule, you should have no more than 10 stock positions in this 50% slice of your portfolio.

You might be wondering: Why not just invest in an S&P 500 fund? When the market swings, S&P 500 fund investors will be the first ones headed for the door, with the program traders that short the S&P chasing them out. We got our clue with the “taper caper,” and we want to mitigate that risk.

For the Money Forever portfolio, we searched for solid companies that are not so flooded with investor money that they’ve become interest-rate sensitive. Dealing with our picks individually allows us to limit our positions and set stop losses. We’re better off trading a little bit of yield for the safety of investing in solid companies that are less volatile than the market as a whole.

Catching a peek our Bulletproof portfolio is risk free if you try today. Access it now by subscribing to Miller's Money Forever, with a 90 day money back guarantee. If you don't like it, simply return the subscription within those first three months and we'll refund your payment, no questions asked. And the knowledge you gain in those months will be yours to keep forever.

The article The Ty Cobb Approach to Retirement Investing was originally published at Millers Money.

Get the complete Premier Trader University webinar schedule