Saturday, April 28, 2007

Ask Your Financial Advisor to Explain This:


Ask Your Financial Advisor to Explain This:

As always, there are some things that you can control and some things that you cannot control - things like the economy, demographics, and supply and demand. Today, I will be writing about the economy because we live in “interesting times” and because things are different now than they have been in the past 50 years.

First, there are high short-term interest rates in Europe and the United States. Why mention Europe? Because the point of this article is to make the point that the US is not in control of its money and to ask the question, “Is that your money too?” This discussion is being put forth to start some dialogue and to get you to think about some of things that are out of your control, like the economy, and to prompt you to ask your financial advisor for their take on this change.

Case in point, right now there is a fully inverted yield curve on U.S. Treasuries and the global economy is thriving, new records of economic activity are being measured, stock markets are up, and debt creation is soaring. Traditionally, this situation is the opposite of what one would expect. Why?

Let me explain… an inverted yield curve, defined as three-month Treasuries yielding more that 10-year Treasuries, always means recession, not boom. “The yield curve has predicted every U.S. recession since the 1950’s…”, so what is going on?

To understand this logic, you have to understand that the banks, (the source of all money), make their money by borrowing short and lending long for cars, mortgages, boats, etc., so the greater the spread between the short and long rates, the more profitable the banking business. But, invert this yield curve and the banks find themselves paying more for deposits on savings accounts than they earn by lending. For the global economy, traditionally, this used to mean bad news because the U.S. spending fuels export driven economies of Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. A credit crunch, (increased short-term lending rates), used to mean world pain. Not so today, what’s changed?

Consider a new paradigm, that the structure of the world’s economy has changed. Author, John Rubino, says consider these things:

1) Today, we have the free flow of capital around the world. This means that cash moves in and out of any one market without any restrictions. This also means that the inverted U.S. yield curve is only inverted from a U.S. investor’s perspective. For example, over in Japan, where they have artificially low over night bank interest rates, (something like 0.5% on what in the U.S. would pay 3%), there is an interest in investing their Yen into our U.S. over night notes because for them, a U.S. inverted yield curve is a steep yield curve! This concept of investing in one bank from another is called the carry trade, the over night carry trade. What has changed is that now Japanese banks and other capital from around the world are participating in the carry trade.

2) There is, at least, one more reason that is even bigger than the amount of money the Japanese are pouring into the U.S. over night market carry trade. I’m talking about the central banks, the mother ship of all banks of any given country, that are buying U.S. dollar debt. The central banks of Japan and China have something like 3 Trillion dollars of U.S. bonds. These government banks have chosen to recycle their trade surpluses back into U.S. Bonds. The reason they do this is because if they did not do this, their own currency, the yen and renminbi, would become less valuable at international exchange rates making the cost of their exported goods more expensive to the U.S. market that they serve.

3) The reason why this is working is because of the new paradigm in the economy, namely that 90% of all foreign money that is buying U.S. securities, is no longer private investors, but foreign governments. They are buying Treasuries, Corporate bonds, mortgages, and stocks because by doing so they keep their own currencies “fairly” valued so the status quo continues, namely the Japanese and Chinese keep selling competitively priced goods to the U.S. consumers, and at the same time, by actively exchanging the trade surplus created into the purchase of U.S. debt, they effectively are giving the U.S. the equivalent of unlimited credit with which to buy more goods at an ever increasing trade surplus that keeps getting “sanitized” by the re-investment of the trade surplus back into U.S. Securities. Got it?

OK, good, because there is just a little bit more to all of this. What has happened with this recycling of debt to a seemingly unlimited potential, is a massive demand for high-grade debt notes, more in fact than the entire U.S. Treasury has. In fact, that’s the reason for something called, “Securitization”, or the building of lesser-grade debt into higher-grade bonds, like gathering up a bunch of home mortgages or credit card imbalances and creating a SPV, “special purpose vehicle.”

Now, here is the reality check… Securitization’s impact on business practices in the financial sector has been seismic. U.S. banks no longer have to hold debt for long periods of time. They can sell it to foreign central banks and use the proceeds to make more debt available and hence, banks have been transformed into the suppliers of raw material for the global economy. This also explains the U.S. banks willingness to lend money in spite of the inverted yield curve. Knowing that they don’t have to hold this debt, they repackage it into an SPV and sell it to central banks with a trade surplus.

The final piece of this transformation is the credit insurance that has recently come on side, meaning they have created new ways to insure against losses involved in borrowing, enter the CDS, “credit default swap” that insure against any losses involved in defaults by a given borrower. Enter hedge funds that have discovered that writing CDS is like writing flood insurance in a drought period. The challenge in finding flood insurance is in finding people who want it, but who doesn’t want cheap money. So, what has changed is that now the banks provide the credit as they always have, but this time the hedge funds are providing credit insurance so the resulting re-packaged “high-grade” debt is being snapped up by central banks that have a trade surplus with the U.S.

I’m not finished yet… armed with cheap credit, a growing number of companies are buying back their stock. For large companies, a strategy of stock buybacks is used to support share prices in the absence of any internal growth opportunities. For the smaller companies, this could make them a target for a leveraged buy out from private equity firms armed with cheap money. Global M & A rose 38% in 2006. And default rates are falling because even the most troubled company can get credit these days.

The result is that the U.S. government is not totally in control any more; securitization has made bank reserve requirements irrelevant. Meanwhile, most financial transactions that are electronic are perceived to be safe and liquid and so can perform some of the functions of money. Combine this new-age credit creation with huge trade imbalances and the result is a unique set of challenges for today’s central banks. Imagine that you are running the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, your economy is running an alarming trade deficit, U.S. dollar backed bonds are ending up in the accounts of your biggest trading partners’ central banks and in response you have engineered an inverted yield curve, which always worked in the good old days, but you know what, it isn’t working now, is it?

This time is different, the banks are still lending like crazy and credit is still cheap. Why? Perhaps the global financial system has shifted away from gradual interest rate changes that were connected simply to shifting mortgage rates. This time, there is a new player on the field that is driving demand for the supply of money and that is the M & A lending activity that is trumping the mortgage backed securities of yesteryear.

Now for the trillion dollar question - is money this cheap sustainable or are we headed off the cliff inevitably, with everybody’s debt mounting and mounting for a great fall? Eighteen months ago, our overseas debt became greater than our overseas assets, a situation, that in the past, would have caused a decline in the value of the U.S. dollar. The U.S. is now the world’s greatest debtor. Those countries holding this debt, largely Japan and China, are dependant on U.S. consumer spending. A rapid falling dollar would be more of a problem for Japan and China than for the U.S. Meanwhile, U.S. banks are continuing to make money on the inverted yield curve by taking more and more risks on credit. For example, 71% of all companies with Standard and Poor’s credit rating had the lowest quality rating in 2006; in 1980, by comparison, only 32% had this poor rating.

How big is this new economy? The value of global credit insurance alone is half the size of the global GDP and it is growing exponentially. Much of it is held by hedge funds that don’t publish audited balance sheets. So, it is clear we are in uncharted waters, and we already know that the social security is not properly funded so we cannot count on that design for our futures either.

Thinking like a CEO means taking into consideration all the situations that are in your control and all the situations that are out of your control, like the economy. I hope this little piece has given you a heads up and reasons to discuss this overview with your financial advisor(s).

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Today’s Investment Opportunities – April 1, 2007

With the economy slowing and sector leadership waning, investor interests may be best served by considering funds, and management teams, that have shown a knack for good, old-fashioned stock-picking. Here’s an updated list of what we find attractive at present and a few thoughts as to why these funds might make sense in your portfolio.

If you recall, we added “bear market” and “market neutral” investment options to our list at the beginning of July 2006. Not the most auspicious time to do so, but we’re not just looking for funds that “zig when the market zags”. In order to make the list, these funds have to provide not only downside protection to a portfolio, but also a modest level of risk-adjusted excess return, or alpha. So, even if we get the ensuing market direction wrong, our market neutral and bear market funds have a good probability of mitigating directional bias.

As it turns out, a good example of a fund with these characteristics is the Prudent Bear fund we mentioned in July. From our work, the fund’s beta relative to the U.S. market was roughly -0.75 over the past year (through March 31, 2007). Given the broad U.S. stock market returned positive 11.28% over the last 12-months, one would expect Prudent Bear to have lost roughly 8.4%. Yet the fund generated positive returns of 7.4%. This difference of 15.9% would have allowed one to both insulate an investment portfolio to short-term moves on the downside while capturing a good deal of the market’s upside. We like that.

We present all three of the market neutral and bear market funds we recommended last July in the table below along with two funds we’d be unlikely to hold in either model portfolios, or client accounts, namely the Rydex Inverse S&P 500 and ProFunds Bear funds. The column marked “Beta Implied 1-year Return” is an estimate of the return an investor should have expected from just fund’s beta exposure to the broad market. The fund’s “Excess Return” is simply the difference between the fund’s total return and its Beta Implied 1-year Return.



A logical question that might arise – why do both the Rydex and ProFunds offerings show any positive “Excess Return”, given that they both attempt to mirror the overall market in the opposite direction? The answer stems from two sources. First, part of this benefit is due to the strategy that each employs - investing the proceeds from shorting futures in risk-free short-term obligations. This accounts for maybe 5% of each fund’s total returns and, given that Prudent Bear is roughly 75% short, about 3.75% of the excess return generated by this fund as well. The remainder of the excess return generated by Rydex and ProFunds can be attributed to the mis-match between the S&P 500 Index and the Russell 3000 index.

We’d be unlikely to recommend, much less hold, either the Rydex or ProFunds offerings simply because we don’t place much faith in our abilities at accurately calling the direction of the overall market over the short term – and that’s what benefiting from these funds requires. Yet in cases where an active market neutral or bear fund manager shows an adept ability to add modestly consistent excess return we’re more interested, as that excess return (assuming it persists) actually mitigates the risk if our directional biases are wrong.

Our opportunity list, shown below, is comprised solely of actively managed mutual funds that should be available through the Fidelity, Charles Schwab and TD Ameritrade fund platforms as “no-transaction fee” options. However, if you find an error in availability, let us know and we’ll be sure to correct it next quarter.




Changes in Fund Recommendations

Deletions

Chase Growth, Hillman Focused Advantage (CHASX & HCMAX) – both fund’s risk-adjusted returns have fallen off markedly since last July. We recommend swapping out of each into Janus Contrarian (JSVAX) and/or Allianz NFJ Dividend Value – D (PEIDX).

Fidelity Value Discovery (FVDFX) – still producing solid returns, we recommend continuing to hold in taxable accounts, but we’d rather dedicate new money to either Kinetics Paradigm (WWNPX), Kinetics Small Cap Opportunities (KSCOX), or Delafield (DEFIX). Realize the overlap between Kinetics Paradigm and Small Cap Opportunities is sizeable, so we’d select either one or the other.

James Equity & James Small Cap (JALCX, JASCX) – deterioration in both funds merit a move to greener pastures. We suggest Delafied (DEFIX) for owners of James Equity and Cambiar Conquistador Inv. (CAMSX) for James Small Cap holders.

Touchstone Small Cap Value Opportunities (TSVOX) – Shorter term prospects might be brighter with Cambiar Conquistador Inv. (CAMSX) or Royce Value Plus Service (RYVPX).

Fidelity International Discovery (FIGRX) – fund has closed. We’d recommend continuing to hold but new money is advised to look to Quant Foreign Value (QFVOX).

Additions

Janus Contrarian (JSVAX) – it looks like Janus is getting its groove back, and Contrarian is one of the timeliest of their offerings. Solid risk-adjusted returns for the past few years add to its attractiveness.

Allianz NFJ Dividend Value – D (PEIDX) – steady, consistent performance along with a modest expense ratio make this fund attractive in the large-cap value sector.

Delafield (DEFIX) – a solid way to get mid-cap value exposure. Much more cyclically positioned than either Kinetics Paradigm (WWNPX) or Kinetics Small Cap Opportunities (KSCOX) and hence a likely complement to either.

Royce Value Plus Service (RYVPX) – a nice small cap opportunity, Royce has done a great job with many of their small cap offerings and Value Plus Service is both well diversified and most timely.

Cambiar Conquistador Inv (CAMSX) – a relatively unknown fund with only $63MM under management, he performance has been solid since inception. This looks like a good opportunity to get in on the ground floor though the ride may be bumpy at times.

Fidelity Real Estate Income (FRIFX) – a nice conservative offering that seems to be completely misunderstood by Morningstar, who give it a one-star rating. The fund invests in preferred shares of real estate companies (REITs and operating companies) and is much more comparable to fixed income offerings than other REIT funds. A good fund for those seeking retirement income with some upside.

Alpine International Real Estate (EGRLX) – in our opinion the U.S. REIT sector is both picked-over and over-priced relative to the risk inherent in the sector. However, international REITs are in their infancy and, as the market develops, we’d expect a lot of opportunities for early investors. The yields are currently low, but expected to rise over the next few years as the REIT structure matures overseas. Funds in this sector are not without risk, but tuck this fund away for five years and we think you’ll be well rewarded.

Tax Deductibility of Management Fees


A few questions have come up from clients regarding the tax deductibility of investment management fees paid for ongoing advisory services such as those offered by Pariveda. Here’s a quick overview.

Investment management fees are considered a “below-the-line” miscellaneous expense for the taxpayer and are therefore deductible to the extent that they, combined with all other miscellaneous expenses, exceed 2% of the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (AGI). The taxpayer is eligible for the deduction regardless of whether the account(s) in question are taxable, tax-deferred, or a combination.

However, in cases where the taxpayer falls under the Alternative Minimum Tax all “below-the-line”, including those for investment management fees, are disallowed.

Until a few years ago, there was confusion surrounding whether advisory fees paid for tax-deferred accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)’s had to paid from funds within the account, or whether these fees could be paid from outside funds, and if so, if these fees would be considered tax deductible. All this was cleared up in a 2005 private-letter ruling:

Advisers say the IRS clarified a gray area when it ruled that a wrap or asset-based fee for an IRA can be paid with outside money - and not run afoul of contribution rules - as opposed to having to be paid with pre-tax dollars from the IRA. The rule also clarified that the wrap fee paid with outside money would be tax deductible.

Interestingly, while advisory fees paid for tax-deferred accounts are deductible, brokerage commissions are not.