Home About Archives RSS Feed

The Independent Investor: The More You Look, The More You Lose

By Bill Schmick
iBerkshires Columnist

How many times a day, week, month or year do you check your tax-deferred savings account? Did you know that the more you look, the higher your chances of losing money? For most of us, once a year is more than enough.

There are clients of mine that check their retirement accounts several times a day. To say they are addicted to doing so would not be an understatement. Some of them are retired and have nothing else to do each day but sit in front of the television watching financial channels. They are usually male, have control issues and have substituted watching TV and their investment accounts for their old job.

The sad facts are that the more you look, the higher the probability that you will see losses in your portfolio. That's because the markets do little or nothing the vast majority of time each year. And over time, you can expect the markets to be up or down at least 50 percent of the time. That means that if you check your accounts every single day, you will be disappointed with your returns at least half the time. Do you really want to live like that?

In addition, a loss will always impact you psychologically worse than a gain. For some people, it can ruin their entire day. What's more, those feelings of loss are cumulative. The anxiety builds and builds until you just can't stand another day of losses. So what do you do? Sell, usually at the bottom or close to it.

But it gets worse. You see the largest annual gains in the markets over no more than a couple of days each year.  If you are not invested, you miss it. Then the anxiety really builds, because you don't know when to buy back in. Now you feel like one of those gamblers at a Las Vegas gaming table in the wee hours of the morning, bleary-eyed, hung-over and exhausted but hoping to get back to break-even before they can call it a day.

Various research studies have shown that the more you monitor your portfolio, the riskier you will perceive investing to be. It's even got a name — myopic loss aversion.  It creates an attitude of over-vigilance when viewing short-term losses. And since human behavior is best at avoiding pain in the short run, your natural emotional reaction is to do just that — cut your losses and run.

Behaviorists have studied those who check their portfolio every day versus those who take a peek once a quarter. The daily checker has twice the probability of seeing a moderate loss (2 percent or more) than those who view their account just once every three months. Those who check often are shown to take the least risk in their portfolios and earn the least amount of money.

Frequent monitoring of your investments also causes your stress level to rise. Those who do, experience the stress felt by most Wall Street traders, which is one of the most stressful jobs in the financial sector. And the older you are (listen up, retirees), the more serious will be the consequences to your health.

At any age, stressed-out brains sound an alarm that release potentially harmful hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline (fear and flight). Ideally, the brain turns down these alarms when stress hormones get too high. That doesn't happen when you keep trading (or checking your account). Over time the brain slowly loses its skills at regulating hormone levels. This can cause all kinds of health problems from Alzheimer's to heart attacks and everything in-between.

So how often should you check your accounts? Ideally, no more than once a year and never during down periods, if you want to stay healthy and happy. If you find that a difficult proposition, re-examine your risk tolerance and adjust your portfolio accordingly until you can accomplish that goal.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Write a comment - 0 Comments            

The Independent Investor: Health Savings Accounts a Good Idea

By Bill Schmick
iBerkshires Columnist

Does your employer offer a health savings plan? Many do, especially if your company's health insurance has a high deductible. If you aren't taking advantage of it, you should and here's why.

Health Savings Accounts (HSA) were created as a way to help control rising health care costs. An HSA is an account, similar to a personal savings account or an IRA that you can open at work or on your own. Employers consider it a supplement to their high deductible employee health insurance plan (HDHP).

How do you know if your health insurance plan qualifies as a high deductible? Usually, HDHPs won't start paying out until after you've spent at least $1,300 (individual) or $2,600 for a family in expenses with your own money.

HSAs are used to pay for things your employer plan doesn't cover. Qualified medical expenses such as co-pays, health plan deductibles and other non-insurance covered medical expenses such as dental and vision expenses. You — not your employer or insurance company — own and control the money in your HSA. The government and the health insurers believe that most people will spend their health care dollars more wisely if they're using their own money.

HSAs function somewhat like a 401(k) or 403(b) plan. You can make contributions from your paycheck on a pre-tax basis. Your employer can also match some percentage of your contributions. No matter how much you make, you can open a HSA plan. Even though you may have already maxed out all of your other available tax-deferred savings plans, you can still open a HSA.

Health Savings Plans offer a triple tax advantage in an age where tax shelters are few and far between. Any contributions to the plan, investment earnings you may make, and money you take out for qualified medical expenses are all exempt from federal taxes.

There are some eligibility rules that do apply before you can qualify. You must be already covered by a HDHP. You can't have other health coverage that is not an HDHP (including Medicare). And you can't claim yourself as a dependent on another person's tax return.

The maximum you can contribute in any single year, as determined by the Internal Revenue Service, is $3,350 or, if you have a family plan, $6,750. These maximum levels are subject to yearly adjustments for inflation. That's also good news given the ever-escalating cost of health care.

So what happens, you might ask, if I contribute the maximum and I don't use it in the first year?

The money simply accumulates in your HSA account, rolling over year after year and hopefully making more and more investment returns. You can invest it in the stock or bond market or just about anything else you want. If you switch jobs, you can roll it over with you.

The only issue is that if you take the money out for anything other than medical expenses, you will pay taxes on it. If you take it out before 65 years of age, you will also pay a steep penalty.

If you are a generally healthy individual and want to save for future health care expenses, this is the way to do it. Or, if you are near retirement, a HSA makes a lot of sense because you know your medical expenses are going to increase in the future.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Write a comment - 0 Comments            

The Independent Investor: Why the Nation's Productivity Matters

By Bill Schmick
iBerkshires Columnist

The headlines paint a stark portrait of the amount of goods and services that American workers produce in any given year. We are in the longest decline of American productivity since the 1970s. That fact has economists pessimistic about the future chance of continued growth in this country.

Labor productivity has declined for nine straight months and fallen 0.4 percent over the last year. There is nothing complex about productivity statistics. Output per worker, according to the numbers, is drifting down when it should be going up. The last time this happened was in the 1970s, just before a nasty double-dip recession.

Increases in productivity are what makes America's middle-class what it is. Living standards improve when productivity climbs because the economy produces more goods and services with less. As a result, workers get raises, corporations add higher-paying jobs and you and I feel like we are making headway in our careers.

Contrary to what you might think, a decline in productivity does not mean that American workers are getting lazy or becoming inept in the workforce. Much of productivity depends on innovation. If a worker is using a 50-year-old tool or a 25-year old computer to produce a product, the chances are productivity is falling no matter how long or hard she is working.

Since WW II (up until 2005) annual productivity gains averaged 2.3 percent. New, more efficient methods of producing bigger and better products and services — developed during the war effort and were carried over into civilian society allowing productivity to roar. The advent of the computer especially in the 1990s goosed productivity even further and helped carry us through the postwar decades. Since then, the rate has gradually declined only averaging 1.2 percent or so since 2006 despite the "digital revolution."

You would think that these new digital innovations would have further aided productivity. After all, the internet and the development of things like emails and messaging should have made the workplace more efficient. Maybe it did provide some growth, but if so, its life cycle might have been shorter than we thought. It could be that mobile devices, networking applications and teleconferencing will provide a productivity life in the future. It is just that we are now in a lull between phases.

Some economists believe that the Baby Boomers are at fault. As experienced workers leave the labor force for retirement and are replaced by millennials with little or no experience, productivity falters even though employment overall is picking up. However, lower productivity seems to be a global phenomenon and not all countries are experiencing the Baby Boomer demographic.

A better explanation may be the lack of capital investment in this country since the financial crisis. Although corporations are flush with cash, they have been using that money to pay larger dividends or buy back their stock in the markets. Companies argue that regulations, taxes and unskilled American workers are at fault for their lack of capital spending. Falling worldwide wages may be another reason. Investing in technology and experimenting with better ways to produce a widget are expensive. Given the trend toward lower wages worldwide, it may be cheaper for companies to simply hire more workers at minimum wage and make-do with antiquated equipment or practices or move off-shore where wages are even less.

Reversing this trend may take a combination of factors. As unemployment drops and labor becomes scarce, companies will have to pay up for skilled workers. At some point, it may become economical once again to spend on plant and equipment rather than continue to pay and hire at higher and higher wages.

Then, too, after the presidential elections, some of Corporate America's complaints over taxes and regulations may be addressed by both political parties. At least, we can hope so since, without investment, innovation stalls and with it productivity.

Clearly, the decline in productivity has been and continues to be one of the major drags on returning America to its historical growth rates. Without gains in productivity, living standards flatten out and things feel like they are going backwards. Until we solve it, middle-class workers in America will continue to struggle.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Write a comment - 0 Comments            

The Independent Investor: Candidates & the Economy

By Bill Schmick
iBerkshires Columnist

As the GOP political convention winds down and the Democrat convention gears up, we continue to hear a steady stream of economic "one liners" from the candidates. We all know that fixing the economy is one of the major issues of this campaign but so far the candidates are long on words and short on specifics.

"If I'm elected," promise both candidates, there will be more jobs, trade, wages and growth. According to them, all we need do is check the right boxes come Election Day and the rest will be a foregone conclusion. Historically, Wall Street and corporations vote Republican because the GOP is good for business, while labor, minorities and the "have nots" back the Democrats. However, times and the issues are changing and so are the candidates.

Take the banking sector, for example, both parties and candidates this year have targeted Wall Street as a villain in need of chastisement. The GOP has made a re-instatement of the Depression-Era, Glass-Stegall Act a plank in their platform. Repealed under the Clinton administration, the act had prevented commercial banks from entering the capital markets.

Democrats Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (as well as the public) have blamed the banks for the entire financial crisis fiasco that was brought about by the repeal of the act. The banking sector's involvement in capital markets and the creation of derivative products such as mortgage-backed securities in large part brought down an enormous financial house of cards that threatened to sink all of us.

Free trade is another area where roles appear to be reversed between the candidates, if not the parties. Protectionism has always been part of the Democrat's list of issues, although the label itself was usually shunned as un-American. It stems from the days when labor unions were large and free trade was thought to threaten American workers' jobs and paychecks. As the party of the worker, Democrats traditionally tried to protect the blue-collar voter. Today, we have Hillary Clinton defending free-trade agreements while Donald Trump is promising to dismantle them.

Taxes, of course, are always an issue in every election. Tax reform usually occupies center stage with Republicans, with corporations the leading beneficiary of their policies. The "tax and spend" party, usually a Democrat label, however, is also promising those same corporations tax relief this time around.

Each candidate has a grab bag of goodies for individual sectors of the economy, such as Trump's promises to help oil and gas, coal and other mining companies through a change in the regulatory environment.

Hillary Clinton promises to hike the minimum wage and possibly include more illegal immigrants into the legal system that could help consumer spending and therefore the retail sector. As in so many prior elections, I discount most of these promises as political rhetoric to woo certain states and voting blocs to one side or another.

We will have to wait until next week to examine the Democrat's party platform, but I wouldn't be surprised to see more commonalities than differences between the two parties' planks. This is, in my opinion, a reflection of the populist resurgence in this country. The anger Americans are expressing over the state of the economy and their place in it has crossed party lines. Those among the party faithful who ignore it, do so at their own jeopardy.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Write a comment - 0 Comments            

The Independent Investor: Tax Breaks For College Savings

By Bill Schmick
iBerkshires Columnist

As the cost of college continues to soar in America, more and more states are offering tax breaks to families who are trying to save as much as they can for their kid's educational future.

The state of Massachusetts is deciding whether or not they will join the list this week.

The most commonly used vehicle for that purpose is the "qualified tuition plan," more commonly known as a 529 Plan. These plans are sponsored by states, state agencies or educational institutions and were originally authorized by Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Service Code. They are tax-free on a federal level and all but eight of the 42 states that have an income tax allow families and individuals to claim a tax deduction on college savings.

The idea for savers is that the state offers you two kinds of plans. A plan to prepay for your children's college educational costs at today's tuition rates at a certain college. In the other plan, rather than prepaying tuition, you are simply saving for future college costs by contributing to a plan that can be used at any school (not just those in your state) and for all qualified higher education expenses, including room and board.

Your plan contributions are invested by professional money managers in what are called age-based portfolios. Some plans also offer a selection of stocks and bonds as well. In the age-based funds, your contributions are tilted at first toward stock funds, which have more risk but also higher growth; and as your child approaches college age, the investments are skewed more toward bonds, which are normally more conservative and less risky. There are no taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains and withdrawals for college are tax free by the federal government and by most states that have an income tax.

These plans allow families to contribute as little as $25/month or as much as you want, limited only by the lifetime contribution limit set by each state. Normally this limit ranges from $100,000 on the low end to $270,000 on the other end of the spectrum.

One nice feature of these plans (for those who can afford it), is that individuals can fund a plan with up to $70,000 (or $140,000 with your spouse) in the first year without running afoul of the gift tax. Normally, any contributions you make on behalf of an individual that exceeds $14,000 annually ($28,000 for a couple) is subject to the gift tax. A 529 plan allows you to contribute basically five years' worth of gifts all at once without tax.

Each state decides what kind of tax break they will offer to their residents. They vary substantially. In Rhode Island, for example, the deduction ranges between $500 to $1,000 a year.

But in states like North Carolina you can deduct as much as $2,500-$5,000. New York and Connecticut offer as much as $10,000 to $20,000 in tax deductions. In Massachusetts, the Legislature is voting on a deduction of $1,000 per individual or $2,000 per couple.

Although some complain that the performance of these plans is not that competitive, they are still one of the only games in town for consumers to save for education and enjoy tax advantages while they do so.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Write a comment - 0 Comments            
Page 1 of 57 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11 ... 57  
News Headlines
North Adams Barber Still Cutting Hair After 60 Years
Warren Delivers Economic Policy Presentation To Hundreds At BCC
Coffee Liberation Front Patrons Donate to Animals
Adams & Cheshire School Bus Route 2016
McCann Tech Opening Day 2016
Pittsfield Dentist Named Volunteer Hero by the Massachusetts Dental Society
Southwestern Vermont Medical Center Welcomes New Hospitalist
Naloxone, Rescue Breathing and CPR Training Series Scheduled
Pittsfield Police Hosting Community Police Academy
Adams Conservation Commission Approve Gas Main Improvements

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment advisor representative and portfolio manager with Berkshire Money Management (BMM), managing over $200 million for investors in the Berkshires. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of BMM. None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Anyone seeking individualized investment advice should contact a qualified investment adviser. None of the information presented in this article is intended to be and should not be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. The reader should not assume that any strategies, or specific investments discussed are employed, bought, sold or held by BMM. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com Visit www.afewdollarsmore.com for more of Bill’s insights.

 

 

 



Categories:
@theMarket (208)
Independent Investor (289)
Archives:
August 2016 (5)
August 2015 (2)
July 2016 (7)
June 2016 (7)
May 2016 (5)
April 2016 (7)
March 2016 (8)
February 2016 (5)
January 2016 (5)
December 2015 (6)
November 2015 (6)
October 2015 (9)
September 2015 (7)
Tags:
Europe Fiscal Cliff Stocks Wall Street Housing Debt Ceiling Europe Stock Market Economy Currency Banks Greece Taxes Debt Federal Reserve Retirement Selloff Markets Deficit Energy Congress Crisis Rally Japan Bailout Stimulus Jobs Metals Euro Oil Pullback Recession Interest Rates Election Commodities
Popular Entries:
The Independent Investor: Don't Fight the Fed
The Independent Investor: Understanding the Foreclosure Scandal
@theMarket: QE II Supports the Markets
The Independent Investor: Does Cash Mean Currencies?
@theMarket: Markets Are Going Higher
The Independent Investor: General Motors — Back to the Future
The Independent Investor: Will the Municipal Bond Massacre Continue?
@theMarket: Economy Sputters, Stocks Stutter
The Independent Investor: Why Are Interest Rates Rising?
The Independent Investor: How Will Wall Street II Play on Main Street?
Recent Entries:
The Independent Investor: The More You Look, The More You Lose
@theMarket: Fedspeak Occupies A Dull Market
The Independent Investor: Health Savings Accounts a Good Idea
@theMarket: Three in One
The Independent Investor: Why the Nation's Productivity Matters
@theMarket: Markets Need to Digest Recent Gains
The Independent Investor: Candidates & the Economy
@theMarket: Markets Make Hay
The Independent Investor: Tax Breaks For College Savings
@theMarket: Historical Low-Interest Rates Prop Up Equities