How bad has Obama been for business?

That sound you hear is corporations (especially in the healthcare industry) laughing all the way to the bank. Craig Israelsen had a fascinating article in a recent issue of Financial Planning Magazine, and the results are quite startling. As Israelsen correctly points out, presidents are happy to deny responsibility when the news is bad, and take unearned credit when news is good, but I’d like to suggest that any POTUS who has eight years (two terms) has to accept some blame and credit, especially after several years in office. Israelsen graphicBased on numbers, I’d say Clinton and Obama have been the most investor-friendly in recent memory, and investors (and business), should be lining up to thank them. And when did facts and numbers count in politics? (If you’re interested in the full article, drop me a line and I’ll send it along.

Let’s look at another common theme from a certain blowhard American political party—that the Affordable Care Act has been a disaster for the healthcare industry. Notice I said industry; whether it has improved the lives of individual consumers is another story. According to Morningstar’s charts, $10,000 invested on March 23rd, 2010 (the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law) would be worth $27,377.99 today. A 173% increase in less than 6 years doesn’t exactly seem unprofitable to me. Had you been smart enough to focus on biotechnology—you know, not be dragged down by all those terrible companies that make up any index—your $10,000 would be worth nearer $40,000 today. ($40,645 using FBIOX as an example—no investment recommendation intended, example only). Biotech is one of the most risky areas of the healthcare scene, but apparently Obamacare hasn’t put all that much of a damper on risky, venturesome research and innovation, if a better than 300% return is any indicator.

Wouldn’t it be nice if political opinions had some basis in facts? I hope I’ve just given you some.

Social Security “Reform”—They Pulled a Fast One

They really put one over on us. With all the horrible news events lately, the pressure in Washington to produce an approved budget, and the joy that the government won’t be shut down once again, lawmakers slipped in major changes to Social Security without soliciting any comment or feedback (so far as the planning industry can determine).

It’s probably not going to surprise you that these changes are not to your benefit. Many of the Social Security claiming strategies that could be used to maximize your benefit have been eliminated. If you were born after 1954, you will not be able to use the “file and suspend” strategy, where the usually higher earning spouse, upon reaching full retirement age, was able to file for benefits, then suspend them. The spouse could then claim spousal benefits, while letting benefits on your own work record continue to grow until you claim them at the higher level reached by 70. Now, if you apply you will get whatever is the higher benefit to which you’re entitled, but you won’t have the option to restrict that application to “spousal only”, so you won’t get the bump up at 70. Also, if one person files and suspends, benefits for both spouses are suspended. It is unclear yet how this will affect divorced spouses, since it’s possible that a vindictive ex-spouse could refuse to collect benefits to postpone the ability to claim spousal benefits. Hopefully, this will be clarified by regulations or rectified by an amendment.

If you will be 62 by 2016, you can still take advantage of restricting your claim to spousal benefits, then switching at 70. Widows and widowers benefits are not affected, and anyone who is currently claiming should be grandfathered in.

This is being justified by saying it closes “loopholes”, as if people were doing something wrong by trying to get a decent level of retirement. I have to ask again, why do we not have a national commitment to guaranteeing a decent retirement to all citizens, as does EVERY OTHER Western Democracy? Instead of trying to prevent people from getting the pittance that is Social Security, and trying to cut the pensions of government workers who have them, we should be moving toward a solvent system that provides a decent retirement for all workers.

Confusing? Yup. If you do have questions, I’d be happy to analyze your situation and discuss alternatives and possibilities with you.

Should you invest in stocks?

Theintelligentinvestor.jpgThis past weekend I went to an investor fair sponsored by the Chicago North and West Chapters of BetterInvesting. These are the people who used to be known as the National Association of Investment Clubs. I write a quarterly column—Fund in Focus­­—for the magazine, and the occasional cover story. But like so many relationships these days, mine is virtual so it was nice to meet some of my fellow authors (and they are nearly all fellows, which is a bit disappointing).

They tend to be an engaged and savvy group. Maybe this is the product of self selection, because if you’re disinclined to put in the work a stock study requires, or regularly lose money, you probably wouldn’t stay with a stock investment group. But the people I met had a pretty good understanding of risk, had seen some investments lose a lot (and gain a lot), and generally asked thoughtful questions. No one seriously supported day trading, told me about the latest greatest penny stock, or was wearing a tin foil hat. I was heartened to see more than a few young people.

Buying individual stocks is not something I recommend to my clients. I strongly believe that the essence of investment planning is establishing and maintaining a core portfolio allocated among a wide variety of asset classes (e.g., large cap, international, natural resources, etc.). Depending on how much money you have to invest, how risk tolerant you are, and what options are offered in your accounts (and 401ks may be quite limited), you might choose a whole clutch of funds, or one target fund, or something in between. This is where most of your, and my, investments should be because most of us don’t have time to monitor investments day to day (and probably shouldn’t) and because it offers you a prudent combination of risk and reward. You’re never going to make 300% in a year or two on mutual funds, but you’re not going to lose every red cent, either. You can do both, or either, investing in individual shares of stock.

What I love about BetterInvesting and all the information, analysis tools, and opportunity to benefit by others’ thoughtful opinions is that there’s some basis for making judgments. Most people pick stocks because their brother-in-law told them about it, their kid likes the product, or their husband sat next to an executive of the company on a plane (which is why you cannot mention the name Ciena to me).  Or they’re told “buy what you know” or (shame on you Peter Lynch) go sit in a mall and watch what stores get the traffic. Which is a good way to end up with a whole portfolio of consumer cyclical stocks. And no, that’s not balanced or…wait, I’m foaming at the mouth.

I have seen the occasional client who thoughtfully bought and sold individual equities, and done quite well. But like the owners of apartment buildings, they’re often tired of the stress and want to reduce at least some holdings. Many people have inherited stocks, or fallen in love with a company, or are hoping to get back even on a loser, or reluctant to sell a winner because it might go higher. So BetterInvesting methods really shine not only in stock picking, but if you actually learn the methodology, in identifying when you should sell.

Which investor should you be? Probably, you should be what Benjamin Graham (Warren Buffett’s mentor) described as the defensive investor—seeking to maintain and grow a portfolio at a prudent rate, getting return while balancing risk. After all, most of us have enough trouble wading through and understanding the offerings in our 401k, although now at last the reasonably diversified target date funds are becoming the default.

But Graham also describes another kind of investor—the enterprising investor (which Warren Buffett surely is). As Graham so concisely puts it, The rate of return sought should be dependent, rather, on the amount of intelligent effort the investor is willing and able to bring to bear on his [sic] task. If you’re willing to put the time into study and monitoring, and have the intestinal fortitude to ride out terrible markets and make courageous choices, you might actually be that 2 or 3 in 100 who should consider some enterprising investing.

I like to divide portfolios (including mine) into “core” (asset allocated mutual funds) and “casino”—or maybe there’s a nicer name like adventure or enterprise. Keep that casino portion small (maybe 10%) of your total holdings, and ask yourself these questions:

  1. Could I stand it if I lost 50% of my investment’s worth? 100%?
  2. Would I sell everything in a bad market, hold on, or buy more? (Buy more is what an enterprising investor would do. A defensive investor would hold on.)
  3. Have I read a good core of basic books on investing? (Malkiel, Graham, Bernstein)
  4. Do I have rules for myself on what constitutes an acceptable stock to purchase, hold, and when to sell?
  5. Do I have time to continue to study, research, and monitor the portfolio?
  6. Can I trust myself to follow up regularly over years?
  7. Do I understand what conditions might make my investment go up or down? Buffett famously said he did not understand tech companies and so avoided the bubble in that sector by not buying them in the first place.
  8. Do I have a way to discuss ideas with other thoughtful investors (and I don’t mean a bunch of internet trolls or Jim Cramer)? Besides BetterInvesting and investment clubs, it might be worth checking out the American Association of Individual Investors (no personal experience) and groups such as the Bogleheads.
  9. Do I need this money in the next 5 years?
  10. Am I desperate for money? STOP, that was a trick! If you are, stock speculation is a sure way to make yourself even more desperate.

I don’t advise my clients on individual stocks, except to recommend they diversify into mutual funds if their individual stocks constitute too much of their total investments. I think it’s an art and a very personal interpretation, and ultimately you know the success of your judgment by your own results. Even in an investment club with people looking at the same data study, the opinions on worth will vary greatly. BetterInvesting has said for years that for any five stocks you pick after careful study and evaluation, three will do about what you expect, one will do far better, and one will tank. That’s been about right in my experience, but it can be a pretty nerve wracking ride. You always remember the ones that tanked, but you only talk about the ones that did well.

Only fall in love with things that love you back.