EmptorMaven

If you haven’t refinanced in the last year it’s probably worth looking into. Interest rates depend on many factors, which I’ll list shortly, but “headline rates” (i.e., those available to borrowers in the best circumstances) are under 4% for a 30-year fixed mortgage, 3.25% for 15-year fixed, and about 2.5% for 5- or 7-year ARMs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Bubbles and crashes in real estate over the last few years taught homeowners a few lessons: For one thing, don’t expose yourself to interest-rate or credit risks with exotic mortgages on your primary residence, unless you have liquid reserves to cover that debt if things go against you. For example, interest rates really can cause the cost of an ARM to go up. Balloon mortgages really do have to be paid off, regardless of how difficult it is to refinance when that time comes. And not only can the value of a home decrease, but there may even be periods when it’s impossible to sell for any reasonable price.

Lenders and owners of mortgage-backed securities learned a few lessons of their own, which for a time made it more difficult and expensive to take equity out of a home. However, most of them have by now taken their lumps and learned their lessons: No more liar loans, and no more rigged appraisals. The mortgage origination market is once again hot, and loans are being made at record low interest rates.

Government, the one entity that never seems to learn, is still out there subsidizing loans: not only via the tax credit for mortgage interest, but also through its patrons Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (can you believe those are still around?). Consequently, if you have good credit this is the best time to leverage your home equity. Today’s WSJ article on the subject notes:

[P]eople who have a potentially profitable use for that money—preferably an investment—could come out ahead using this strategy. A borrower who takes out a mortgage at 4.5% is essentially borrowing money for free on an after-tax, after-inflation basis, assuming he is in the 33% marginal tax bracket and inflation returns to its long-term average 3% or more.

If you were thinking of moving to a better house this may be a doubly excellent time to do so: The higher end of the market was hit hardest and has been slowest to show signs of recovery. I am trading up to a better house that is selling below its build cost and, thanks to some aggressive mortgage shopping, I am financing the purchase with a 3.5%, zero-point, 5/1 conforming ARM.

Nominal investment performance numbers give us a false sense of how hard our money is working for us. Real returns, which are adjusted for inflation, look much worse over the long term.

One analyst also factors in the effects of taxes and fees to produce “real-real returns,” which are even more pathetic:

Garrett Thornburg, founder of Thornburg Investment Management in Santa Fe, N.M., calculates what he calls “real-real” returns, adjusting stock performance not only for inflation but also for real-world drags such as taxes and fees. Nominally, a dollar invested in the stocks of the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index at the end of 1978 had blossomed to $22.88 at the end of 2008, including dividends, a sweet gain even after the 2008 meltdown. But once estimates of inflation, taxes and costs are removed, he figures, the investment was worth $3.76.

All of this might be enough to put investors off stocks entirely, until they consider the long-term alternatives. Measured over the 1978-2008 period, rather than over just one decade, stock performance in real-real terms actually is better than that of just about any other major investment class, Mr. Thornburg found: 4.5% a year. Stocks’ ability to keep up with inflation over the very long haul may be their best selling point.

In real-real terms, stocks did better over that period than municipal bonds (2.5% a year), long-term government bonds (2% a year) and corporate bonds (0.2% a year). Real-real home prices were unchanged over those 30 years. Both short-term government bonds and commodities suffered losses.

Last year I recommended TIPS funds as particularly attractive for tax-exempt investment accounts.

TIPS have gained substantially since then, but from a historical perspective the current 10-year TIPS break-even rate of 2.1% is still low. (“Break-even” is the realized inflation rate above which an inflation-protected security will pay more than its non-inflation-protected equivalent. In the case of TIPS that would be regular treasury bonds. A break-even rate of 2.1% means that ). Since inflation protection is valuable insurance in a market like this, with low current inflation but exploding money supply (which could easily lead to surprisingly high inflation in the next few years), one might expect TIPS break-even rates to run above the long-run expected inflation rate, which is around 2% per year. Indeed, it is still cheaper to buy TIPS than to buy treasuries and hedge against inflation with options.

However, as I noted earlier, TIPS aren’t a perfect inflation hedge. Bill Tedford, a successful treasury bond portfolio manager and inflation bug, has other ideas on investing for protection against inflation:

In his own portfolio, Mr. Tedford has begun shorting 30-year Treasurys, expecting the prices to fall as interest rates begin to rise. For clients, however, Stephens is encouraging the use of exchange-traded funds to own exposure to real assets. Mr. Tedford says a 5% or 10% position overall “is big enough to protect a larger portfolio.”

Among ETFs, Stephens likes the U.S. Gasoline Fund, the iShares Dow Jones U.S. Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Index, SPDR Gold Trust, PowerShares DB Base Metals Fund and the PowerShares DB Agriculture Fund. The firm also likes Plum Creek Timber Co.

Though Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS bonds, would seem a natural bet, Mr. Tedford says his group just this month sold off its TIPS investments. Real yields on TIPS are barely above 1% now and Mr. Tedford expects those yields will increase as inflation mounts, hurting prices, which move in the opposite direction.

The likely result: “The return on your TIPS could fall 10% or 15%,” basically wiping out the bond’s inflation protection.

I would personally steer clear of gold as an inflation hedge because it is particularly prone to speculative bubbles, and has less intrinsic value than most other commodities. But diversified investments in energy, industrial metals, and the agricultural sector should also serve as good long-term inflation hedges.

I suppose you can’t fault Wall Street for catering to demand, but as I explained a few years ago hedge fund clones are ridiculous investments. Nevertheless, the WSJ reports investors are still lining up for these offerings and banks are still rolling out new ones.

While most clones have so far generally kept pace with broad hedge-fund indexes, their performance has been all over the map. Between March 2008 and Sept. 30 of this year, clones studied by researchers at Haute Ecole de Gestion in Geneva and Bank Julius Baer & Co. delivered annualized returns ranging from -21% to 6%. And some clones this year have sharply underperformed broad hedge indexes. State Street’s Premia Fund was up less than 2% in the first 10 months of this year, compared with a 10% gain for the HFRI Fund of Funds Composite Index.

Even Andrew Lo, one of the originators of the “clone” concept, and current manager of a replication fund, has to admit that this concept is missing a big piece of the game:

Being restricted to easily traded holdings, replicators may not capture a big chunk of hedge-fund performance. Anywhere from 10% to 60% of hedge-fund returns may come from a premium earned by holding illiquid assets….

The always sensible David Swensen has an interview with the Yale Alumni Magazine that everybody with capital should read. (He has written two books on investing: One for institutional investors, and one for individual investors.)  Naturally, it concords with my general investing advice here.  He slams the actively managed mutual fund industry (“The mutual fund industry is not an investment management industry. It’s a marketing industry.”) and urges individual investors to focus on index investing.

The investor is bombarded with staggering amounts of information, staggering amounts of stimuli that are designed to get the investor to buy and sell and trade, to do exactly the wrong thing, to create excessive profits for these intermediaries that aren’t acting in the investor’s best interests.

Read the rest of this entry »

Only buy guaranteed-renewable term life insurance from A-rated insurer. “Whole life” insurance, which accrues value over time, combines savings and investment with insurance. I have heard of no good reason to bundle those activities. But there are good reasons to avoid whole-life insurance, including:

1. The insurer can embed higher fees.
2. You expose yourself to credit risk of the insurer.  If the insurer fails then you could potentially lose the value of savings in your whole-life policy.  In contrast, if a term-life insurer fails you have only lost your most recent premium payment.  (Either way you are at risk of not being able to get a new policy in time.)

The purpose of life insurance is to protect those who depend on you being alive against catastrophic consequences of you not being alive.  Therefore, it never makes sense to insure child who does not produce income on which you depend.  It is not necessary to insure a homemaker if you can fall back on extended family in the event of their death for the essential services they provide.

As with all insurance, you pay a premium for protection (insurers generally make profits after paying claims and business overhead), so it is irrational to load up on more insurance than you need — unless you know that you are at a much higher risk of dying than actuaries think you are.

How much insurance is reasonable?  If a young family depends on your income, and you have no savings, then you should probably get enough insurance that your wife and kids could maintain their standard of living for 20 years (or until the children are independent) from the proceeds of a policy.  A healthy young man can get a 10-year guaranteed-renewable $2MM insurance policy for around $600/year.  After 10 years, hopefully he will have saved some money and his dependents will be closer to independence so he could drop his coverage to $1MM.

You should not buy insurance to provide independent heirs with an inheritance.  If you play your cards correctly you should Die Broke.  Older people should eventually be able to self-insure out of their savings.  Once they have no dependents they should eventually plan to purchase an immediate annuity to provide insurance against outliving their own savings.

Last time I bought a term-life policy I found the best contract through Zander Insurance Group, an independent insurance brokerage company that made the process as easy as it has ever been.

Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) are a unique asset class ideally suited to investment in tax-exempt accounts (e.g., retirement accounts like IRAs and 401ks).  TIPS pay interest like regular treasury bonds, but they also appreciate in line with inflation.  The mechanisms by which they pay out are somewhat convoluted and undesirable from a tax perspective, which may contribute to the discount they currently carry in the market.  If you can buy TIPS in a tax-exempt account you don’t have to worry about these nuances.

The clearest way of valuing TIPS is in terms of the “break-even rate of inflation,” which is the inflation rate at which an investor would earn the same from TIPS as from regular treasury bonds of the same maturity.  If realized inflation exceeds the break-even rate then investors in TIPS earn more.  If inflation is lower than the break-even rate then investors in regular treasuries earn more.

Considering the break-even rate, TIPS are extremely cheap.  For example, the break-even rate on 5-year TIPS is 1.12% — well below current inflation, historical inflation, and even the Fed’s target inflation rate.  The dollar faces a number of inflation risk factors, and the current market bailout by the U.S. Treasury only adds to these risks.

Since TIPS are an undervalued, tax-inefficient asset that offer inflation protection they make an ideal investment for tax-exempt retirement portfolios.  Investors who want heightened exposure to these characteristics can buy leveraged CEFs that invest in TIPS: E.g., WIW and WIA.

There is no better time to invest than when lots of other investors need their money back.  During market crises like the present the premium on liquidity skyrockets.  I.e., if you have cash on hand that you can commit to investments for an extended period then the people who don’t will let you scoop up assets at firesale prices.  Hence, the rules for investing in a market crisis:

1. Don’t abandon investments unless you need cash.  If you sell during a liquidity crunch you become one of the people paying the liquidity premium.

2. If you buy during a liquidity crunch you collect the liquidity premium.  Therefore you should revisit your asset allocation and consider reallocating your investments to increase your exposure to distressed assets.  (Don’t try to pick stocks or sectors — the information premium during a market crisis can also skyrocket, which means if you don’t have extraordinary information you are at a heightened disadvantage.)  For example, last week a lot of institutions needed to move into short-term treasuries.  They were dumping corporate bonds, stocks, and just about anything else to do it.  Demand for treasuries got so high that buyers were literally paying out for the right to own them (i.e., interest rates went negative).  If you held treasuries and didn’t need the exceptional margin of security they provide it was a good time to cash them in and buy the things everyone else was selling.

In general your portfolio should reflect your investment time horizon and risk aversion — i.e., how long you can keep your money invested, and how much interim “pain” you can tolerate.  The more pain, the more (potential) gain.  During a liquidity crisis you may perceive that risks have gone up and thus be inclined to sell risky assets and move to more liquid assets.  That is exactly the wrong course of action, because it turns you from a liquidity provider into a liquidity demander.  If you succumb to the urge to pull money from the markets you will find yourself in the notoriously underperforming pool of retail market timers who always buy near the top, when everything seems great, and sell near the bottom, at the point of “maximum pain.”

When you see falling asset prices during a liquidity crisis do not think, “Shoot, those assets are riskier than anyone thought, I had better get out too.”  Instead think, “Wow, the market is willing to pay me even more to move into those assets.  Last time I considered those I didn’t think the extra return was worth the risk.  But since that return potential is even higher maybe now it is worth owning them.”

How can you collect the handsome liquidity premium that exists in the current market?  If you own CDs, consider paying the early-withdrawal penalty and putting the money into corporate or muni bonds, whose spreads over treasuries have spiked to record levels.  If you already own bonds consider moving to higher-risk asset classes, or else consider leveraging up using bond CEFs.

A good long-term investment plan does not change very often, but short-term cash and extra funds that you can dedicate to speculative opportunities should be constantly reevaluated.  The current markets present an extraordinary opportunity every individual should review.

If you are in a high tax bracket, tax-exempt bonds have historically offered a slightly better after-tax return than comparable taxable investments.  Over the last year, due to the liquidity crisis in the financial sector, tax-exempt bonds, a.k.a. municipal bonds or “munis,” have become extremely undervalued.  They now offer nominal returns that are roughly the same as taxable equivalents, which means that if you are in a high tax bracket you will end up with a lot more money if you put it in munis.

Clouding the situation has been the fact that bond rating agencies have historically put municipal bonds on a separate but identically named risk scale.  The Wall Street Journal notes, “[I]nvestment-grade corporate bonds between 1970 and 2000 had a 10-year default rate of about 2.3%, far higher than the 0.03% default rate of investment-grade munis.”  I.e., the finance industry has historically pretended that munis are as risky as taxable bonds that in actuality have proven to be seven times more risky.

Munis are not without risk.  Municipal institutions can default on their bonds, and they will be more likely to do so during a recession.  Also, muni bonds are exposed to the same price risks as most other bonds: Their value will decline if interest rates or inflation rise above the levels currently anticipated by the market.  Nevertheless, the risk level of investment-grade bonds is considerably lower than that of stocks or real estate.

First Action Item: If you are in a high tax bracket, this is definitely the time to move any non-retirement assets that you would normally invest in bonds into muni bond funds.  Your after-tax risk-adjusted earnings will be far higher with the munis.  Examples of good funds are Vanguard’s VWLTX, or USAA’s USSTX.

This is also a good time to consider a speculative angle on munis: Not only are they underpriced relative to taxable bonds, but they are also close to “support” levels where even non-taxable entities would start to buy them.  As soon as their nominal yields exceed those of comparable taxable bonds they will be bought by large investors that don’t benefit from the tax exemption — pension funds, endowments, etc.  I.e., they are below their historical and intrinsic price (which is the price a high-tax-bracket investor would pay to own them), and they are so low that they cannot fall much further relative to taxable fixed income.

Buying large amounts of municipal bonds with taxable funds could produce not only an attractive current yield, but also significant capital gains if they revert to their historical price levels relative to taxable bonds.  The best way to speculate on this dislocation is with leverage, and it turns out to be easy to leverage exposure to municipal bonds using Closed-End Funds (CEFs).  A typical leveraged muni CEF will employ leverage of 30% — which means you get roughly 30% more dividends and 30% more exposure to price swings than you would have from a conventional muni fund.  There are literally hundreds of CEFs in the municipal bond sector.  I look for high-yielding CEFs that are trading at a discount to their historical discount.  (There are a number of reasons why CEFs trade at a permium or discount to their NAV.  Without getting into those nuances just follow the rule-of-thumb that the practical “discount” for a CEF is defined with respect to its historical discount.  I.e., you’re getting a bargain if you buy a CEF at a discount to its discount.  Visit ETFConnect to look at the historical discount for any CEF.)

Second Action Item: This is a great time to speculate on munis using leverage.  Just realize that like all speculative strategies this is subject to greater risks: I.e., you can lose more money if things go wrong.  If you have speculative capital to put to work, look for a high-yielding muni CEF that is trading at a discount to its historical discount (I consider the average 52-week discount for this purpose).  Current examples would be:

• BFK (6.5% current dividend yield, and trading at a 6% discount to average discount)
• MVF (6.2% current dividend yield, and trading at a 3% discount to average discount)
• NZF (6% current dividend yield, and trading at a 2% discount to average discount)