Life Lessons from a Dead Rich Guy

Have you heard about Jean Paul Getty?  He was named the richest living American by Fortune magazine in 1957, but unless you’re a history buff, his name only rings a bell because you’ve probably purchased gasoline from the company that bears his name, Getty Oil.260px-JP_Getty,1944 

Now, Mr. Getty was not right about everything.  For example, he had five different wives and was quoted once as saying, "A lasting relationship with a woman is only possible if you are a business failure." I’m not exactly sure how he kept getting dates with proclamations like that, but maybe it was because he had a way with words… or because he had a lot of money.  Regardless of Getty’s lack of relational skills, he became the richest man in America due to his keen business sense.  Consider this line that seems incredibly applicable to our current economic environment, “In times of rapid change, experience could be your worst enemy.”150px-As_I_See_It 

Is it possible that your comfort – or your advisor’s comfort – with the notion that the market is always going to take care of you led to the deep losses in your investments in recent years?  Maybe you thought that you survived the dot com bubble from 2000 through 2002, so what could be worse than that?  The answer: 2008.  History is still unfolding in this economic crisis at a pace more rapid than Getty could’ve dreamed.  How much more, then, should we heed his advice? 

You Need To Know…A Dead Pig In The Sunshine Is Quite Happy

Listen to Tim deliver this YNTK!  Click below:

You Need To Know – Dead Pig

__________________________________________

YOU NEED TO KNOW… that a “dead pig in the sunshine” is actually quite happy.

I’m sure you’re quite convinced at this moment that I’ve finally lost whatever marbles I previously possessed, but if you’re from the south, you might know EXACTLY what I’m talking about.  I was on the phone recently with a great client who lives in another state that is decidedly below the Mason-Dixon line, and at one point, he mentioned that he was, “Happier than a dead pig in the sunshine.”  Since I’m a big fan of the use of uncommon metaphors, I asked him how that could possibly be… he didn’t know, so I looked it up on Google.  And believe it or not, even Google was not able to tell me why a pig that was dead could be happy regardless of where he lies.

Do you ever feel this way when people in the financial world start talking?  These days, everybody is throwing around a good bit of gross domestic product, core inflation, and if you’re lucky, maybe you can have some credit crunch… (is that an ice cream topping?)  At tax time, you’re sure to hear about adjusted gross income, maybe modified adjusted gross income, and the rightly scorned alternative minimum tax.  In estate planning, you have a federal estate tax exclusion which may or may not be impacted by your annual gift exclusion or your lifetime gift exclusion.  But, if you’re looking for the most common “dead pig in the sunshine” style rule that could never be explained, why is it that the two primary ages for IRA distributions are stipulated in half years (59 ½ and 70 ½)??

Do you ever think that the phrases that are thrown around in the financial realm are actually used to make you think that you don’t know enough and thereby need to buy something from the person who’s doing the phrase dropping?  Next time, just tell them that “you’re happier than a dead pig in sunshine”… they’ll understand… and that is something YOU NEED TO KNOW.

 

Judging Mutual Funds…in 90 Seconds or Less

With over 10,000 mutual funds from which to choose as you invest, the question is begged: HOW THE HECK CAN YOU PICK FROM TEN THOUSAND OPTIONS??

We start by classifying them, and what you’ll learn in this short video can help you narrow the field down to a manageable list. 

Annuities are Not Bought…They’re Sold!

For those working as financial planners, that we will eventually be humbled by the recognition of a faulty thought process is not just likely, but a foregone conclusion.  One of the financial products that I was trained on intensely was annuities—fixed annuities, variable annuities, equity indexed annuities and immediate annuities.  And it wasn’t until I was in the industry over seven years that my continued research began to reveal that the benefits of annuities to consumers were exaggerated and the drawbacks, downplayed.  As that truth began to settle in, I had to acknowledge that I was wrong.  That was humbling, but I wouldn’t trade my initially faulty thought process for anything, because learning “the hard way” has helped me grow through experience and it makes me a better planner today.  Here’s my confession, which kicks off Chapter Twelve in The Financial Crossroads:

From Chapter Twelve, The “A” Word:

Funny_Sales_Cartoon_sales_callrememberingnames  In the realm of personal finance, no word has been dragged through the mud more times than The “A” Word—Annuities.  Yet, annuities still survive and even thrive.  How they do is not a mystery.  

There is not an outcry on the part of consumers demanding annuity products.  The reason for the continued vibrancy of annuity products and sales is that they pay a big honkin’ commission to the selling broker or agent.  (There, I’ve said it.)  And, as most of the financial sales tactics exposed in this book, I’m especially qualified to make such a statement, because I have sold them myself.  I wasn’t a bad person in those days, conniving to separate prospects from their hard-earned money for my own selfish benefit.  Conversely, every time in years past when I sold an investment product to a client for a commission, I did so thinking it was best for the client.  My recommendations met all the legal requirements of suitability that are required of a broker, but I declare to you now that in hindsight there is no question that my judgment was partly influenced by the amount of money that I could make (or not make) in the sale.  

And how could it not be?  Let’s say you, as a salesperson, had three different products to sell with the following characteristics: one would pay you 1% for every year that the investment continued to be held by the client, one would pay you 5.75% up front followed by .25% each additional year, and another would pay you 12%—all up front.  Which one would you be likely to pick, all things being considered equal?  Hmmmm.  Let’s add to the scenario the assumption that you were selling in the midst of an economic downturn which had resulted in a significant loss of revenue for you and your family.  Is it possible that in that circumstance you may be inclined to favor the product that pays 12% up front over the one that pays 5.75% up front?  And forget about the one that pays 1%, because in tough times, that simply isn’t going to butter the bread.  These aren’t imaginary numbers that I’m using. One percent is a slightly below average amount that a financial advisor may charge for discretionary management of your investment assets; 5.75% is the average commission paid to a broker who sells a mutual fund (A share); and annuity products pay up to—and in some cases over—12%!

The sale of annuities is justified entirely too often because of the massive commissions that go to the broker or agent selling the product.  Powerful organizations have made it their lives’ work to decry this very notion and have built elaborate systems designed to convince themselves, their brokers and agents, and the consuming public to believe in the justness of their actions.  I was a part of one such group and was encouraged—along with a room full of other financial folks who had been invited to San Diego for an all-expense paid trip to hear what this organization had to say—to join the ranks of the “Safe Money Specialists.”  Other people were selling products.  We were selling peace of mind and getting paid 10 times as much!

I repeat: people who sell annuities aren’t bad people.  But, they are sales people.  You expect timeshare salespeople to have an economic bias to sell you a timeshare.  You expect a phone solicitor who interrupts your dinner to keep you on the phone to convince you to buy something before you hang up the phone.  You don’t, however, expect someone who refers to themselves as a financial planner or advisor or professional to have the primary aim to sell you something.  Unfortunately, many of them do.  Your broker or agent may have drank the company Kool-Aid and genuinely believe that he or she is doing the best thing for you, so treat them with respect when you tell them you’ll be moving your business.  As I learned growing up in the Baptist church, we should, “Hate the sin, not the sinner.”  We will be discussing in much greater detail the ways that financial services employees and financial advisors are compensated and what you should look for in Chapter Seventeen.

All Things Considered…Equal???

“The conventional wisdom is often wrong.”  Those were the words of Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner in their blockbuster hit, Freakonomics, which, by the way, if you haven’t read it is well worth the time and money.  This could be no truer than in the financial services realm and, specifically, the sales of investment products and services.  Indeed, the entire premise that an investment’s asset class—its label as large cap stock, small cap stock, international stock, short- or long-term bond—as the PRIMARY determinant of its risk, must be questioned. 

Here’s how Jim Stovall and I put it in The Financial Crossroads in the chapter entitled, “Portfolio Management: All Things Considered Equal”:

Chart  Have you ever heard anyone say, “All things being considered equal…” and then follow it up with a statement?  They may just be an economist.  It’s like saying, “If everything happens the way I expect it to, I’ll be home on time for dinner.”  It’s really an out.  In economics, enormous models are created with assumptions too numerous to count, and the aforementioned phrase gives the economist an out when circumstances beyond his or her control change.  This phrase is especially important in the management of investment portfolios.   

All things being considered equal, stocks are more risky than bonds.  Growth companies, more risky than value companies. Small companies, more risky than large companies.  International countries and companies, more risky than the United States and companies domiciled here.  In investing circles, each of these categories is called an asset class.  If all things were equal, the above presumptions would hold true.  But, especially in the world of investments, all things are never equal!  They’re in a constant state of flux, and as Mark Twain told us, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

Departing momentarily from theory into reality, consider the notion that instead of risk being determined by asset class, risk is determined by the price of that asset.  The risk of a particular asset is not correlated with its label, but instead, its price tag.

*************************

You see, we’re not suggesting that the asset class is irrelevant, but it frightens us that the financial industry seems to have built its foundation for investing on the widely accepted “science” that an investment’s risk is determined by its label instead of its price tag.  This concept is theoretically known as Modern Portfolio Theory or the Efficient Market Hypothesis, but has become broadly known  and presented to consumers as Asset Allocation.  You’d probably know it better from the pretty pie chart that most often is pulled out to describe it.  (All you need to do is “rebalance” between the asset classes when the pie chart gets out of whack and VOILA—a lifetime of investing made simple!)

So if you were one who had wondered if your pie chart wasn’t cutting it, or if you were relying too heavily on market logic that seemed all too illogical, we’d suggest that your common sense might actually trump the behemoth financial institution!    

IT’S EASIER TO LOSE MONEY THAN IT IS TO MAKE IT!

Over the weekend, I was watching a television program on which a financial advisor made his claim that, “The market has always come back and I think it always will.”  Sadly, this has been the sales pitch of stock brokers for generations and only some of those generations have walked away with a positive rate of return.  For this post, I’d like to share with you the open to the fifteenth chapter of The Financial Crossroads titled “Risk Management Investing."  We call into question the now institutionalized thought in the financial industry of “Buy and Hold,” Asset Allocation and Modern Portfolio Theory to remind all of us of the mathematical truth that IT’S EASIER TO LOSE MONEY THAN IT IS TO MAKE IT! 

From “Risk Management Investing”:

"I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money." (Mark Twain)



Money_in_toilet  
Mark Twain was the first to wittily claim that he was more concerned with capital preservation (the return of my money) than growth (the return on my money), but it is interesting to note that Twain passed away in 1910, prior to the Great Depression.  Oklahoma’s favorite son, Will Rogers (who died in 1935), also later made this a notable quote.  I have another that I’d like you to chew on.  “It is easier to lose money than it is to make it!”  

That’s not a catchy slogan or tagline.  It’s a mathematical fact.  If you have $100 and you lose 10% of it, it will take an 11% rate of return to become whole.  If you lose 20%, you’ll need to make 25% to get your money back.  What if you lose 50%?  What rate of return would you need to make your money back?  The answer is an astonishing 100%!  I’m not being “tricksy” as Tolkein’s character, Gollum, called the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  See for yourself:

  • $100 x 90% = $90; $90 x (100% + 11%) = $100
  • $100 x 80% = $80; $80 x (100% + 25%) = $100
  • $100 x 50% = $50; $50 x (100% + 100%) = $100

Once you’re down 50% and facing that big 100% hill, it will take you around seven years, if you’re able to make an annualized rate of 10% per year, to get back where you started.  If you’re making closer to 7% each year, you’ll be waiting a full decade to break even.  If you earn 4% on your money, it will take you 18 years to recover from a 50% fall.

But you say, “I always learned that you need to buy and hold.   The market will go up and down, and we can’t time it, so we shouldn’t try!  It’s not timing the market.  It’s time in the market!”  It is true that market timing is a very dangerous business——betting, if you will.  However, if and when you’re able to see the bearish train coming down the tracks, would it not make sense to get out of its way?  The price of staying in can be disastrous.  From the day the market peaked on September 7, 1929, it would have taken until 1954 to break even if you bought, and held.  That is a pretty long time to wait, especially if you were planning to retire in 1932.

And today?  For the last decade, the market is down over 20%.  You will find that the current logic that runs the financial services realm at the institutional level was developed in one of the best stretches the market’s ever seen.  From 1982 until March of 2000, the market ran upwards with little impedance.  Objectively speaking, Buy-and-Hold and strict Asset Allocation concepts, born in that 18-year stretch, worked very well.  But what about the stretch from 1964 up until 1982?  Believe it or not, that span represented yet another 18-year stretch where the buy-and-holder would’ve made nothing——zip, zilch, nada.  And we in the United States have it good!  Japan’s staring at their 20th year of an atrocious run that leaves the Nikkei still 70% south of its peak at 40,000.  So, eight years into a rough losing streak for the U.S. market——and following a colossal financial demise brought on largely by ignorance and greed on the part of the U.S. government, corporations, and citizens——would you rather be buying-and-holding the Dow or the Nikkei?

It’s not my intent to scare you, so let’s go back, and I can try to give you some answers and some hope.  The world’s best investors are not buy-and-holders, asset allocators, or Modern Portfolio theorists.  They’re risk managers.  These are folks like Sir John Templeton, Jean-Marie Eveillard, Jim Rogers and yes, Warren Buffett.  They spend more time worrying about how not to lose money than they do trying to make it.  I’m not talking about leaving all your money in T-Bills and CDs.  I’m talking about resetting your brain to focus first on managing risk in your investments, then, on your return.