At What Price Should I Buy a Stock?

Deciding at what price to buy a stock or other security is almost as hard as deciding whether to buy the security at all.  There are many different approaches for deciding at what price to buy a stock.  One of the ones I’ve seen discussed most often is dollar-cost averaging.  Other strategies include (1) buying the position on whatever day you decide to buy it and (2) setting a target price that is below the current trading price, among many others.  In this post, I’ll explain and compare these three strategies.

Dollar-Cost Averaging

Dollar cost-averaging is a strategy for buying stocks that is intended to reduce the risk that you will “buy high.”

How it Works

Here are the key steps for implementing this strategy:

  • Identify the security you want to buy.
  • Determine how much money you have to invest in that security.
  • Divide that amount into equal increments. In the examples below, I have split the amount into four increments.
  • Decide over what time period you want to make your purchases. In the examples below, I have illustrated a purchasing time period of four weeks.
  • Invest one increment at points in time evenly spaced over your selected time period. For example, let’s say you want to invest over four weeks.  You might buy the selected security every Wednesday in four equal pieces.  If you have $1,000 to invest, you would buy $250 of the selected security each Wednesday for four weeks.

The underlying premise of this approach is that you buy more shares of the selected security than if you happened to have bought the security on a day that the price is high.  Specifically, because you are buying the security in equal dollar amounts, you will buy more shares when the price is low and fewer shares when the price is high.  As such, your average purchase price will be low.

Simple Example

Here’s a simple example in which you invest a total of $4,800 in increments of $1,200 a week for four weeks.

Week Stock Price Shares Purchased
1 $10.00 120
2 8.00 150
3 12.00 100
4 9.25 130

In this example, you buy a total of 500 shares.  If you had bought all of your shares on at $10 (the first week price), you would have 480 shares ($4,800 / $10).  In this scenario, you will have 4% more shares ([500 – 480]/480 – 1) if you use dollar-cost averaging than if you bought all of your shares at the first week’s price.  4% more shares corresponds to 4% more money when you sell the security.  Although 4% may not sound like a large difference, it can add up over time as you buy and sell stocks.

To be clear, though, dollar-cost averaging isn’t always better.  If you had bought all of your shares at the Week 3 price of $8, you would have 600 shares or 20% more than if you used dollar-cost averaging.

Investing Strategies

Here are the three strategies for determining when to buy a security that I’ll use for illustration.

Strategy 1 – Invest Immediately

Invest all of your available money on the day you decide to make the purchase.

Strategy 2 – Dollar-Cost Averaging

Use dollar-cost averaging by buying ¼ of your money available on Wednesday of four consecutive weeks[1]. This strategy is similar to what happens when you buy securities in your employer-sponsored retirement account if you are paid weekly.  Every week, you employer takes some of your wages and invests it in the security you have selected.

Strategy 3 – Wait for Price Drop

Invest all of your available money after the stock price has dropped by 5%. Hold your money in cash while waiting for the price to decrease.

More Examples

I’ve created a few more simple examples to compare the strategies for deciding when to buy a security.  These examples are intentionally simple and therefore unrealistic.  Nonetheless, they are helpful in understanding the different strategies because of their simplicity.  In all of the examples, you have $1,000 to invest.

Smooth Increase

In the first scenario, the stock’s price goes up smoothly by 10% every year.  A graph of its price over two years would look like this.

The chart below focuses on the first month of the above chart and includes the purchases for Strategies 1 and 2 as dots.

Under Strategy 1 (big red dot), you buy all of your stock on the first day at $10 a share, so you are able to purchase 100 shares.

Under Strategy 2 (smaller green dots), you would buy $250 of stock on each of the first, eighth, fifteenth and twenty-second days.  The table below shows the prices on those days and the number of shares you buy.

Day Price Shares Bought
1 $10.00 25.00
8 10.02 24.95
15 10.04 24.90
22 10.05 24.88

The total number of shares you buy is 99.73.

Under Strategy 3, you never buy the stock because the price never decreases by 5%.

The table below compares the numbers of share bought under each strategy

Strategy Name Number Shares Bought Value in Two Years
1 Invest Immediately 100.00 $1,210
2 Dollar-Cost Averaging 99.73 1,203
3 Wait for Price Drop N/A 1,000

In this scenario, there is very little difference between the first two strategies, though you will buy more shares if you invest immediately. Any time you delay your purchases in this scenario, you are certain to pay a higher price which reduces the number of shares you can buy.  Under Strategy 3, because the price never decreases, you never buy the stock, so end up with the same amount of money with which you started.

Smooth Check Mark

The second illustration is stock whose price goes down smoothly for six months and then increases for the next 18 months.  A graph of its price would look like this.

The chart below focuses on the first six months of the above chart and includes the purchases for all three strategies as dots.

Under Strategy 1 (big red dot), you buy all of your stock on the first day at $10 a share, so you are able to purchase 100 shares.

Under Strategy 2 (smaller green dots), you buy $250 of stock on each of the first, eighth, fifteenth and twenty-second days.  The table below shows the prices on those days and the number of shares you buy.

Day Price Shares Bought
1 $10.00 25.00
8 9.98 25.05
15 9.96 25.10
22 9.94 25.15

The total number of shares you buy is 100.30.

Under Strategy 3, you buy 105.2 shares at $9.50 (5% below the initial price of $10) on day 177.

The table below compares the numbers of share bought under each strategy and the amount of money you will have at the end of two years.

Strategy Name Number Shares Bought Value in Two Years
1 Invest Immediately 100.0 $1,097
2 Dollar-Cost Averaging 100.3 1,100
3 Wait for Price Drop 105.2 1,154

In this scenario, the best strategy is to wait until the price drops by 5% which happens to be the minimum price over the two-year period.  The results of the other two strategies are very similar, though investing all of your money on the first day is the worst choice, as you buy stock during the period in which the price has fallen under the other two strategies.

Bumpy Increase 1

Next, we will look at two illustrations of what a stock price might actually look like.  Here is a graph of the first illustration.

The chart below focuses on the first month of the above chart and includes the purchases for Strategies 1 and 2 as dots.

Under Strategy 1 (big red dot), you buy all of your stock on the first day at $10 a share, so you are able to purchase 100 shares.

Under Strategy 2 (smaller green dots), you would buy $250 of stock on each of the first, eighth, fifteenth and twenty-second days.  The table below shows the prices on those days and the number of shares you buy.

Day Price Shares Bought
1 $10.00 25.00
8 9.83 25.43
15 9.88 25.30
22 9.80 25.51

The total number of shares you buy is 101.24.

Under Strategy 3, you don’t buy any shares because the price never falls by 5%.

The table below compares the numbers of share bought under each strategy

Strategy Name Number Shares Bought Value in Two Years
1 Invest Immediately 100.00 $1,144
2 Dollar-Cost Averaging 101.24 1,158
3 Wait for Price Drop 0.00 1,000

In this scenario, the best strategy is to buy your stock using Dollar-Cost Averaging (Strategy 2), but only by a small amount compared to using the Invest Immediately strategy.  You will have 1% more money than if in you invest it all on the first day and 13% more money than if you wait for the price to drop.

Bumpy Increase 2

The second realistic illustration is exactly the same as the first one with the exception that, in the first month, the price bounces around a bit above the initial $10 price rather than just below it.  The chart below focuses on the first month for this illustration and includes the purchases for Strategies 1 and 2 as dots.

Under Strategy 1 (big red dot), you buy all of your stock on the first day at $10 a share, so you are able to purchase 100 shares.

Under Strategy 2 (smaller green dots), you would buy $250 of stock on each of the first, eighth, fifteenth and twenty-second days.  The table below shows the prices on those days and the number of shares you buy.

Day Price Shares Bought
1 $10.00 25.00
8 10.21 24.49
15 9.88 25.30
22 10.31 24.25

The total number of shares you buy is 99.04.

Under Strategy 3, you don’t buy any shares because the price never falls by 5%.

The table below compares the numbers of share bought under each strategy

Strategy Name Number Shares Bought Value in Two Years
1 Invest Immediately 100.0 1,144
2 Dollar-Cost Averaging 99.04 1,133
3 Wait for Price Drop 0 1,000

In this scenario, the best strategy is to use the Invest Immediately strategy (Strategy 1), but only by a small amount compared to Dollar-Cost Averaging.  You will have 1% more money than if in you use Dollar-Cost Averaging and 14% more money than if you wait for the price to drop.

More Realistic Examples

Now that you have a better understanding of the three different strategies, I’ll turn to even more realistic scenarios.

  • The first of these scenarios will use the actual returns on the S&P 500 from 1928 through early 2020. This scenario is likely to be relevant when you are considering an investment in an index fund.
  • The second scenario is intended to be similar to an investment in an individual stock. To create the example, I took the S&P 500 times series and doubled the volatility.[2]

The daily stock prices are illustrated in the graph below.

Investment Horizons

To illustrate the impact of the different strategies, I looked at three different time periods over which you might hold the stocks – one year, five years and ten years.  If you are young and hold a stock until you retire, such as I have with some of the stocks I own, you might own the stock for 30 or 40 years.  I didn’t feel there was enough data available in the above time series to look at the impact on owning securities for more than ten years.  So, if you think you will be a very long-term investor, you will want to focus on the ten-year results.  Also, these analyses are not helpful to people who plan to own stocks over very short periods of time, such as some traders who might buy and sell a security in the same day.

Comparison of Realistic Results

The table below compares how much money you would have, on average across all possible starting dates for which data were available, at the end of each of the three time periods if you used each of the three strategies to buy $1,000 of an S&P 500 index fund.

Strategy One Year Five Years Ten Years
Invest Immediately 1,074 1,372 1,873
Dollar-Cost Averaging 1,074 1,373 1,877
Wait for Price Drop 1,022 1,181 1,485

 

The table below compares how much money you would have, on average, at the end of each of the three time periods if you used each of the three strategies to buy $1,000 of the illustrative stock.

Strategy One Year Five Years Ten Years
Invest Immediately 1,087 1,376 1,875
Dollar-Cost Averaging 1,087 1,379 1,880
Wait for Price Drop 1,077 1,330 1,772

 

Dollar-Cost Averaging vs. Invest Immediately

For both the S&P 500 and the illustrative stock, there are only very small differences (less than 0.3% for the one-year investment horizon and less than 1.3% for the longer investment horizons) in the average amount of money at the end of each of one, five and ten year between the Dollar-Cost Averaging and Invest Immediately strategies.

Wait for Price Drop

On the other hand, there is a larger difference between the average amount of money at the end of the three time periods if you use the Wait for Price Drop strategy and the average amount using either of the other two strategies.  For the S&P 500, you will have between 5% and 20% less money, on average, if you use the Wait for Price Drop strategy than if you use the Invest Immediately strategy, depending on your investment horizon.

For the more volatile illustrative stock, you will have between 1% and 5% less money, on average, if you use the Wait for Price strategy than if you use the Invest Immediately strategy.  With the higher volatility of the illustrative stock, it is more likely to have a 5% price drop.  There are therefore fewer scenarios in which you don’t get any investment return than there are using the S&P 500 prices.  As such, there is a smaller difference between the results of the Wait for Price Drop strategy and the other strategies for a more volatile security than for a more stable one.

Key Takeaways

As can be seen, the best strategy depends on the pattern and volatility of the security’s price.  Briefly:

  • For securities that have fairly smooth trends, there isn’t a lot of difference between the Invest Immediately and Dollar-Cost Averaging strategies.
  • For securities with more volatile prices, such as the two Bumpy Increase scenarios, the choice between the Dollar-Cost Averaging and Invest Immediately strategies can be a bit larger. However, there isn’t one that is better in all situations – Dollar-Cost Averaging was better in Bumpy Increase 1 while Invest Immediately was better in Bumpy Increase 2.  Because you can’t know whether your security’s price will follow a pattern closer to Bumpy Increase 1 or Bumpy Increase 2, neither strategy is preferred.
  • If you think that the price of the stock might trend down somewhat significantly or has a lot of volatility allowing the price to be significantly lower than the current price, waiting for a 5% (or other value you select) price decrease (Strategy 3) could be the best strategy. The drawback of this strategy is that there are a lot of scenarios in which you will never buy the security and then will get no return.

What Do I Do?

With all this information, you might wonder what I do.  I first need to provide a little background about my current investing situation, as it is likely to be different from yours.

I am retired, so am starting to spend my investments.  As such, I have a shorter investment horizon than I did when I was younger and in the saving mode.  I have a number of stocks and a few mutual funds that I have owned for many, many years and do very little trading of those positions.

Another portion of my money is in sector funds (index funds that focus on one segment of the economy, such as industrial companies, healthcare or technology) and a few large companies.  I tend to hold those securities for six months to two years.  The securities I am trading are closer in nature to the S&P 500 time series than even the hypothetical company with twice the volatility as the S&P 500.  As such, the Wait for Price Drop strategy doesn’t work for me.

With the very small differences between the Dollar-Cost Averaging and Invest Immediately strategies, I choose the Invest Immediately strategy because it is easier.  I have to place only one buy order instead of several orders.

Limit and Market Orders

As discussed in my post on stocks, there are different types of orders you can place when you want to buy a stock.  I always place limit orders.  A limit order allows me to buy a stock from the first person who wants to sell it to me at the price I have stated in the order.

The other type of order is a market order.  If you place a market order, you don’t get to set the price.  You buy the stock at whatever price it is trading at the moment you place the order.

There are risks to both types of orders.  If you place a market order and the price jumps up, you will buy the stock at the higher price.  If you place a limit order for a price below the current market price, you might never buy it similar to the Wait for Price Drop strategy.

A Compromise

To avoid the risk that I might buy a stock at a significantly higher price than I intend, I place a limit order with a limit that is about half way between the closing price and the low price from the previous day.  (I almost always place my orders over the weekend, so don’t have “up-to-the-minute” prices.)  This difference is often between 0.5% and 1% of the price.  By taking this strategy, I get a very small boost to my return by setting my limit below the market price but with very little risk that I won’t buy the stock because I have chosen the limit amount to be within a single day’s trading range.  The additional 0.5% to 1% doesn’t sound like a lot, but if I am able to increase my total return by that amount every year or two, it compounds quickly.

 

[1] There is nothing special about once a week for four weeks.  I did some testing of once a day for five days and found that there wasn’t a lot of difference in the number of shares bought, on average across a wide range of scenarios, from what the number using once a week for four weeks.  I also did some testing of what happens when you buy shares once a month for a year.  Across a wide range of realistic scenarios, you own fewer shares on average if you spread your purchases over a year as you purchase securities that you think will increase in price.  If the price of the security increases over the year, you will buy some of your shares at the higher price and own fewer shares.

 

 

[2] This note explains the nitty gritty details of how I adjusted the S&P 500 time series to create the second scenario.  I calculated the 200-day moving average of the daily closing prices of the S&P 500 from 1928 to early 2020.  The deviation is the actual closing price minus the moving average.  I doubled this deviation and added it back to the moving average to simulate prices for the hypothetical stock.

Don’t Panic! Just Plan It.

Don't Panic. Just Plan it.

Financial markets have been more turbulent in the past few weeks than has been seen in many years, probably more volatile than has happened since many of you started being financially aware. You may be wondering what actions you should take. With the sense of panic and urgency surrounding recent news, it often feels as if drastic action is necessary. If you have created a financial plan with key elements similar to those in many of my posts, inaction may be the best strategy for you!

As indicated elsewhere on this blog, I do not have any professional designations that qualify me to provide professional advice. In addition, my comments are provided as generalities and may not apply to your specific situation. Please read the rest of this post with these thoughts in mind.

Biggest Financial Risk from Recent News

I suspect that losing your job or losing business if you are self-employed is the biggest financial risk many of you face. Understanding your position within your company and how your company will be impacted by coronavirus, oil prices and other events will inform you as to the extent to which you face the risk of a lay-off or reduction in hours/salary.

If you think you might have a risk of a decrease in earned income, you’ll want to look into what options for income replacement are available to you, including state or federal unemployment programs, severance from your employers, among others. Another important step is to review your expenses so you know how you can reduce them to match your lowered income.  In addition, you’ll want to evaluate how long you can live before exhausting your emergency savings, with or without drastic reductions in your expenses. You may even want to start cutting expenses before your income is lowered and put the extra amount in your emergency savings.

Your Financial Plan & Recent News

In the rest of this post, I’ll look at the various components of a financial plan and provide my thoughts on how they might be impacted by the recent news and resulting volatility in financial markets.

Paid Time-Off Benefits/Disability Insurance

If you are unfortunate enough to get COVID-19 or are required to self-quarantine and can’t work from home, you may face a reduction in compensation. Your first line of defense is any sick time or paid time-off (PTO) provided by your employer. In most cases, your employer will cover 100% of your wages for up to the number of days, assuming you haven’t used them yet.

Once you have used all of your sick time/PTO, you may have coverage under short- or long-term disability insurance if provided by your employer or if you purchase it through your employer or on your own. Disability insurance generally pays between 2/3 and 100% of your wages while you are unable to work for certain causes, almost always including illness. It might be a good time to review your available sick time/PTO and disability insurance to understand what coverage you have.

Emergency Savings

Emergency savings is one of the most important components of a financial plan.  There are two aspects to your emergency savings that you’ll want to consider. The first is whether you have enough in your emergency savings.  The second is the risk that the value of the savings will go down due to financial market issues.

Do I Have Enough?

If you are laid off, have reduced hours or use up all, exhaust your sick time/PTO or get less than 100% of your wages replaced by disability insurance, you may have to tap into your emergency savings. The need to spend your emergency savings increases if you tend to spend most of your paycheck rather than divert a portion of it to savings.

I generally suggest one to six months of expenses as a target for the amount of emergency savings. In light of recent events and the increased risks lay-off and illness, I would focus on the higher end of that range or even longer. As you evaluate the likelihood you’ll be laid off, the chances you’ll be exposed to coronavirus and your propensity to get it, you’ll also want to consider whether you have enough in emergency savings to cover your expenses while your income is reduced or eliminated.

In certain situations, such as in response to the coronavirus, creditors will allow you to defer your payments.  You will then have the option as to whether to defer them or make those payments from your emergency savings./a>

Will it Lose Its Value?

I’ve suggested that you keep at least one month of expenses in emergency savings in a checking or savings account at a bank or similar financial institution. The monetary value of your emergency savings is pretty much risk-free, at least in the US. The only way you would lose any of these savings is if the financial institution were to go bankrupt. In the US, deposits in financial institutions are insured, generally up to $250,000 per person per financial institution, by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). For more specifics, see the FDIC web site. Similar protections may be available in other countries.

I’ve also suggested that you keep another two to five months of expenses in emergency savings in something only slightly less accessible, such as a money market account. There is slightly more risk that the value of a money market account will go down than a checking or savings account, but it is generally considered to be very small. Money market accounts are also insured by the FDIC. For more specifics, see this article on Investopedia.

As such, the recent volatility in financial markets are unlikely to require you to take action related to your existing emergency savings and could act as an opportunity to re-evaluate whether you have enough set aside for emergencies.

Short-Term Savings

Another component of a financial plan is short-term savings.  Short-term savings is money you set aside for a specific purpose. One purpose for short-term savings is expenses that don’t get paid every month, such as property taxes, homeowners insurance or car maintenance and repairs.   Another purpose for short-term savings is to cover the cost of larger purchases for which you might need to save for several years, such as a car or a down payment on a house.

Short-term savings are commonly held in money-market accounts, certificates of deposits (CDs) or very high quality, shorter term bonds, such as those issued by the US government. CDs and US government bonds held to maturity are generally considered to have very little risk. Their market values are unlikely to change much and the likelihood that the issuers will not re-pay the principal when due is small.

Thus, the recent volatility in financial markets is also unlikely to require you to take action related to your short-term savings.

Long-Term Savings

Savings for retirement and other long-term goals are key components of a financial plan.  If they are invested at all in any equity markets, your long-term savings have likely taken quite a beating. Rather than try to provide generic guidance on how to deal with the losses in your long-term savings, I’ll tell you how I’m thinking and what I’m doing about mine. By providing a concrete example, albeit one very different from most of your situations, my goal is to provide you with some valuable insights about the thought process.

Think about the Time Frame for My Long-Term Savings

As you may know, I’m retired and have just a little income from consulting. As such, my financial plan anticipates that I will live primarily off my investments and their returns. I have enough cash and bonds to cover my expenses for several years. As such, I’m not in a position that I absolutely have to liquidate any of my equity positions in less than three-to-four years.

For many of you, your most significant goal for long-term savings is likely retirement. As such, your time horizon for your long-term savings is longer than mine and you can withstand even more volatility. That is, you have a longer time for stock prices to recover to the recent highs and even higher.     In the final section of this post, I’ll talk about how long it has taken equity markets to recover from past “crashes” to help you get more perspective on this issue.

Know Your Investments

My view is that, if I wait long enough, the overall stock market will recover. It always has in the past. If it doesn’t, I suspect something cataclysmic will have happened and I will be focused on more important issues such as food, water and heat, than my long-term savings. For now, though, my view is that my investments in broad-based index funds are going to recover from the recent price drops though it may take a while and be a tough period until then. As such, I am not taking any action with respect to those securities. Once the stock market seems to settle down a bit (and possibly not until it starts going up for a while), I might invest a bit more of my cash to take advantage of the lower prices.

I have a handful of investments in stocks and bonds of individual companies. These positions have required a bit more thought on my part.   I already know the primary products and services of these companies and the key factors that drive profitability, as I identified these features before I purchased the stocks or bonds as part of my financial plan. I can now look at the forces driving the economic changes to evaluate how each of the companies might be impacted.

Example 1

I own some bonds that mature in two to three years in a large company that provides cellular phone service. As discussed in my post on bonds, as long as you hold bonds to maturity, the only risk you face is that the issuer will default (not make interest payments or re-pay the principal). With the reduction in travel and group meetings, I see an increased demand for technological communication solutions, such as cell phones. While the stock price of this company has gone down, I don’t see that its chance of going bankrupt has been affected adversely, so don’t plan to sell the bonds.

Example 2

One company whose stock I’ve owned for a very long time focuses on products used to test food safety. While the company’s stock price has dropped along with the broader market, I anticipate that people will have heightened awareness of all forms of ways of transmitting illness, including through food-borne bacteria and other pathogens. As such, I am not planning to sell this stock as the result of recent events.

Example 3

I own stock in an airline that operates primarily within North America. This one is a bit trickier. It looks like travel of all types is going to be down for a while. I’m sure that US domestic airline travel will be significantly impacted, but suspect it will not be affected as much as international or cruise ship travel. The reduction in revenue might be slightly offset by the lower cost of fuel, but that is probably not a huge benefit in the long term.

I’ve owned this company for so long that I still have a large capital gain and would have to pay tax on it if I sold the stock. At this point, I don’t think there is a high probability that this airline will go bankrupt (though I’m not an expert and could be wrong). I expect the price to drop more than the overall market average in the coming months, but also expect that it will recover. As such, I don’t plan to sell this stock solely because of recent events.   However, if this company had most of its revenue from operating cruise ships, was smaller, or had more foreign exposure, I would study its financials and business model in more detail to see if I thought it would be able to withstand the possibility of much lower demand for an extended period of time.

Summary

I have gone through similar thought processes for each of the companies in my portfolio to create my action plan. I will re-evaluate them as time passes and more information becomes available.

What We Can Learn from Past Crashes

Although every market cycle is different, I thought it might be insightful to provide information about previous market crashes. For this discussion, I am defining a market crash as a decrease in the price of the S&P 500 by more than 20% from its then most recent peak. I have identified 11 crashes using this definition, including the current one, over the time period from 1927 to March 14, 2020.

As you’ll see in the graphs below, the market crash starting at the peak in August 1929 is much different from most of the others. It took until 1956 before the S&P 500 reached its pre-crash level! Over the almost three years until the S&P 500 reached its low and then again during the recovery period (from the low until it reached its previous high), there were several crashes. I have counted this long cycle as a single crash, though it could be separated into several.

Magnitude of Previous Crashes

The table below shows the dates of the highest price of the S&P 500 before each of the 11 crashes since 1927.  It also shows the percentage decrease from the high to the low and the number of years from the high to the low.

Date of Market Peak

Price Change Years from High to Low

9/17/29

-86% 2.7

8/3/56

-21%

1.2

12/13/61 -28%

0.5

2/10/66 -22%

0.7

12/2/68

-36%

1.5

1/12/73

-48% 1.7

12/1/80

-27% 1.7

8/26/87

-34%

0.3

3/27/00 -49%

2.5

10/10/07 -57%

1.4

2/20/20 -27%

0.1

While they don’t happen all that often, this table confirms that the S&P 500 has suffered significant decreases in the past. What seems a bit different about the current crash is the speed at which prices have dropped from the market high reached just a few weeks ago. In the past, the average time from the market peak to the market bottom has been 1.4 years, but the range has been from 0.3 years to 2.7 years. While the 27% decrease in the S&P 500 from its peak on February 20, 2020 until March 14, 2020 is large and troubling, the average price change of 10 preceding crashes is -41% (-36% if the 1929 crash is excluded). As such, it isn’t unprecedented.

What Happened Next?

This table shows how long it took after each of the first 10 crashes for the S&P 500 to return to its previous peak. It also shows the average annualized return from the lowest price until it returned to its previous peak.

Date of Market Peak

Years from Low Back to Peak Annualized Average Return During Recovery

9/17/29

22.2 9.3%

8/3/56

0.9 29.8%
12/13/61 1.2

31.7%

2/10/66 0.6

55.3%

12/2/68 1.8

28.3%

1/12/73

5.8 12.0%

12/1/80

0.2 293.4%

8/26/87

1.6

28.1%

3/27/00 4.6

15.7%

10/10/07 4.1

22.9%

For example, it took 1.6 years after the market low price on December 4, 1987 (the low point of the cycle starting on August 26, 1987) for the S&P 500 to reach the same price it had on August 26, 1987. Over that 1.6-year period, the average annual return on an investment in the S&P 500 would have been 28%!

Because the values from the 1929 and 1980 cycles can distort the averages, I’ll look at the median values of these metrics. At the median, it took 1.7 years for the S&P 500 to reach its previous high with a median annualized average return of 28%.   There are obviously wide ranges about these metrics, but, excluding the 1929 crash, the S&P 500 never took more than 6 years to recover from its low. This time frame is important as you are thinking about the length of time until you might need to use your long-term savings.

After hitting bottom, the S&P 500 always had an average annual return of 12% or more over the recovery period, a fair amount higher than the overall annual average return on the S&P 500. Anyone who sold a position in the S&P 500 at any of the low points missed the opportunity to earn these higher-than-average returns – a reminder to not panic.

From Crash to Recovery

The graph below shows the ratios of the price of the S&P 500 to the price at the peak (day 0) over the 30 years after each of the first 10 market peaks in the tables above.

The light blue line that stays at the bottom is the 1929 crash. As you can see, by 30 years later, the S&P 500 was only twice as high as it was at its pre-crash peak. For all of the other crashes, the S&P 500 was at least four times higher than at each pre-crash peak, even though in many cases there were subsequent crashes in the 30-year period.

To get a sense for how the current crash compares, the graph below shows the same information for only the first 100 days after each peak. The current crash is represented by the heavy red line.

As indicated above, one of the unique characteristics about the current crash is that it occurred so quickly after the peak. The graph shows that the bright red line is much lower than any of the other lines on day 17. However, if you look at the light blue line (after the peak on September 17, 1929) and the brown line (after the peak on August 26, 1987), you can see that there were similarly rapid price decreases as occurred in the current crash, but they started a bit longer after their respective peaks.

Current Crash

We can’t know the path that the stock market will take going forward in the current cycle. It could halt its downward trend in a few days to a week and return to set new highs later this year. On the other hand, if other events occur in the future (such as the weather conditions that led to the dust bowl in the 1930s and World War II in the 1940s that exacerbated the banking issues that triggered the 1929 crash), it is possible stock prices could decline for many years and take a long time to recovery. Based on the patterns observed, this trend is less likely, but it is still a possibility.

As such, it is important as you consider your situation that you look at your investment horizon, your ability to live with further decreases in stock prices and your willingness to forego the opportunity to earn higher-than-average returns when the stock market returns to its pre-crash levels if you sell now, among other things.

Closing Thoughts

My goal in writing this post was to provide you with insights on how to view the disruptions in the economy and financial markets in recent weeks and plan your responses to them. My primary messages are:

  1. Don’t panic. While significant action may be the best course for your situation, do your best to make well-reasoned and not emotional decisions. Although you might want to sell your investments right away to avoid additional decreases in value, it isn’t the best strategy for everyone.
  2. Stick with (or make) a financial plan. Having a financial plan provides you with the ability to look at the impact of the uncertainties in financial markets and the overall economy on each aspect of your financial future separately, making the decision-making process a little easier.

 

The Different Types of Life Insurance

The life insurance landscape is confusing, to put it lightly. One can get lost in the different types of policies and terminologies, such as whole life, term life, cash value, variable life, and a lot more. If you want to purchase life insurance, you need to first understand the different types, how they work, their cost and which type is right for you and your lifestyle. They fall under four basic types: term, whole, universal and variable.

But how do you make sense of all the different types to ensure that you are picking the correct and best one? Here’s a quick breakdown of the four most common types of insurance policies.

Types of Life Insurance

There are two time-frames over which you can buy life insurance – a stated term or the rest of your life. Insurance that provides benefits over a stated term is known as term life. Permanent life policies provide benefits for the rest of your life (as long as you continue to make premium payments). There are three common types of permanent life insurance – whole life, universal life and variable life.

Term Life Insurance

Term life protects the insured for a pre-determined number of years which is usually any period from 10, 15, 20 or 30 years. The length of time the insurance is in effect is the “term” of the policy. When the term ends, the policy can be renewed on an annual basis as long as the premium is paid. Most insurance companies allow the policy owner to renew until the age of 95, after which point the probability of dying is so high as to make the cost of the insurance almost the same as the death benefit. The life insurance offered by employers is usually term life with a term of one year.

Term life is the most popular type of life insurance and the most affordable. Many financial advisors recommend that you buy term life insurance instead of whole life insurance and use the money you save to invest. But remember that this is a piece of general advice and not specific because you should first consider your own needs and personal situation. What product is most appropriate for you will depend on many things.

Here are the main strengths of term life insurance.

Flexibility

Life insurance will provide cash for your beneficiary so your family can deal with the negative financial consequences of your death. Term life insurance policies are very flexible in that they easily adjust to the policyholder’s needs.

Death Benefit

Beneficiaries do not pay income taxes on death benefits from life insurance. If the policy is properly owned, the death benefits can also be free from estate taxes.

Whole Life Insurance

When you buy traditional whole life insurance, the death benefit and the premium stay the same throughout the term of the policy. As indicated in the name, the term of a whole life is your entire life or until you stop paying the premium.

As you get older, the probability that the death benefit will be paid increases leading to increases in the amount of premium needed to pay for the death benefit (as would be seen in the premium increases you would pay if you bought a series of one-year term life insurance policies). You can imagine that the cost gets very high if you live to 80 years old or more. The insurance company could just assign a premium for term life insurance that goes up each year but it will come to a point that it will be very expensive for people at advanced ages.

Under a whole life policy, the insurance companies keep the premium level by charging a premium that is higher in the early years. This premium is more than what they need to pay claims when you are younger so they invest the money and use it to help pay the cost of insurance as you get older while keeping the premium level.

The main advantages of whole life insurance are as follows.

Lifetime Guaranteed Insurance

With whole life, the insurance company guarantees a premium amount that you have to pay. This means that this amount will stay the same for the rest of your life and will not increase. You can also rest assured that your loved ones/beneficiaries will receive a guaranteed, lump-sum payment at the time of your demise. You may also choose your business to be a beneficiary if you want.

Cash Value Accumulation

Aside from having life insurance for life, whole life also allows you to build a significant cash asset, as the insurance company sets aside a portion of the premium in an account. What’s more, your cash asset under a whole life policy is not going to be dependent on the ups and downs of the market at any time. You can also borrow against the cash value portion of your whole life policy. So, in case you need money for other things in the future such as payment for a home, college funding or a business loan, you’ll have a ready source of borrowing.

Tax Benefits

Whole life insurance carries with it numerous tax benefits, one of which is the tax-advantaged buildup of cash value. Also, many whole life policies provide dividends representing a portion of the insurance company’s profits that are paid to policyholders. Whole life insurance dividends may be guaranteed or non-guaranteed depending on the policy. The good thing is that even if you are accumulating dividends on the policy, you can defer paying the tax for them. This feature is one of the reasons that make whole life slightly more expensive than both term and universal policies. But take note that the policy is not flexible like the others.

Universal Life Insurance

Universal life falls under the umbrella of permanent life insurance options. It provides more flexibility than whole life.

There are three main components of universal life.

Death Benefits

You can choose from 2 options when determining how you want the beneficiary to receive the death benefits:

• Type A Death Benefit or Level Death Benefit. It’s up to you to pick a level of the death benefit, one that starts off as a single amount and stays level or the same for the life of the policy, regardless of its cash value.

• Type B Death Benefit: The other option is a combination of a specific death benefit and then the insurance company adds the cash value accumulation feature that accumulates over the life of the policy.

The Cash Value Portion

The insurance company allocates a portion of your premiums to an interest-crediting strategy of your choosing. In the basic form of Universal Life, interest is credited at a fixed rate by the insurance company. Some policies, known as Variable Life as discussed below, allow people to invest in mutual funds.

Flexible Premiums

The owner of a universal life policy has the option to pay as much or as little premium above a stated minimum. Although this flexibility attracts many insurance customers, a good percentage find it confusing at the same time. In term life insurance, you pay a certain amount every month or every year and you already know what the death benefit will be. But here, the shifting balances of premiums and death benefits are more complicated than what the majority of people need. Plus, it comes with the same extra costs as other permanent policies.

Another major difference between universal life and whole life policies is that policyholders of universal life can pay the premiums as they desire. However, in order to remain active, the policy must have sufficient available cash value to pay for the cost of insurance.

This isn’t something that you can do with a whole life policy because you can’t change the premiums to suit your present economic situation.

Variable Life Insurance

Variable life is similar to whole life with a different treatment of the cash value component.

In whole life and universal life policies, the fund managers keep the cash value component in a savings account. Although the growth is small when compared to other investment options, there is an assurance of the minimum rate guaranteed by the insurer. The insurance company also makes dividend payments from time to time.

Investment of Cash Value

When it comes to variable life, you’d imagine that it is some type of investment vehicle. The funds are in a mutual fund-like sub-accounts where there is potential for bigger growth. But there’s also the possibility of losing money depending on how the market behaves. The insurance company places the cash value in the stock market. Unlike universal life insurance policies, the insurer of a variable life insurance policy does not guarantee that your cash value won’t decrease.

If you are seeking higher, tax-deferred growth, variable life insurance policies are better investment options than whole life policies because they are like a “super-IRA.” However, you can only invest in the sub-accounts that are available through your policy. You don’t have the option to choose from the wide variety of mutual funds that are on the open market.

While premiums for a variable life can be lower than whole life, it is riskier since the company invests in the stock market. Many people don’t know much about the stock market and don’t know how to properly manage the funds to adjust to the market conditions. An average person won’t have the necessary skills or experience to do it effectively. These features limit a variable life insurance policy as an investment option and as a life insurance choice. The limits on investment choices is common to all permanent policy types.

Cost Comparison

The premium for a term life insurance policy is less than the premium for a whole life policy in the first several years you own it.  As you get older, you are increasingly likely to die so the premium for term life insurance increases and eventually become more expensive than if you were paying for a whole life policy you started buying when you were younger.

Cost of Term Life Policies

You might think that it is a disadvantage to choosing term life. After all, you have to die first to receive money (which does not go to you at all). Every year you will have to keep paying insurance premiums so you can protect your family. The premiums are affordable so you won’t have problems making the payments. But here is where some people can’t reconcile the cost and the benefit: when the 20 years go by and the insured is still alive. The insurance company does not give back anything. The truth is, this is a fair deal because the low premium you are paying only accounts for the death benefit you will get in case you die during the term of the policy.

Cost of Permanent Policies

In contrast, if you had purchased a permanent policy, you could keep it forever. And if you opted to stop in 20 years, the insurance company would likely give you back a portion of the premiums you have paid. When you account for the dividends you’ve received, there is a chance that you’ll get back all your premiums at that point. There is no guarantee that the policy will pay dividends so the insurance companies will not include them in their projections.

In the early years, permanent policies are more expensive than term policies so you would have to consider how much you are able (or are willing) to pay when you choose your life insurance.

About Baruch Silvermann

Baruch Silvermann is a personal finance expert, investor for more than 15 years, digital marketer and founder of The Smart Investor. But above all, he is passionate about teaching people how to manage their money and helping millions on their journey to a better financial future.

Mutual Funds and ETFs

Mutual-Funds-and-ETFs

Mutual fund and ETFs (exchange-traded funds) allow you to invest in securities without having to select individual positions. Instead, the fund manager makes the decisions as to when to buy and sell each security. As such, a fund is an easy way for new or busy investors to participate in financial markets. This post will help you learn about the different types of funds, their pros and cons and other considerations of owning mutual funds and ETFs.

What is a Mutual Fund?

A mutual fund is pool of money collected from the investors in the fund. The investors own shares in the mutual fund itself, but not in the individual securities owned by the fund. However, other than closed-end funds discussed below, an investor’s return is his or her share of the returns of the aggregation of the returns of the individual securities owned by the mutual fund. That is, if, on average, the securities in the mutual fund issue dividends of 3% and appreciate by 2%, fund owners will receive a dividend distribution equal to 3% of the value of their share of the pool plus the value of their ownership share will increase by 2%.

Most mutual funds also issue capital gain distributions once or twice a year. If the mutual fund had a gain on the aggregate amount of securities sold in the year, it will often distribute the amount of the gain to investors as a capital gain distribution in proportion to their ownership shares in the pool.

Mutual funds can be purchased directly from the fund manager or through a broker. Most mutual funds are not traded on exchanges. Purchases and sales of mutual funds occur once a day, with all buyers and sellers receiving the same price which is equal to the net asset value of the underlying assets. (See below for more information and exceptions.)

What is an ETF?

Exchange-traded funds or ETFs have several characteristics in common with mutual funds:

  • They are pools of money collected from their investors.
  • Investors share in the returns of the aggregation of the individual securities.
  • ETFs can hold a wide range of securities, including stocks, bonds and commodities.

These are a few of the ways in which ETFs differ from mutual funds:

  • They are exchange-traded securities (as implied by their name), so they can be bought and sold any time the exchange is open. As such, the price you pay or receive when you buy or sell an ETF can vary over the course of a day.
  • While many mutual funds have a minimum investment requirement, most ETFs do not.

Types of Mutual Funds and ETFs

There are many features of mutual funds and ETFs that are important in determining the best funds for your portfolio. Almost all of these features apply to both mutual funds and ETFs.

Active vs. Passive Management

An actively managed fund has a fund manager who is responsible for selecting the securities that will be owned by the fund. The manager decides when to buy and sell each security.  By comparison, the securities owned by a passively managed fund are determined so that the performance of the fund tracks a certain basket of assets.

Index funds are a common type of passively managed funds.   An index fund is a mutual fund or ETF that has a goal of matching the performance of an index, such as the S&P 500, the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the Fidelity US Bond Index.

There are other passively managed funds whose trades are determined so as to produce returns similar to a certain segment of a market, such as a particular industry or region of the world, that may or may not have an index that measures those returns.

Securities Owned

Funds can own a wide variety of securities – everything from stocks and bonds to commodities, among others. As you are looking for a fund, you’ll want to decide what type of security you are seeking.

Geography

Most funds focus on a specific geography. Many mutual funds focus on US investments, while others purchase securities from within a region of the US, the whole world or segments thereof, such as the developed world excluding the US. While I hold most of my North American equity positions in individual companies, I use mutual funds to diversify my portfolio globally.

Market Segment

Just as funds focus on a specific geography, they sometimes invest in one or more market segments.   Some funds focus on a specific industry, such as natural resources or technology or financial companies. If you think a particular industry is going to benefit from trends in the economy, such as healthcare as the population ages, you might want to buy a fund that focuses on the healthcare industry. On the other hand, you might want to avoid healthcare stocks if you think that the healthcare industry might be at risk of significant disruption from changes in the government’s role in healthcare.

Other funds focus on the size of companies.  For example, an S&P 500 Index fund only buys positions in companies in the S&P 500 which, by definition, are large.  Other funds focus on middle-sized companies (middle-sized capitalization of mid-cap) or smaller companies (small-cap).

Another “industry” on which many funds focus is municipal bonds. These funds invest in bonds issued by municipalities. In many cases, interest from municipal bonds and municipal bond funds is not taxed by the Federal government or in the state in which the municipality is located. For example, if you buy a bond issued by the City of Baltimore, it is likely that it will not be taxed at all if you are a Maryland resident.

Appreciation vs. Dividends

Some funds focus on high-dividend investments, while others focus on appreciation in the value of the securities they own. You can learn the focus of a fund by looking at its details either in a summary or its prospectus. Funds that focus on high-dividend yields often have “high-dividend” in their name, but not always. The type of return targeted by funds you purchase will impact the specific securities owned by the fund. In addition, the type of return impacts the taxes you will pay (discussed below).

Growth vs. Value

Companies are often categorized between growth and value, reflecting the two primary reasons that stock prices increase. The stock price of a growth company is expected to increase because the company will increase its profits. By comparison, the stock price of value company is expected to grow because its valuation, often measured by the price-to-earnings or P/E ratio, is considered low and likely to return to normal.

Closed-end vs. Open-end Funds

Most funds are open-end funds. The price you pay for these funds is equal to the market value of the securities owned by the fund divided by the number of shares outstanding.   This price is known as the Net Asset Value. You can buy shares from and sell shares back to the fund owner at any time at the net asset value.

A closed-end fund differs in that the number of shares available is fixed when the fund is first created. When you buy and sell shares in a closed-end fund, the other party to the transaction is another investor, not the fund owner.  In fact, closed-end fund shares trade in the same manner as if the fund were a company. As such, the price is not the net asset value, but rather has a market value that reflects not only the net asset value but also investors views of the future performance of the fund.

I found Investopedia to have some great information about open-end funds and closed-end funds.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mutual Funds and ETFs

The biggest advantage of mutual funds and ETFs is the ease with which you can diversify your portfolio, especially in asset classes or market segments with which you are unfamiliar. I think index-based ETFs are a terrific way for new investors to participate in markets. As I mentioned above, I use mutual funds for international stocks, as I don’t know enough about economies and market conditions outside the US, much less about individual companies, to make informed buying decisions.

A drawback to actively-managed funds is that they tend to underperform the market. That is, there are not many money managers who can consistently produce returns that exceed their target benchmarks. This difference is even greater when returns are reduced for fees paid by investors (discussed later in this post).

There are many sources for statistics about mutual fund returns. CNBC states that, in every one of the nine years from 2010 through 2018, more than half of actively managed large-cap funds produced returns less than the S&P 500. The same article also indicates that 85% of those funds underperformed the S&P 500 over a ten-year period and 92% underperformed over a 15-year period. As such, care should be taken when investing in actively managed funds. If you are looking for funds that will produce returns similar to broad market indices, such as the S&P 500, an index fund might be a better choice.

Income Taxes

There are four types of returns that are taxed when you own mutual funds or ETFs that hold stocks or bonds held in taxable accounts. Funds held in tax-deferred or tax-free accounts will have different tax treatment. The taxable returns on other types of funds will depend on the types of returns generated by the underlying assets.

Capital Gains

When you sell your ownership position in a fund, the difference between the amount you paid when you bought it and the amount you received when you sell it is a capital gain.   The taxation of short-term capital gains (related to securities owned for less than one year) is somewhat complicated in the US. Long-term capital gains are taxed in the same manner as dividends in the US, at 15% for most people. In Canada, capital gains are taxed at 50% of the rate that applies to your wages.

Interest

When you own a bond fund, interest paid by the issuers of the bonds owned by the fund is taxable in the year the interest payment was made. In the US and Canada, interest held in taxable accounts is taxed at the same rate as wages, except for certain municipal and government bonds which may be exempt from state or Federal taxes.

Dividends

Dividends paid by companies owned by a fund are taxable in the year the dividends payments are made. For most people in the US, there is a 15% Federal tax on dividends from investments held in a taxable account plus any state taxes. In Canada, dividends are taxed at the same rate as wages.

Capital Gain Distributions

Over the course of a year, a mutual fund may sell some of its assets. The capital gains earned from those assets are distributed to owners as capital gain distributions. Capital gain distributions are taxed in the same manner as capital gains.

Fees

There are generally three types of fees that can affect your returns on ETFs and mutual funds: front-end loads, operating expenses and commissions. Schwab identifies two other hidden costs that are a bit more obscure, so I’ll refer you to its post on this topic if you want more information.

Front-End Loads

Some mutual funds require you to pay a fee when you make a purchase. The fee is usually a percentage of your investment. For example, you would pay $10 for every $1,000 you invest in a fund with a 1% front-end load. If you purchased this fund, its total return on the underlying investments would need to be 1% higher over the entire period over which you owned it than the same fund with no front-end load for you to make an equivalent profit.

Funds that don’t have a front-end load are called no-load funds.

Operating Expenses

Mutual funds and ETFs, even those that are passively managed, have operating expenses. The operating expenses are taken out of the pool of money provided by investors. Every fund publishes its annual operating expense load, so you can compare them across funds. Funds with higher expense loads need to have higher returns on the underlying investments than fund with lower expense loads every year for you to make an equivalent return.

ETFs tend to have much lower operating expense loads than mutual funds. Similarly, passive funds tend to have lower operating expense loads than actively managed funds.

Commissions

If you purchase a mutual fund or ETF through a broker, you may pay a commission both when you buy the fund and when you sell it. A commission is a fee paid to the broker for the service it provides allowing you to buy and sell securities. Many brokers have recently reduced or eliminated commissions on many ETFs. If you purchase the mutual fund or ETF directly from the fund manager, you will not pay a commission.

Dividend Reinvestment

Many funds allow you to automatically reinvest distributions (i.e., interest, dividends and capital gain distributions). Although it includes all types of distributions, it is often called dividend reinvesting or reinvestment. It is a great way to ensure that all of your returns stay invested, as you don’t have to keep track of the payment dates on any distributions so you can reinvest them.

I have a few cautions about dividend reinvestment.

First, you want to reevaluate your choice of fund periodically. If you blindly reinvest all of your dividends and something changes that makes the fund a poor fit for your portfolio, automatic dividend reinvestment will cause you to have more money invested in something that you don’t want.

Second, you’ll want to be aware of the tax implications of dividend reinvestment – one of which is helpful and one of which requires some care – if you hold the fund in a taxable account.

Increased Cost Basis

As indicated above, when you sell a fund, you pay capital gains tax on the difference between your proceeds on sale and what you paid for the fund. The distributions that you reinvest are considered part of what you paid for the fund. You’ll need to take care to keep track of the amounts you’ve reinvested, as they increase your cost basis (the amount you paid) and decrease your capital gains tax.

Taxes on Distributions

Even if you reinvest your distributions, you need to pay taxes on them in the year in which they were paid. As such, if 100% of your distributions are automatically reinvested, you’ll need to have cash available from another source to pay the income taxes on the distributions.

Selecting Mutual Funds and ETFs

There are thousands of mutual funds and ETFs from which to choose. Here are my thoughts on how you can get started.

Set your Goals

  1. Determine what type of fund you are seeking. Are you trying to focus on a small niche or the broader market?
  2. Narrow down the type of fund that will meet your needs. Do you want an actively managed fund or a passive one? Are you interested in an open end or closed end fund?  Do you want the fund to look for growth companies or those with low valuations?

Identify Some Funds

  1. Once you’ve narrowed down the type of fund you’d like, you can use a screener to help you further narrow down your choices. Most large brokerage firms, as well as many independent entities, have mutual fund and ETF screeners. For example, Morningstar, a global investment-research and investment-services firm, has a free screener (after you sign up at no charge) at this link.
  2. Look at the ratings of the funds that are identified. The entity assigning the ratings usually expects higher rated funds to perform better than lower rated funds.
  3. Look at the historical returns. While past performance is never a guarantee of future performance, funds that have done well in the past and have consistent management and strategy may do well in the future.
  4. Read the details of the fund either on the fund manager’s web site or in the prospectus. Look to see if the objectives of the fund are consistent with your objectives. Make sure the types of securities the manager can purchase are in line with what you would like to buy. The names of some funds can be much narrower than the full range of securities the manager is allowed to buy. Find out if the fund management and objectives have been stable over time. Some funds can change their objectives on fairly short notice, potentially exposing you to risks you may not want to take or lower expected returns that you desire. To learn more about reading a prospectus, check out the article on Page 9 of this on-line magazine.
  5. Compare the fees among the funds on your list. If the underlying assets are similar and are expected to produce the same returns, funds with lower fees are more likely to provide you with higher returns (after expenses) than funds with higher fees. Don’t forget to look at both front-end loads and annual operating expense ratios.
  6. Select a strategy for buying your mutual funds or ETFs, such as dollar-cost averaging, waiting for a price drop or buying at the market price.

Make a Decision

  1. Buy a position in the fund(s) that best fit your requirements. As indicated above, you can buy most funds either through a broker (which can sometimes add a commission to your expenses) or directly from the fund manager.
  2. Last, but not least, be sure to monitor your positions to make sure that the fund objectives, holdings, management and fees remain consistent with your objectives.

The Canada Pension Plan And Your Retirement

Canadian-Pension-Plans

Note from Susie Q:  When I published my post on Social Security, I promised my Canadian readers a similar post about the Canada Pension Plan.  It took a while, but here it is!  Graeme Hughes, the Money Geek, was kind enough to write it for me.

Graeme Hughes is an accredited Financial Planner with 23 years of experience in the financial services industry. During the course of his career he completed hundreds of financial plans and recommended and sold hundreds of millions of dollars of investment products. He believes that financial independence is a goal anyone can aspire to, and is passionate about helping others to live life on their own terms.

The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is a foundational part of all Canadians’ retirement plans, as it represents, for many, the single largest government benefit they will receive during retirement. Over the years, opinions on the plan have varied widely, with many suggesting that younger Canadians shouldn’t count on receiving CPP benefits in retirement.

As it stands today, is this a realistic opinion, or is the reality something different? How does the CPP work, and can it be relied upon to deliver a meaningful amount of pension income to future retirees?

How The Canada Pension Plan Differs From Old Age Security

There are two core retirement benefits that the vast majority of Canadians are eligible to receive: the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security (OAS) benefit.

OAS is a benefit that is funded from tax revenue. Both eligibility and the benefit amount paid are based on the number of years an individual has been resident in Canada prior to his or her 65th birthday. Benefits may be reduced for high-income seniors.

The CPP, on the other hand, is a true contributory pension plan. This means that benefits are available only to those who have contributed, and the amount you receive is directly linked to the amount paid into the plan over your working life. CPP contributions are held separate and apart from other government revenue, and CPP benefits are not income-tested.

A Brief History of The Canada Pension Plan

The CPP has had more than 50 years of success in providing pension benefits to Canadian seniors. But a lot has changed along the way:

  • The CPP started in 1966 as a pay-as-you-go plan. In short, it was expected that contributions from workers each year would fully cover the benefits paid to retirees in the same year. The contribution rate for the first couple of decades was just 3.6% of a worker’s pay, which is a very modest amount, indeed.
  • In the mid-1980’s, it started to become clear to the federal government that this model would not be sustainable in the face of a large wave of baby boomers that would be retiring in future years, so changes had to be made. These involved increases to the contribution amounts, reductions in some benefits, as well as changes to the management of the plan itself.
  • These changes culminated in 1997 with the formation of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), an entity at arm’s-length from the government that would be entirely responsible for investing CPP assets and funding the distribution of CPP benefits going forward. This effectively removed the government from the management of the pension plan, and the new board was given one overriding mandate above all – to maximize the returns on invested assets while managing risk.
  • As of September 30, 2019, the CPPIB had $409.5 billion in assets under management.

Is the Canada Pension Plan Sustainable?

Many pension plans, both public and private, have been struggling with sustainability over the last many years given demographic changes (the retiring boomers) combined with very low yields on fixed-income investments which often form the backbone of pension assets.

Fortunately, the CPPIB has an oversight regime that continues to account for such changes. Canada’s Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions appoints a Chief Actuary, who has as one of their responsibilities a review of the sustainability of the CPP. This review is conducted every three years.

The last reported review, in 2016, concluded that the CPP would be able to fully meet its commitments for at least the next 75 years (the length of time covered in the review), as long as a target rate of return of 4% in excess of inflation was maintained.

In the CPPIB’s 2019 annual report, it was able to boast an average annual return over the preceding 10 years of 11.1% (net nominal). Portfolio investments include public equities, private equity, real assets and fixed-income instruments. The portfolio has widespread geographic diversification, with only 15.5% of assets invested in Canada.

The chart below, from the 2019 annual report, highlights the sustainability of the plan as reflected in the historical and forecast growth in assets:

Clearly, the CPP is in great shape to serve the needs of Canada’s current and future retirees. Even if this should change at some point in the future, the Chief Actuary has the authority to adjust contribution rates to maintain sustainability, should that be necessary at a later point in time.

How Are CPP Contributions Calculated?

CPP contributions are based on an individual’s income, and split equally between employer and employee. Contributions are calculated on the amount of annual income earned that is between $3,500 (the lower cutoff) and $57,400 (the 2019 upper cutoff). Up until 2019, the contribution rate on these amounts had been 9.9%, but a new CPP enhancement that started in 2019 raised that to 10.2%.

As an example, an individual who earned $50,000 in 2019 would have a total CPP contribution of $4,743.00 ($50,000 – $3,500 = $46,500 x 10.2%). Half this amount would be paid by the employee and half by their employer. Of course, self-employed individuals are responsible for the full amount.

It’s important to note that, while the lower cutoff amount is fixed, the upper cutoff is adjusted each January to reflect changes in average Canadian wages. Remember too, that the contribution rate of 9.9% had been in place until last year, with the CPP “enhancement” starting in 2019. The impact of the enhancement will be looked at later in this article.

What Benefits Can I Expect from the CPP?

The “base” calculation for CPP benefits assumes an individual applies for benefits at the normal retirement age of 65. In 2019, the maximum benefit for new retirees under this base scenario is a CPP payment of $1,154.58 per month. All CPP benefits are adjusted each January to account for changes in the Consumer Price Index.

However, most Canadians do not receive that maximum benefit. The amount you actually receive is based on the contributions made to the plan from the age of 18 until the date you apply for CPP benefits. If your total contributions during those years averaged, say, 70% of the maximum contributions permitted, your CPP benefit at age 65 would be approximately 70% of the maximum amount payable.

In short, the higher your working wage, the more you will have paid into the plan, and the more you will receive in benefits, up to the applicable maximums.

There are also a variety of adjustments made to the calculation of your CPP entitlement. For instance, you are allowed to drop your 8 lowest-earning years from the calculation. There are also adjustments for years spent rearing children under the age of 7, for periods of disability and for other circumstances. For these reasons, calculating your potential future benefit at any point in time is virtually impossible to do on your own. Fortunately, the good folks at Service Canada are happy to do the work for you, and an estimate of your individual benefit can be obtained by phone, or online through your My Service Canada Account.

As of October 2019, the average CPP benefit Canadians were receiving amounted to just $672.87, or about 58% of the maximum.

Lastly, CPP benefits paid are fully taxable as regular income.

When Should I Apply for the Pension?

Although the “base” calculation for CPP benefits assumes retirement at age 65, in reality, you have the option of applying for benefits anytime between the ages of 60 and 70. However, the amount of benefit you receive will be adjusted accordingly:

  • If you decide to take your pension early, your pension will be reduced by 0.6% for every month prior to your 65th birthday that benefits begin. So, if you decide to start payments as early as possible, on your 60th birthday, you will receive a 36% total reduction in your entitlement (0.6% x 60 months).
  • Conversely, if you decide to delay the start of benefits, you will receive an extra 0.7% for every month after your 65th birthday that you delay taking benefits. So, delaying benefits all the way to your 70th birthday increases your monthly amount by 42% (0.7% x 60 months).

The chart below outlines the change in monthly benefit given the age at which benefits commence, assuming an individual was eligible for $1,000 per month at age 65:

As seen above, the difference between taking your Canada Pension at age 70 versus age 60 is significant. You’ll receive over double the monthly amount. But the decision as to when to apply depends on a number of factors.

A big factor is, of course, your views on life expectancy. If you enter your early 60’s in poor health, or with a family history of shorter life expectancy, you may want to take the CPP as soon as you are eligible. If the opposite is true, you may want to wait until age 70 to ensure you receive the maximum amount of this inflation-adjusted and government-guaranteed benefit, to protect against the risk of running short of savings and income later in life.

Of course, the amount and structure of your own savings, the amount and source of other retirement income, along with your actual date of retirement, will all weigh on your decision. If in doubt, consult a qualified financial planner to assess the merits of different options.

2019 Changes – The Canada Pension Plan Enhancement

Up until 2019, the CPP was designed to replace about ¼ of a person’s average employment earnings once they retire. The current government has decided that should be enhanced such that the CPP will eventually cover about ⅓ of pre-retirement earnings.

To accomplish this, and to ensure that the newly enhanced benefits are self-funding, the CPP enhancement is being operated almost like an add-on benefit to the existing CPP.  CPP contributions for employers and employees are being increased above the previous 9.9% rate, over time, as follows:

In addition to the increased premiums noted above, the maximum annual earnings for CPP contributions will have an additional, “second ceiling” amount that will allow higher-income earners to contribute proportionately more to the CPP, starting in 2024.

The extent to which this CPP enhancement will increase your retirement benefits is dependent entirely on how much you individually contribute to the enhanced portion prior to retirement, both as regards the increased premium amount, as well as within the elevated earnings cap. However, those who end up contributing to the enhanced amount for a full 40 years could see their CPP benefits increase up to 50%.

Of course, if you are retiring in the next few years, you won’t have enough credit toward the enhanced amounts to make much of a difference to your benefits. These changes are really designed to have the most impact on younger workers who are in the earlier stages of their careers. Given the added complexity this new benefit adds to benefit calculations, it makes more sense than ever to keep track of your entitlement by obtaining occasional estimates from Service Canada.

More information on the CPP enhancement can be found here.

CPP And Your Financial Planning

In this article we have looked exclusively at the CPP as it pertains to retirement benefits. In addition, there are survivor, disability, and other benefits to consider as part of a well-rounded approach to managing personal finances. More comprehensive information on the Canada Pension Plan can be found on the pension benefits section of the Government of Canada’s website.

Remember that a good retirement plan is holistic and accounts for all sources of income, whether from government pension and benefits, employer-sponsored plans, personal savings or business ventures. Ideally, the information above will help with your planning and give you confidence that the CPP will indeed be there for you, regardless of your retirement date.

How to Raise Financially Smart Kids

I recently wrote a guest post for Grokking Money about how to raise financially smart kids.  Here is the start of it, to read the entire post, click here.

Instilling your children with good financial habits will increase their likelihood of success, just as is the case with many other types of habits.  In this post, I’ll provide you with eight things you can do to help your kids become financially smart.  All but one of these ideas are based on my experiences growing up or those I provided for my children.

1. Open a Bank Account

We opened savings accounts for our children with the money they received when they were born.  As they got older (probably around 5), we made them aware of . . . Read More

Do I Really Need to Budget

I recently wrote a guest post for The Smart Investor about deciding if you need a budget.  Here is the start of it, to read the entire post, click here.

Budgeting is critical to your financial health, especially when you are just getting started handling your own money.  A budget will help you figure out whether you can afford to make big purchases – a car, a home – whether you can afford a nice vacation and whether you need to find a way to make more money.  However, not everyone needs to make and stick to a budget.

In this post, I’ll talk about the characteristics of people who will benefit most and least from making a budget and will provide a questionnaire you can use to help figure out . . . Read More

Good Debt vs Bad Debt: Key Characteristics

Not all debt is bad! The specific definitions of good debt vs bad debt will vary from person to person. For people who plan to retire very early and live on a limited income or for people who know that they have a hard time paying their bills either for lack of money or organization skills, most debt is likely to be problematic.  For other people, taking on debt is less of an issue.

One of my followers was thinking of expanding his business and was concerned that taking on debt would be harmful. As part of helping him with his thinking, I identified general characteristics that distinguish good debt vs bad debt. He ended up selling his business instead of expanding it, but I am sharing my insights in this post. These characteristics may not apply to your particular situation, so be sure to think about them in the context of your own situation and temperament.

Characteristics of Bad Debt

Here are five characteristics of debts that I would consider bad.

You Don’t Understand the Terms

Loans and other sources of borrowing, such as credit cards, all have different terms. It is important that you understand the terms of your debt. For example, some loans, mortgages in particular, have adjustable rates. That is, the interest rate that you pay on your loan will change as a benchmark interest rate changes. If the benchmark interest rate increases, your loan payments will also increase.

Credit cards also can have interest rates that change. A teaser rate is an interest rate that applies to credit card debt for the first several months to a year. After that initial period, the interest rate charged on credit card debt can be very high.

Another example of a loan provision that can be problematic is a balloon payment. Some loans, including some mortgages in the US and many mortgages in Canada, have balloon payment provisions. For the initial period of time (often five years for Canadian mortgages), you make payments on your loan as if you were re-paying the loan over 30 years. However, at the end of the fifth year, the entire balance of the loan is due. The Canadian mortgage I reviewed requires the lender to re-finance the loan at the end of the fifth year, but at an interest rate that reflects the then-current interest rate environment and your then-current credit rating. In effect, that loan has an adjustable interest rate that depends not only on a benchmark interest rate but also changes in your credit score.

I consider any debt for which you don’t fully understand the terms, best avoided by reading the entirety of the loan document, as bad debt.

You Can’t Afford the Payments

When you enter into a loan agreement, you will be provided with the amount and timing of loan payments. With credit cards, the payments are usually due monthly and are a function of how much you charge and the card’s interest rate. Any debt that has payments that don’t fit in your budget is bad debt.   I would even take it one step further and say that any debt that has payments so high that you aren’t able to save for emergencies, large purchases and retirement is bad debt.

High Interest Rate

Some types of debt, such as credit cards and payday loans, have very high interest rates. The definition of a high interest rate depends on the economic conditions. Currently (around 2020), I would say any interest rate of more than 8% to 10% is high. By comparison, when I was young in the early 1980s, the interest rate on a 10-year US Government bond was more than 15% and mortgage rates were even higher.

If you have debt with high interest rates, you will be better off re-paying them as quickly as possible as you can’t earn a high enough investment return on any excess savings to cover the interest cost. That is, the investment return you can earn on the money, especially after tax, is going to be less than the interest rate you pay on the debt. In that case, it doesn’t make financial sense to invest any excess cash but rather you will be better off by using any excess cash to pay off the debt.

Depreciating Collateral

In many cases, debt is used to purchase something large, such as a boat, a home or a car. When you make a large purchase, the item you bought is considered collateral and the lender can take the collateral if you don’t make your loan payments.

The value of some items goes down (depreciates) faster than the principal of the loan. If you default on your payments when that happens, the lender is allowed to make you pay the difference. Determining whether your purchase is something that will retain its value or will depreciate quickly is a good test of whether it is financially responsible to use debt to make the purchase. If not, I would consider the purchase a poor use of debt.

No Long-Term Benefit

Many other purchases for which debt, such as credit cards and payday loans, is used have no long-term benefit. For example, if you buy a knick-knack for your home with a credit card and don’t pay the balance when the credit card is due, you will be paying interest for something that has no long-term benefit to you. I consider using debt for items or experiences with no long-term benefit to be bad.

There is a gray area. If you use debt to buy clothes that are required for your job, the clothes themselves don’t have a long-term benefit, but they could be considered as creating the ability to go to work and earn money.   As such, while I would normally consider clothes as a poor use of debt, I can see how work clothes that allow you to increase your income might need to be financed for a month or two on a credit card.

Characteristics of Good Debt (vs Bad Debt)

The first requirement of good debt is that it doesn’t have any of the characteristics of bad debt. That is, good debt:

  • Has terms you fully understand.
  • Fits in your budget, especially if your budget also includes saving for retirement, large purchases and an emergency fund.
  • Is one that has a reasonable interest rate.
  • Isn’t backed by depreciating collateral.
  • Is used for something with long-term benefit.

There are many ways in which a debt can create a long-term benefit. I’ve mentioned buying clothes required for a job that allows you to earn money, in particular a lot more money than the cost of paying off the debt.

Your Primary Residence

Most people borrow, using a mortgage, to purchase a home.   The market values of homes generally increase over long periods of time, though there are periods of times when the market values of homes decrease. In addition, there are a lot of carrying costs of owning a home, such as insurance, property taxes, maintenance and repairs. However, by owning a home, you don’t have to pay rent which, in theory, covers all of the costs of home ownership.

I think that buying a house is a good use of debt as long as the mortgage meets all of the criteria identified above. Although not specifically related to the use of debt, you might want to think carefully about buying a home (with or without debt) if you plan to live in it for only a short period of time. The transactions costs of buying and selling a home are high and you increase the likelihood that the value of the house will decrease if you own it for only a few years.

Your Car

Using debt to buy a car is also quite common. If you are using the debt to cover the cost of your only mode of transportation and you need it to get to work, it can be a good use of debt. Again, you’ll want to check that it has the other characteristics of good debt identified above.   Using debt to buy a car that is more expensive than you need or leads to loan payments that are higher than you can afford is not as good a use of debt.

Your Education

Many people use student loans to pay for college. From an economic perspective, student loans can be either good or bad. The criteria for evaluating the student loans are:

  • Will the increase in your wages will cover your loan payments?
  • Will you earn enough after graduation to allow the loan payments to fit in your budget?

For example, let’s say you can earn $30,000 a year if you don’t go to college and $40,000 if you get a degree. If you borrowed $50,000 a year for four years at 5% with a 10-year term, your payments would be more than $25,000 per year.

First Criterion

Over the term of the loan, your increase in wages ($10,000 per year) is less than your loan payments. Over your working life time, the return on your investment in your student loans is about 3.5%. The return on investment is positive, so the use of debt could be justified using the first criterion.

Second Criterion

It might be very difficult to cover the $25,000 of annual student loan payments on annual wages of $40,000 a year. If you are willing and able to live on $15,000 a year until your student loans are re-paid, they could be considered a good investment economically.

A smaller amount of debt or a larger increase in salary will improve the economic benefit of student loans. If you are considering student loans to finance your education, you’ll want to look at their economic costs and benefits carefully.

Your Business

When you start your own business, you often need to invest in one or more of equipment, inventory or a place to run your business.  Many people borrow money to make these initial investments. Starting a profitable business can be a very good use of debt, as it provides you the opportunity to increase your net worth. However, 30% of businesses fail in the first year and 50% fail in five years, according to the Small Business Administration, as reported by Investopedia. If you borrow money to start a small business and it fails, you will often still be liable for re-paying the debt, depending on whether you had to personally guarantee the loan or if the business was able to procure the loan.

Investing

There are at least a couple of ways you can use “debt” to invest.

Don’t Pre-Pay Your Debt

The most common way to use debt to invest is to invest extra money rather than using the money to pre-pay your mortgage or other debt. Whether it is good or bad to use this “debt” to increase your investing depends on several factors and your financial situation:

  • The longer the term on your debt, the better the choice is to invest instead of pre-paying your debt. If your loan payments only extend over a year or two, it is more likely that your investments will lose money making you worse off than if you pre-paid your loan. Over long periods of time, your investment returns are more likely to be positive.
  • The lower the interest rate on your debt, the better the choice it is to invest instead of pre-pay your debt. If the interest rate on your debt is higher than you can expect to earn on the investments you would buy (after considering income taxes), you will almost always be better off pre-paying your loan. If your interest rate is low, e.g., less than 3% or 4%, you are more likely to earn more in investment returns than the interest cost on your debt.
  • You have another source of income to make your loan payments if your investments decrease in value. For example, if you were planning to retire in the next few years, pre-paying your debt is more likely to be a better decision than investing. On the other hand, if you plan to have other sources of income besides your investments for the next 10 or more years, you might be better off investing rather than pre-paying your debt.

Investing on Margin

Another way you can use debt to invest is to buy your investments on margin. Under this approach, you borrow money from the brokerage (or similar) firm to buy your investments using your existing invested assets as collateral. In many cases, you can borrow up to 50% of the value of your existing assets. So, if you have $100,000 of stocks, you could borrow $50,000 to make additional investments.

The drawback of buying investments on margin is that the lender can make you re-pay the loan or a portion of it as soon as the value of the assets you own (the $100,000 of stocks in my example) decreases to less than twice the amount you’ve borrowed. Unfortunately, the amount you borrowed may have decreased in value at the same time while the amount you borrowed as stayed constant. As such, buying investments on margin is considered very risky and should be done only by people who fully understand all of its ramifications.

Final Thoughts on Good Debt vs. Bad Debt

Debt, when used carefully, can greatly improve your life and your ability to earn money. However, if you take on too much bad debt, it can lead to significant financial problems. This post has provided a framework to help you decide whether any debts you have or are considering are likely to be good debt vs bad debt.

Picking Stocks

Many investors create their own portfolios by picking stocks in individual companies. As discussed in my post on the basics of stocks, picking stocks in individual companies is one of several strategies for creating an investment portfolio. Alternatives to picking stocks in individual companies include buying mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. I’ll talk about those strategies in another post.

When I first started investing in the early 1980s, mutual funds were quite common but index funds and exchange-traded funds, while they existed, were not well known. I started my investment story by picking stocks in individual companies. One of the best books I’ve ever read on investing is One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch, originally published in 1989.

Confirmation of Independence: I have no affiliation with the author or publisher of the book I am reviewing. I do not receive any compensation for recommending it or if you purchase it.     I truly think it is a great source of investing information.

Lynch was the manager of a very successful mutual fund, the Fidelity Magellan fund, from 1977 to 1990. During that time, the fund had a 29.3% annual average return or more than twice the average return on the S&P 500 over the same time period. If you are considering picking stocks in individual companies, I recommend his book even though it is quite dated. It references companies and trends with which you may not be familiar, but the fundamental concepts are still relevant and it is a quick, easy read.

In this post, I’ll essentially provide an overview of some of the key points I learned from One Up on Wall Street and illustrate them with some personal examples when I can.

Picking Stocks in Companies You Know

One of the first concepts that Lynch introduces is that you are your own local expert. You are familiar with the business in which you work and shop. You are a consumer and you can observe trends in the area in which you live. By watching the world around you, you can identify possible investment opportunities, possibly even before the “market” or “experts” discover them. In many cases, if you identify a trend very early and invest in a company that will benefit from it, you can earn a much-higher-than-market-average return on your investment. In fact, Lynch points to this opportunity as giving individual investors a better chance of beating the market than professional investors who have to invest larger amounts so tend to purchase more mature companies.

Our Kids’ Choices

To illustrate what I mean by “invest in what you know,” I will use an experience we had with our children as an example. When they were in their early teens (probably around 2004 or 2005), we gave them each a very small amount of money to invest. Our son, who was very interested in trains and large equipment, chose the following companies:

  • Microsoft
  • John Deere
  • Canadian Pacific Railway
  • Canadian National Railway
  • ASV – a company that makes skid-steer loaders.

Our daughter, who was much more aware of what was happening in the retail space, chose the following companies:

  • Apple
  • Nordstrom
  • JC Penney
  • Target
  • One other company that I don’t recall.

How it Turned Out

I don’t remember exactly when we started this exercise, so have looked at the two- and five-year average annual returns starting on January 1, 2006. By using two-year returns, I have excluded the impact of the market decline in 2008 and early 2009. The five-year returns go through December 31, 2010, so include the market decline and part of the recovery.

The S&P 500 averaged a 4.5% increase per year during the two-year period and was essentially flat for the five-year period. By comparison, my daughter’s stocks increased at an annual average rate of 9% over the two-year period and 8% over the five-year period. My son did even better, with annual average returns of 15% over the two-year period and 9% over the five-year period.

What is even more impressive about my son’s returns is that his returns were dragged down significantly by a single company – ASV. When my son bought it, the company had its own patented suspension system for its tracks. As I recall, not too much later, it had a change in management. The new management decided to license the patent to Caterpillar. Unfortunately for ASV, Caterpillar’s much larger market share caused a large reduction in ASV’s sales that couldn’t be made up by the licensing fees. Over a several year period, ASV’s stock price went down by about one-third. This experience illustrates another lesson when looking a company’s fundamentals for investment decisions – carefully follow the decisions of any new management teams.

Without ASV, our son’s returns were much more impressive – 19% over the two-year period and 13% over the five-year period.

Don’t Invest in What You Don’t Understand

A related concept, but somewhat different one, is to avoid picking stocks in companies and sectors you don’t understand. Lynch has all sorts of great examples of why people buy stock in companies whose business they don’t understand – hot tips from a “rich uncle,” aggressive buy recommendations from a broker and so on and so forth.

Not understanding a company’s business can be everything from it having a very technical focus to not being familiar with its marketplace (i.e., to whom and how it sells its products) to being so diverse that it is hard to figure out what drives profits.   Essentially, his advice is that, if you can’t explain to someone what the company does in a few sentences, you shouldn’t buy its stock.

One Example of My Choices

I fell into that trap. We had a little extra money many years ago and decided to take some risk by making a very small investment in a private placement. When a company sells its stocks to a small group of investors and not the general public, it is called a private placement.

The two choices we were offered were a company that was marketing telemedicine to the Veterans Administration and a barbeque restaurant that was just opening its first locations. Our assessment was that the restaurant space was grossly overcrowded and that telemedicine would catch on quickly with the aging population and increases in technology. Not understanding that the telemedicine company didn’t actually have any customers or the challenges of getting a contract with the Veterans Administration, we made a very small investment in it.

Were we wrong! Many years later, we wrote off the entire value of the investment in the telemedicine company as it had become worthless. The restaurant was Famous Dave’s.

Ten Baggers

One of Lynch’s goals is picking stocks that are ten-baggers. These are companies whose stocks appreciate to at least 10 times what you paid for them in relatively short periods of time. By identifying trends in your local area, you are more likely to be able to earn the high returns associated with companies that start small and grow rapidly. As an example, consider the increases in Apple’s stock price.

The picture above shows the annual appreciation of Apple stock from 1981 through 2018. If you had owned the stock during any of the years circled in green, you would have more than tripled your money in two years. Not quite 10 times, but 3 to 5 times in 2 years is still a return anyone would envy. If you look at the returns in more recent circled in orange, you’ll see much more modest appreciation. The returns were still very attractive, but much lower than the earlier period.

Lynch points out the benefit of having just one ten-bagger in a portfolio with otherwise mundane performers. For example, if you invest the same amount in 9 stocks each having a total return of 5% per year, your total return in 5 years will be 27.6%. If you add a ten bagger to the mix, your total return increases to 115% or 16.5% per year.

Although our daughter didn’t have any ten baggers, her portfolio benefited from a similar effect. From 2006-2010, her three retail stocks had an annual average return of -1.6%. Apple, on the other hand, was almost a 4.5-bagger (its price at the end of 2010 was 4.4 times its price at the end of 2005). The addition of that one company to her portfolio increased her return from -1.6% to +8.2%!

Do Your Research

Once you’ve identified a company with an appealing product or service, it isn’t time to buy yet! Lynch suggests looking at the company’s financial statements and several financial metrics. I’ll talk about a few of them here.

Percent of Sales

The first thing to check is whether the new “thing” is big enough to have an impact on the profitability of the company. To illustrate, let’s look at two companies that make widgets. Company A makes primarily widgets, so 90% of its sales is from widgets. Company B makes a lot of things. Only 5% of Company B’s sales is from widgets. A new thingamabob has been designed that will double the sales of widgets with no impact on the profit margin (percent of sales cost that turns into profit). Company A’s profit will increase by 90%, whereas Company B’s profit will increase by only 5%. Because stock prices are driven in large part by estimates of future profitability, you would expect that Company A’s stock price would increase much more if it added thingamabobs to its widgets than Company B’s stock price.

Future Earnings

For many reasons identified by Lynch, stock prices don’t always move in line with earnings. Nonetheless, the more that earnings increase, the more that the stock price is likely to go up. Lynch suggests that you make sure you understand how a company plans to grow its earnings.

Ways to Increase Earnings

He identifies the following five ways for increasing earnings:

  • Reduce costs
  • Raise prices
  • Expand into new markets
  • Sell more product to existing markets
  • Revitalize, close or otherwise dispose of losing operations

If you plan to hold the company’s stock for a fairly short time, any of these ways of increasing earnings could provide nice returns. I tend to buy and hold my stocks for a long time (over 25 years in several cases), so I prefer companies whose growth strategies include expanding into new markets or selling more product to existing markets. The other three approaches tend to produce one-time increases to earnings that can’t be replicated over and over again.

Expanding into New Markets

One of the most common ways existing companies expand into new markets is through acquiring other companies. There are many companies that have grown very successfully through acquisition.

Berkshire Hathaway

One such company is Berkshire Hathaway, whose chairman is Warren Buffett. Over the past 40 years, Berkshire Hathaway has purchased such companies as Burlington Northern, Dairy Queen, and Fruit of the Loom, among others. The graph below shows the value of $1 invested in Berkshire Hathaway (stock symbol: BRK-A) since 1980 as compared to a $1 investment in the S&P 500.[1]

Clearly, Berkshire Hathaway has been highly successful in its acquisition strategy.

General Electric

Other companies have been less successful with their expansion and acquisition strategies. One such example is General Electric (GE). When I was young, I thought of GE as primarily manufacturing appliances and light bulbs. The graph below shows how the value of $1 invested in GE increased between 1962 and 2000 as compared to the same investment in the S&P 500.

Clearly, over that time frame, GE was very successful. In fact, my in-laws bought a few shares of GE for each of my kids when they were young (in the 1990s) because it was considered such a great, stable company.

Over the past 20 years, it has expanded its operations into loans, insurance and medical products and related services.   In hindsight, it appears that GE wasn’t sufficiently familiar with all of the business it entered or acquired.  It also used a lot of debt to finance its acquisitions and expansions.  As a result, its stock price suffered. The graph below shows how much a $1 investment in GE’s stock has changed over the past 20 years as compared to the S&P 500.[2]

Comparison

From 2000 to late 2019, Berkshire Hathaway’s stock price went up by a factor of almost 5 while GE’s stock price decreased by more than 50%. Interestingly, GE’s new CEO (hired in 2018) announced a transformation plan that includes selling several of its businesses, allowing it to focus primarily on “safely delivering people where they need to go; powering homes, schools, hospitals, and businesses; and offering more precise diagnostics and care when patients need it most.”[3]

You’ll want to make sure you understand which new markets a company plans to enter, think about whether management has sufficient experience or expertise to expand successfully and understand how much debt the company is using to finance these expansions.

P/E Ratio

The ratio of the price of a company’s stock to its annual earnings is known as the P/E ratio. A P/E ratio is one way to measure whether a company’s stock price is expensive. A rule of thumb mentioned by Lynch is that a stock is reasonably priced when its P/E is about the same as its future earnings growth rate. He acknowledges the important point that the future earnings growth rate isn’t ever known and that lots of experts spend a lot of time incorrectly estimating the earnings growth rate.

Nonetheless, you can at least look to see if a company’s P/E ratio is the right order of magnitude. For example, if you are looking at a company that slowly expands its sales in its current market, its earnings growth rate might be 5% to 7%. If that company’s P/E were 25, you’d know it was expensive. If the P/E ratio were 2, it might be an attractive buy. So, it isn’t necessarily important to know whether the company’s earnings growth rate is going to 5% or 7%, but rather whether it is likely to be 5% or 25%.

Schwab has an entire post on using the P/E ratio as part of stock analyses.

Debt/Equity Ratio

Companies can get cash from three sources to finance their operations – equity (selling shares of stock), borrowing and profits. Long-term debt is the amount of money that a company has borrowed, other than to meet short-term cash needs (such as through a line of credit). Long-term debt frequently is in the form of bank loans or bonds issued by the company.

The ratio of the amount of long-term debt to equity (the difference between assets and liabilities which is an estimate of the value of the company to the stockholders) is known as the debt-to-equity ratio. There are both advantages and disadvantages to a high debt-to-equity ratio. Let’s look at an example.

Company A has $100 of profit before interest (and ignoring taxes) and $60 of interest payments, for net income of $40 ($100 – $60). Company B is the same as Company A but it has no long-term debt, so its net income is $100. If profit before interest went down by 40%, Company B’s net income would also decrease by 40% to $60. Company A’s net income, though would go from $40 to $0 or a 100% decrease. The primary disadvantage of debt is that it magnifies the impact of bad news. The 40% decrease in profit before interest turned into a 100% decrease in net income for Company A with all its debt. This magnification is called leverage or debt leverage.

On the plus side, increases in profits are also magnified. If Company A’s profit before interest increased by 50% to $150, its net income would increase by $50 to $90. The percentage increase in net income in this case is +125% as compared to the +50% increase in Company B’s net income.

Other Metrics

Lynch discusses several other things to check on a company’s financial statements before making an investment.   I talk about one of them, the dividend payout ratio, in my post on investing for dividends. I’ll let you read One Up on Wall Street to learn more about the other metrics and to get Lynch’s views and examples on the ones I’ve discussed here.

Create Your Story

For every company in which you invest, Lynch recommends that you create a story. There are two parts to the story.

Two-Minute Story

First, you should be able to describe the company’s business in what I would call an “elevator speech.” That is, it is important to be able to explain to someone else what the company does and why you think it will grow all in two minutes. If your explanation takes longer, it is likely an indication that the company’s business is too complex to benefit from a trend you observe or you don’t fully understand its business.

Additional Details

Second, you’ll want to have a story for yourself that includes a bit more detail about what you think will cause earnings (and hopefully therefore the stock price) to increase. Is it one of the one-time actions, such as cutting expenses or increases prices, or a longer-term plan to increase sales?

If the former, you’ll want to monitor the progress of those actions. Are they being implemented? Have they been effective? Has their full impact been reflected in earnings and/or the stock price? If the company’s plans don’t come to fruition or they were successful and reflected in earnings, you’ll want to evaluate whether you want to continue to own the company’s stock or whether it is time to sell it.

If the latter, you’ll want to understand what steps the company plans to take to increase sales. You can then monitor the company’s progress towards those plans. If it doesn’t appear to be on track, it might be time to considering selling the stock and investing in another company.

Final Thoughts

As I re-read Lynch’s book in preparation for writing this post, I was reminded how many useful tidbits he provides in it. Interspersed among the anecdotes are lots of lists, checklists and guidance on everything from identifying a company in which to possibly invest to determining the company’s growth pattern to reading financials to designing your portfolio. If you plan to start picking stocks in individual companies, I highly recommend One Up on Wall Street by Peter Lynch as a good first book on the topic. If you are looking for a shorter source for similar information, I suggest this post from Schwab.

 

 

[1] Taken from Yahoo Finance, November 8, 2019.

[2] Taken from Yahoo Finance on November 8, 2019

[3] General Electric 2008 Annual Report, https://www.ge.com/investor-relations/sites/default/files/GE_AR18.pdf, p3.

Investing for Dividends

Investing for dividends is one of many strategies investors use to identify stocks for their portfolios. Among the strategies I identified in my post on what you need to know about stocks, this is not one that I have ever used.  So I reached out to one of my Twitter followers who uses it to get more information, Dividend Diplomats (aka Lanny and Bert) to get some real-life insights. With Lanny’s and Bert’s help, I will:

  • define dividends.
  • talk about the criteria that Lanny and Bert use for selecting companies and why they are important.
  • show some historical returns for dividend-issuing companies.
  • explain the tax implications of dividends on your total return.

What are Dividends?

A dividend is a cash distribution from a company to its shareholders. The amount of the dividend is stated on a per-share basis.  The amount of cash you receive is equal to the number of shares you own times the amount of the dividend. When companies announce that they are going to pay a dividend, they provide two dates.  The first is the date on which share ownership is determined (also known as the ex-dividend date).  The second is the date on which the dividend will be paid. For example, a company might declare a 15₵ dividend to people who own shares on May 1 payable on May 15. Even if you sell your stock between May 1 and May 15, you will get 15₵ for every share you owned on May 1.

When a company earns a profit, it has two choices for what to do with the profit. Under one option, the company can keep the profit and use it to support future operations. For example, the company might buy more equipment to allow it to increase the number of products is makes or might buy another company to expand its operations. Under the second option, the company distributes some or all of its profit to shareholders as dividends. My experience is that companies that are growing rapidly tend to keep their profits, whereas companies that can’t find enough opportunities to reinvest their profits to fund growth tend to issue dividends.

Dividend Diplomats – A Little Background

Lanny and Bert have been blogging for over 5.5 years and have been best friends for 7.  They both are pursuing the same goal of reaching financial freedom and retiring early to break the “9 to 5” chains.  They hope to achieve financial freedom through dividend investing, frugal living, and using as many “personal finance” hacks as possible to keep expenses low and bring in additional income. For more information about the Dividend Diplomats, check out their web site at www.dividenddiplomats.com.

Why Use the Investing for Dividends Strategy

As you’ll see in future posts, I have used several strategies for my stock investments, but have never focused on investing for dividends.

My Preconceived Notions

I have always considered investing for dividends as most appropriate for people who need the cash to pay their living expenses, such as people who are retired. I am retired, but currently have cash and some bonds that I use to cover my living expenses. As I get further into retirement, I will need to start liquidating some of my stocks or start investing for dividends.

Lanny’s & Bert’s Motivation

So, when I started reading about Lanny and Bert, I wondered why people who are still working (and a lot younger than I am) would be interested in investing for dividends.   Here’s what they said.

“There were a few different motivating factors.

Lanny had endured a very difficult childhood, where money was always limited and his family had struggled financially.   Due to this, he personally wanted to never have to worry about money, period.

Bert was not a dividend growth investor until he met Lanny.  Once he talked to Lanny, learned about dividend investing, and saw the math, he was sold and hasn’t looked back since.

Therefore, we are looking to build a growing passive income stream so we can retire early and pursue our passions.  Building a stream of growing, truly passive dividend income has always been a very attractive option to us.  We love the fact that dividend income is truly passive (outside of initial capital, we don’t have to lift a finger) and we are building equity in great, established companies that have paid dividends throughout various economic cycles.

Second, the math just makes sense.  It is crazy how quickly your income stream grows when you are anticipating a dividend growth rate of 6%+ (on average).  Lanny writes an article each quarter showing the impact of dividend increases and we have demonstrated the impact of dividend reinvesting on our site in the past. When you see the math on paper, it is insane. “

Lanny and Bert provided links to a couple of their posts that illustrate the math: Impact of Dividend Increases and Power of Dividend Reinvesting.

Lanny’s & Bert’s Strategy

Lanny and Bert developed a dividend stock screener that helps them identify undervalued dividend growth stocks in which to consider investing.  At a minimum, the companies must pass three metrics to be further considered for investment:

  • Valuation (P/E Ratio) less than the market average.
  • Payout Ratio Less than 60%. (Unless the industry has a higher benchmarked figure. i.e. oil, tobacco, utilities, REITs, etc., then they compare to the industry payout ratio.)
  • History of increasing dividends.

They don’t consider dividend yield until later in the process.  They never advocate chasing dividend yield at the risk of dividend safety. That is, they would rather a dividend that has very low risk of being reduced or eliminated (i.e., safety) than a higher dividend be unsustainable over the long term.

That’s why they don’t look at yield initially.  It allows them to focus on the important metrics that help them gain comfort over the safety of the dividend.  Here is a link to their Dividend Stock Screener.

Payout Ratio

Lanny and Bert mention that that one of their key metrics is a payout ratio. A dividend payout ratio is the annual amount of a company’s dividend divided by its earnings per share.  For more about earnings per share, check out my post on reading financial statements.

A dividend payout ratio of less than 1 means that a company is retaining some of its earnings and distributing the rest. If the ratio is more than 1, it means that the company is earning less money than it is paying out in dividends.

I worked for a company that had a payout ratio of more than 1. When I first started working there, the company had more capital than it could use. The company was returning its excess capital to its shareholders through the high dividend. After several years, the company’s capital approached the amount it needed to support its business. If it had cut its dividend to an amount lower than its earnings, the stock price might have decreased significantly. Instead, the company was sold. Had the company not been sold, its shareholders might have had both a decrease in future dividend payments and a reduction in the value of their stock at the same time.  This double whammy (dividend cut at the same time as a price decrease) is a risk of owning a stock in a dividend-issuing company especially those with high dividend payout ratios.

Performance – Lanny and Bert’s View

Lanny and Bert are not assuming they can do better than management or the market.  As noted above, they tend to focus on companies with a dividend payout ratio less than 60%.  This approach allows for all three of increasing dividends to shareholders, share repurchases, and internal growth for profit.  Also, this approach ensures the company is continuing to invest in itself as well.  You can’t pay a dividend in the future if you can’t grow, or even maintain, your current earnings stream.  Therefore, if revenues are stagnant or shrinking, the safety of the company’s dividend comes into question.  Companies “can” pay out a dividend that is larger than your earnings over the short-to-medium term.  However, it is not sustainable as was the case with the company for which I worked.

Historical Performance

I was curious about how stocks that met Lanny and Bert’s criteria performed. I have a subscription to the ValueLine Analyzer Plus. It contains current and historical financial data and stock prices about hundreds of companies. I looked at two time periods.  I first looked at the most recent year (November 2018 to November 2019).  Because I was curious about how those stocks performed in the 2008 crash, I also looked at the ten-year period from 2003 to 2013. I would have used a shorter period around the 2008 crash and the period thereafter, but didn’t save the data in the right format so had to look at time periods for which I had saved the data in an accessible manner.

How I Measured Performance

For both time periods, I identified all stocks for which the data I needed for the analysis were available at both the beginning and end of the period.  There were 1,505 companies included in the sample in the 2018-2019 period and 952 companies for the 2003 to 2013 period.

I then identified companies (a) whose dividend grew in each of the previous two fiscal years, (b) whose dividend payout ratio was less than 60% and (c) whose P/B ratio was less than the average of all of the companies in the same. That is, I attempted to identify the companies that met Lanny and Bert’s criteria. There were 332 companies in the 2018-2019 period and 109 companies in the 2003-2013 period that met these criteria.

ValueLine ranks companies based on what it calls Timeliness, with companies with Timeliness ratings of 1 having the best expected performance and those having a rating of 5 having the worst expected performance. Because I suspected that Bert and Lanny’s screen would tend to select more companies with favorable Timeliness ratings than those with poorer ones, I looked at both the overall results, as well as the results by Timeliness rating.

November 2018 – November 2019

In the most recent year, the stocks that met Lanny’s and Bert’s criteria had an average total return (dividends plus change in stock price) of 11% as compared to 8.5% for the total sample. That is, in the current market, dividend issuing companies meeting their criteria returned more than the average of all companies.

Interestingly, when I stratified the companies by Timeliness rating, it showed that for companies with good Timeliness ratings (1 and 2), the Lanny’s and Bert’s companies underperformed the group. For companies with two of the three lower Timeliness ratings (3 and 5), though, Lanny’s and Bert’s companies not only did better than the average of all companies in the group, but also did better than even the group of companies with a Timeliness rating of 1! It looks to me as if their approach might identify some gems in what otherwise appear to be poorer performing companies.

The chart below shows these comparisons.

2003 to 2013

Over the longer time period from 2003 to 2013, the companies meeting Lanny’s and Bert’s criteria didn’t do quite as well as the average of all companies. In this case, the stocks meeting their criteria had a compound annual return of 5% as compared to 7% for all stocks in the sample. Without more data, it is hard to tell whether the difference in return is the sample of dividend-issuing companies is small, because those companies didn’t fare as well during the Great Recession or something else.

I looked at the total returns by Timeliness rating and the results were inconsistent for both the “all stocks” group and the ones that met our criteria. A lot can happen in 10 years! Nonetheless, it was interesting to see that the dividend-yielding stocks that had Timeliness ratings of 5 in 2003 out performed all other subsets of the data. So, while these stocks didn’t have quite as high a total return over the 10-year period in the aggregate, there are clearly some above-average performers within the group.

Tax Ramifications of Dividends

One of the drawbacks of investing in companies with dividends, as opposed to companies that reinvest their earnings for growth, is that you might need to pay taxes on the dividend income as it gets distributed.

Types of Accounts

If you hold your dividend-yielding stocks in a tax-deferred (e.g., Traditional IRA or 401(k) in the US or RRSP in Canada) or tax-free (e.g., Roth IRA or 401(k) in the US or TFSA in Canada), it doesn’t matter whether your returns are in the form of price appreciation or dividends. Your total return in each of those types of accounts gets taxed the same. That is, if you hold the stocks in a tax-deferred account, you will pay tax on your total returns, regardless of whether it is interest, dividends or appreciation, at your ordinary income tax rate. If you hold the stocks in a tax-free account, you won’t pay taxes on any returns.

The only type of account in which it matters whether your return is in the form of price appreciation or dividends is a taxable account. In the US, most people pay 15% Federal income tax plus some additional amount for state income taxes on dividends in the year in which they are issued. They pay taxes at the same rate on capital gains, but only when the stock is sold, not as the price changes from year to year. In Canada, the difference is even greater. Dividends are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate (i.e., they are added to your wages) and capital gains are taxed at 50% of your ordinary income tax rate and only when you sell the stock.

Dividend Reinvestment

When you earn dividends from a company, you often have the option to automatically reinvest the dividends in the same company’s stock. This process is a dividend reinvestment plan. Lanny and Bert take this approach.

Dividend reinvestment plans are terrific ways to make sure you stay invested in companies that you like, as you don’t have to remember to buy more stock when the dividend is reinvested. The drawback of dividend reinvestment plans is that you will owe tax on the amount of the dividend, even if you don’t receive it in cash. If you reinvest 100% of your dividends, you’ll need to have cash from some other source to pay the taxes unless you hold the investments in a tax-free or tax-deferred account.

Illustration

Let’s assume you are a US investor subject to the 15% Federal tax rate and pay no state income tax. You have two companies you are considering. You expect each to have a total return of 8%. One company’s return will be 100% in dividends, while the other company issues no dividends. You plan to own the stock for 10 years. Your initial investment will be $1,000 and you will pay your income taxes out of your dividends, so you reinvest 85% of the dividends you earn each year.

At the end of the 10th year, you will have $1,931 if you buy the company with 8% dividends. If you buy the company with no dividends, your stock will be worth $2,159. After you pay capital gains tax of $174, you will have $1,985 or 2.8% more than if you buy stock in the company that issues 8% dividends.

If you pay Canadian taxes, the difference is even bigger because of the much lower tax rate on capital gains than dividends. Over the full ten-year period, you will end up with almost 11% more if you buy stock in the company with no dividends than if you buy stock in the dividend-issuing company.

As such, you’ll want to put as much of your portfolio of dividend-issuing stocks in a tax-deferred or tax-free account as possible to minimize the impact of taxes on your total return.