Entries Tagged 'Book Updates' ↓
February 11th, 2016 — Book Updates — E-mail this blog post to a friend
Market update: They suck.
Faye and Rob started investing eight months ago, moving their money out of GICs and high-fee mutual funds at the local credit union into a balanced portfolio of ETFs. He drives a bus. She’s a part-time supply teacher (music). Two kids. House a third paid off. About a dozen years from retirement. Mediocre pensions. Four hundred grand spread across RRSPs, a spousal, two TFSAs and a small non-registered account.
“We’re regular, boring people,” she told me, shortly after they’d engaged a fee-based guy. “This is money that we need to grow over the next decade, so I feel good about the decision. Thanks for the blog, because before reading that we didn’t have a clue this option existed for people like us.”
Good. Smart. GICs pay peanuts, less than inflation, guaranteeing a loss over time. Mutual funds have ridiculous management fees, not even tax-deductible. Besides, the credit union lady had stuck F&R into a maple-heavy equity fund that had been badly scorched. They had little US or international exposure, no REITS, and no plan. No guidance.
Well, guess what happened? The balanced portfolio is sitting at 5.5% less this week than it was last summer, and she’s freaking. She just told the advisor, “We want to go to cash. Yesterday. I can’t take it.”
The rest of this post is for Faye.
In the crash of 2008-9, the worst market event of this generation, the TSX lost 55% of its value from peak to trough. US banks were failing. Wall Street was in crisis. Credit seized up around the world. The car companies spiraled towards bankruptcy. Tens of thousands of layoffs took place every week. The media was filled with alarmist stories of a new depression. As volatility spiked, millions of retail investors jammed the exits. On the day the markets bottomed in the winter of 2009, a mass exodus took place.
During this time a balanced portfolio like yours, Faye, was not immune. It dropped 20% over the course of a few months. The plop in equities was mitigated by the fixed income, which continued to pump out interest and dividends. While it took somebody with only stocks more than six years to get their money back, the balanced portfolio regained all lost ground in one year. The next year (2010) it swelled more than 15%. So over the course of three years – the worst period for investors in decades – the return averaged about 5% annually. Those who bailed and sold at the bottom, however, were crushed. Thanks to fear.
Where are we now?
US stocks markets have lost 12% in a year, and Bay Street has declined 20%. Oil has shed 75% of its value. Despite that, no banks are failing. There are no Lehman-type events taking place. The US is growing, not contracting. The global economy is expanding. No recession. Over three million more jobs were created in the States last year. Canadian banks have been pumping out record profits. The car companies just had the best twelve-month period in history. Gas at 60 cents in Edmonton and a buck a gallon in some American states is a boon to consumers.
So logic tells us the selloff is probably overdone, maybe close to a bottom. Oil is ridiculously cheap for something the world devours daily. There’s no credit crisis and no deflation. Just a ton of profit-taking from the record equity levels of a year ago. And now, fear like yours.
Your portfolio is down less than 6%, and you’re desperate to get out. That makes utterly no sense unless you know things are going to fall more, and never recover. When was the last time that happened? Yes, never.
Here’s what throwing in the towel means:
- You decide, emotionally, this is not the bottom or anywhere close. That means you’re timing the market – which never, ever works. Especially when based on fear alone.
- You’ll sit in cash or a GIC, making less than zero after inflation and taxes. So, you’ll choose to lose money and eschew the certain potential of long-term growth. After all, didn’t you invest to have more money 12 years from now?
- You’ll then have to determine when to invest again, since GICs are no option. More market timing. More emotion.
Over the last 20 years – which included the massacre of 2008-9, someone starting with $100,000 who stayed invested would have $654,055. The person who tried to time things and missed just the best 10 days of recoveries after corrections would have only half that amount. Like I said, fear’s a costly thing. (Click to enlarge)
Here’s more. Let’s imagine over 40 years you timed the market, bailing out when things got scary, and waiting to get in until they seemed more positive. If you missed hitting just the best 1% of days and were invested for the other 99%, look at the difference in your portfolio: (Click to enlarge)
Finally, Faye, do you consider selling your house every time things get rough and real estate loses value? Or do you tough it out and wait for better conditions? Do you appraise your home every year, or worry about whether or not it’s worth more this month than last? After all, if you’re not selling and don’t need the money, who cares?
I just hope the wusses, market-timers, ignoramuses, pantywaists and dorks in the comments section have not added to your emotional fog. Forgive them. They know not what they do.
February 10th, 2016 — Book Updates — E-mail this blog post to a friend
If you think a dank economy, job stress, oilageddon and stupid house prices make your life a challenge, imagine if you were a bank. Like with 1,200 branches and 74,000 employees. Plus millions of investors who expect your dividends to (like me) swell routinely.
Given their exposure to (a) energy and (b) your debt load, the banks are a tad nervous these days. A 20% drop in their share values doesn’t help much. And so Bay Street’s fighting back after seven years of handing out money to anyone with a pulse. More on that in a moment.
First, let me bring Alan into the conversation. By all measures, he’s a successful dude. Big cheese at a national corporation headquartered in Toronto. Income of $350,000. Net worth almost $900,000 (all liquid – he rents). Four kids, fortyish, insignificant debt (a car loan, mostly), stable job, over 25 years as a customer at a major bank that will go unnamed (but it’s green).
“Here is my recent experience,” he tells me. “I have two small, unsecured lines of credit with TD Bank ($15K each) dating to my days as a student in the early 90s. I’ve had the Canada Trust LOC for 26 years and the TD LOC for 22 years. They are rarely utilized, but I kept them as a backup.
“I approached the bank to consolidate the two lines and the total increase to $40K. I was also hoping to negotiate a better rate. A week later I was shocked when a TD rep called me back to let me know that my request was declined – because I was living abroad for 6 years and haven’t displayed enough income in Canada since moving back in 2014. I reminded the young fella about my impeccable credit history, 26 year banking history with TD, strong liquid personal net worth and average income of $300k over the last 7 years. I was staggered. “
Us, too, Alan. Weasels. Don’t they shower mortgages on moisters without any savings who want to buy condos with huge odds of devaluing like miserable Kias? He continues…
“I turned the tables and indicated we were house shopping and looking to buy a $2MM home with 80% financing. The TD rep could barely contain his excitement at the thought of landing a $1.6MM mortgage and winning employee of the month and getting a pat on the head for enslaving another poor slob. He went to explain I would easily qualify for the mortgage based on my credit profile, income, down payment and net worth. I wanted to string him along a little longer, but I was flabbergasted by the hypocrisy of his about face. I asked him to explain how a $40K unsecured LOC is riskier than a $1.6MM mortgage. His only response was that the mortgage was fully secured and real estate doesn’t lose value. At this point, I politely invited him to have sex with himself and explained how ridiculous this sounded. Obviously, this young fella never lived through the high rate environment of the 80s and the real estate melt down in the 90s.
“After this call I was so angry that I was going to email various TD executives to express my dismay, etc. But then I reflected on what just happened and remembered reading about the ticking time bomb of unsecured lines of credit within the Canadian banks. It became crystal clear to me that TD bank wants to get rid of unsecured personal lines of credit.”
A telling tale, for sure. But it gets worse. Last week our executive blog dog received two letters from the bank telling him that effective Monday his loan rate will move from prime +3% to prime +6%. Yep, that’s a withering 8.7% to use the unsecured line, when his high-interest savings account is paying 0.55%.
Says Alan: “HOLY $hitballs! It won’t impact me at all because I won’t use the LOCs, but what about the hordes of debt slaves out there that are using their LOCs to make mortgage payments, credit card payments etc. This is very scary.”
You bet. Given the insane price of real estate in Van and the GTA, for example, subprime lending is now the fastest growing segment of the mortgage market – people borrowing at high rates, often double digit, to secure the down payment needed on a CMHC-ineligible property listed over a million. Likewise, moisters routinely use credit cards for the 5% needed to secure a condo, then make the minimum monthly payment (which means it never gets paid off). And ‘traditional’ household debt – the kind actually measured, as opposed to revolving and subprime loans, sits at an historic high of 171% of income. Those with 400% and 500% debt-to-income ratios have exploded in numbers.
Currently Canadians have about $280 billion in outstanding personal lines of credit (Al’s two don’t count because they’re not extended). This equals 60% of non-mortgage debt, and virtually all of it sits on the books of the Big Five chartered banks. A substantial amount is like Alan’s – unsecured. In other words, these are lines backed by the credit worthiness of a customer (based on income and assets), and not by a claim upon the title to a hunk of property.
Bankers, as you know, are astute, with finely honed defensive instincts and well-tuned blood funnels. Banks have been relentlessly profitable in good times and bad, regularly upping dividends even when that pass-through to shareholders means less overhead (called ‘employees’) and lousy client relations (like Alan). Bankers know consumers are hitting the wall now and real estate’s hitting the ceiling. Meanwhile consistently low rates have squeezed loan margins, and 2016 looks like it will deliver even worse conditions.
The bottom line: substantially higher borrowing costs, whatever the Bank of Canada decides. LOC rate-hike letters will be going out by the truckload. Unsecured lines will be squished. Demand loans called. In every way possible, risk will be contained at the same time bank expenses are pared.
As for the offer to give Al a $1.6 million mortgage while denying his $40,000 line, well, draw your own conclusions. Invest accordingly.