FREE NEWSLETTER

If you don’t need the money, banks will happily lend it to you.

Latest PostsAll Discussions »

Social Security Spousal Benefits

"Yes. She should wait to 67 so gets 50% of your FRA when you file at 70. Im assuming her spousal will be greater than her own benefit."
- James McGlynn CFA RICP®
Read more »

Keeping up with the Jonses— at least it looks that way.

"Ha, I once owned a shopping center in Illinois, an apartment complex in Florida, and an office building in Manhattan; the worst investments I ever purchased. But the Empire State Building, now there’s some bragging rights!"
- Dan Smith
Read more »

Wrapping It Up

"That's basically what I kept coming up with. I used the mid-level health prediction as we are both non-smokers in good health. But at the end of the day, there are important variables we can never know ultimately making it a personal decision."
- Patrick Brennan
Read more »

Time to Be Fearful

"I can always sleep at night, and most days in the afternoon too. 😁 Why? Because my hope is not found in wealth. - Happy Easter everyone."
- William Housley
Read more »

Prepping to Pull the Trigger

"My money market fund is giving me 1.25% above inflation at the moment…I'm happy beating inflation with zero risk."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Doubt the Forecast

WHEN PAUL EHRLICH'S obituary appeared a few weeks ago, it came and went without much notice. But during his lifetime, he was enormously influential. By training, Ehrlich was a biologist, but he was most well known for his 1968 book, The Population Bomb. It opened with this dire prediction: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” In his writings and speeches over the years, he reiterated this point in terms that became even more extreme. In 1970, he argued that famine would kill 65 million Americans during the 1980s. And in 1971, he offered this prediction about the U.K.: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” It was destined to become “a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” Why did Ehrlich hold these views? Earlier in his career, he had traveled to developing countries and concluded that their population growth was unsustainable. He argued that the world’s population needed to be cut in half and proposed a number of ideas to accomplish that. “The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions,” he acknowledged. Of course, none of Ehrlich’s predictions came close to being true, but that didn’t impact his popularity. He made more than 20 appearances on The Tonight Show—so many, in fact, that he was required to join the Screen Actors Guild. And despite Ehrlich’s impressively poor track record over nearly 60 years, The New York Times, in its obituary, still couldn’t criticize. Instead, the paper referred to his apocalyptic predictions as simply being “premature.” What can we learn from this? I see five key lessons for individual investors.
  1. No one can see around corners, and we shouldn’t believe anyone who can claim to be able to. Presumably, there was some scientific basis for Ehrlich’s predictions. The problem, though, was that all of his predictions were based on extrapolation, and he could only extrapolate from the facts available at the time. For example, he had no idea how advances in agriculture would outpace population growth, made possible by technologies like LED bulbs for indoor farming, something that hadn’t yet been invented at the time.
  2. We should be inherently skeptical of extreme predictions. Extreme views aren’t necessarily wrong. After all, extreme things can and have happened. The reason we should be skeptical is because the world is complex. As I noted a few weeks back, it’s possible for an observation to be correct but incomplete. And that was a key flaw in Ehrlich’s thinking.
The formula at the center of his research considered just three variables (population, affluence and technology). But when it comes to most things in the world, the ultimate outcome is dependent on many more variables than that. So someone like Ehrlich might have been accurate with one, or even more than one, of his observations. But at the same time, he was ignoring innumerable other factors, such as public policy decisions.
  1. In a similar vein, we should be wary of stories that sound convincing only because of the way they’re presented. I’ve discussed before the phenomenon of the “single story”—when an overly simplified, one-dimensional version of the facts takes on a life of its own. Later in life, Ehrlich acknowledged that he had benefited from this sort of thing: “The publisher’s choice of The Population Bomb was perfect from a marketing perspective…,” he wrote.
  2. We shouldn’t be too easily impressed by credentials. Despite being almost entirely wrong with his “population bomb” arguments, Ehrlich was a tenured professor at Stanford and received numerous awards. This carries an important lesson: Smart people can veer off course just as much as anyone else. As I’ve noted before, the scientist who invented the lobotomy received the Nobel Prize for his work. We should never blindly accept an argument based solely on its source.
  3. We should be careful of confirmation bias. That’s the emotional tendency to look for evidence that confirms pre-existing beliefs. In Ehrlich’s case, despite all the disconfirming evidence, he never backed down from his views. 
In 1980, economist Julian Simon challenged Ehrlich to a bet. Simon let Ehrlich pick a basket of commodities and wagered that each of them would be less expensive by 1990. For his part, Ehrlich was sure they’d all increase in price due to population pressure. Ten years later, every one of the commodities in the basket turned out to be cheaper, despite the population having grown by 800 million people over the course of the bet. Ehrlich held up his end of the bet, sending Simon a check for $567 in 1990, but he had his wife sign it, and he never acknowledged that he might have been wrong. Indeed, he doubled down. In 2009, Ehrlich commented that, “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.” The bottom line: Prognosticators can be convincing and are often entertaining. As investors, our job is to listen with a critical ear.   Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Something to Think About

"My suggestion is to look at the Roth and Traditional over a 20 year span. I remember making some calculations, and for my age and situation, conversions did not help a lot. I propose somebody like a CPA and Advisor from Fidelity get together and push the numbers. When I pushed my numbers, it just did not work at age 75. What I do, is take the maximum RMD to not increase my tax bracket. That is working for me at age now 80. I challenge our community to push the numbers, maybe Bogdan S could take a stab at it."
- William Dorner
Read more »

Private Credit Stress?

"Excellent information. My take is the hucksters always have to initiate a new angle, higher returns. Well, I have chosen to put $0 in any of these and stick with the tried and true S&P 500. This, from all I hear from the best advisors, that is the ones you can trust, is Buyer Beware. Not for me, cost more and likely many more losers than winners. Apple, Google, and the like are one in a million."
- William Dorner
Read more »

Debreifing

"I’ve seen that too. According to one of our volunteers who used to work for the IRS, it’s pretty common."
- Marilyn Lavin
Read more »

Any concern?

"I estimate the S&P 500 is down about 7% from its high, but it is still a couple of thousand points ahead of where it was only a few years ago. Rule 1 is always "keep calm". I agree with many commenters that one should have some cash or cash equivalents available if things get worse so as not to have to invade your core investment portfolio. Then take the Buffett view - the United States always bounces back."
- Martin McCue
Read more »

Treasury Tax Reporting

IF YOU HAVE a Money Market Fund (e.g. VUSXX, VMFXX), Treasury fund (e.g. SGOV), or any other Treasury ETF (e.g. VBIL), you need to know how to report it on your taxes correctly. If you don’t, you are overpaying on your state taxes unknowingly. 

How and why?

These funds hold U.S. Treasury Bills. Treasuries are exempt from state and local taxes. Of course, this only matters if you hold these funds in a taxable brokerage account, which most people do.

The broker sends you a 1099-DIV form, but it’s your responsibility to figure out how to report it on your taxes correctly. By the way, bad tax preparers can miss this sometimes, or if you self-prepare, this may be something you aren't aware of (I hope most of you reading HumbleDollar are familiar with this!)

This is one of those areas where the reporting rules are technically simple, but the execution is where people mess up. The IRS gets their share regardless (since interest is fully taxable at the federal level), but if you don’t adjust properly, your state will too, even when it shouldn’t.

The 1099-DIV doesn’t break out how much of the dividend was allocated to Treasuries. The software also wouldn’t know how much based on the 1099-DIV. This means that you generally have to figure out how to report it (or ensure your CPA does it correctly).

Now, the 1099-DIV will have a breakdown of every single stock/ETF you have, but you have to find out the percentage of a fund that holds Treasuries.

This percentage is not on your brokerage statement. It comes directly from the fund provider (Vanguard, iShares, Schwab, etc), usually buried in their “tax center” or “year-end tax supplement” pages.

Let me give you an actual example.

Say, in 2025, you received $5,000 of dividends from two funds.

Then, if you scroll down, you will see a “Detail Information” of your dividends:

Interest

We can see that $2,456.78 came from Vanguard Federal Money Market fund.

The entire $2,456.78 will be taxed at the federal level, but how do we figure out what’s taxed at the state level?

This is where the extra step comes is.

During the end of the year, the fund manager (e.g Vanguard for VMFXX) will post a “US government source income information” on their Tax page.

This report tells you what portion of the fund’s income is derived from U.S. government obligations (Treasuries), which is the key to the state tax exemption.

VMFXX

We can see that 66.61% of VMFXX holdings for the 2025 tax year were income derived from the U.S. government and, therefore, are not taxable at the state level.

So, we would take $2,456.78 * 0.6661 = $1,636. Of the total, $1,636 is derived from U.S. obligations, and you would only pay state taxes on the remaining ~$819.

That $2,456.78 is still fully taxable federally. This is strictly a state adjustment.

It’s also important to note that some states say "if less than 50% of the fund is from the U.S. government (like Treasury Bills), you can treat it as 0%.”

For example, California, Connecticut, and New York are some of these states. So, if the fund has only 35% coming from the Treasury, you shouldn’t even calculate the exempt amount for these states.

Now, if you buy Treasuries directly from TreasuryDirect, they will send you a 1099-INT, and you can just enter that information directly into the tax software. No extra calculations are needed. That’s because the income is already clearly identified as U.S. government interest, no allocation required.

So, how do you report that dividend interest calculation?

In most tax softwares, after entering the 1099-DIV, it will ask: "Did a portion of dividends came from a U.S. Government interest?'

So, you would just check it off/select and enter the amount from Treasuries ($1,636 in our example).

Behind the scenes, this flows into your state return as a subtraction or adjustment, depending on the state.

Some software might ask for the percentage of dividends that are state tax exempt. However, this is a bit tricky because you might receive other dividends in your brokerage account.

In that case, calculate the amount from the Treasury, say $1,636, and divide it by your total dividend amount (e.g. $5,000)

If you have someone do your taxes and you have some of these Money Market Funds or other Treasury ETFs, double-check your state tax return and see the amounts reported. This will save you some money. It's also not too late to amend your tax return if this was missed.

Specifically, look for a “U.S. government interest subtraction” or similarly labeled line item on your state return. If it’s zero and you held these funds, that’s a red flag.

If you live in a no tax state, this would not apply to you, but still good to know in case you move!

I hope you found this one valuable.

  Bogdan Sheremeta is a licensed CPA based in Illinois with experience at Deloitte and a Fortune 200 multinational.
Read more »

Don’t Leave a Mess

I’VE BEEN INVOLVED in settling five estates. They ranged from insolvent to almost seven figures. Some were well-organized, but one took significant time and effort to settle. These experiences taught me a key lesson: An organized and easily understood estate is a gift to those you leave behind. I’m not an estate planning attorney. I’ve dealt with a few and found them to be professional, empathetic and helpful. If you have a complicated financial life or family situation, I highly recommend finding a good one. For most of us, however, an estate plan can be fairly simple and shouldn’t involve large legal costs. Here’s a list of seven must-haves: 1. A will. This important set of instructions directs who inherits assets that you own individually but with no beneficiary listed. A will also designates a guardian for minors and appoints an executor to administer your estate after your death. You’ll want to keep the signed original in a secure place, known to your family or your executor. 2. Powers of attorney. You’ll need two types of power of attorney, or POA—one financial, the other medical. The financial POA names someone you trust to help manage your financial affairs. You can control the timing of when it goes into effect and when it lapses. You also need a durable power of attorney for health care. This POA appoints someone to make medical decisions for you, if you can’t make them yourself. You should discuss both these documents with the people you’re assigning, so they understand your wishes. Both documents no longer have any legal standing upon your death. 3. Beneficiaries named. If you have a beneficiary listed on an asset, that almost always trumps what your will says, so the asset goes directly to the beneficiary and doesn’t go through probate. This is an area where many people mess up: Make sure your beneficiary designations are up to date. Check all your retirement accounts, insurance policies and pensions. Many taxable accounts, such as savings, checking and brokerage accounts, can have transfer-on-death (TOD) designations that act like a beneficiary designation. Check with your financial institutions on how to set up a TOD beneficiary. You can usually have primary and secondary beneficiaries, and designate that folks receive differing percentages of the account. 4. Funeral instructions. Pondering their own demise is difficult for many people. Still, it’s important to make sure your family or executor know your wishes. It’s so much easier to go to the funeral parlor with a clear idea of what your loved one wanted, right down to small details like the songs to play at a service. You can even plan your own funeral, if that’s something you’re comfortable with. 5. Letter of instruction. A letter of last instruction is an informal document that gives your survivors information concerning important financial and personal matters that must be attended to after your demise. I’ve heard people call this the “death file” or the “doomsday letter.” The more detailed it is, the better. 6. A family conversation. As difficult as this subject may be, it’s important that someone knows your wishes and where key information can be found. I’m a big proponent of being open with your adult children about your finances and other personal matters. The discussions may bring up issues you hadn’t considered or perhaps have the wrong idea about. 7. Account consolidation. We spent more than two years finding and simplifying the financial assets of my wife’s aunt. Sadly, we didn’t start this until her cognitive decline had taken hold. We had to file a dozen POAs. Many institutions had their own forms which needed to be notarized or have a medallion signature guarantee. It was a labor of love and very educational, but also a lot of work. Richard Connor is a semi-retired aerospace engineer with a keen interest in finance. Rick enjoys a wide variety of other interests, including chasing grandkids, space, sports, travel, winemaking and reading. His previous articles include Treasure HuntingTaking the Hit and Buyer Take Care. Follow Rick on Twitter @RConnor609. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]
Read more »

Social Security Spousal Benefits

"Yes. She should wait to 67 so gets 50% of your FRA when you file at 70. Im assuming her spousal will be greater than her own benefit."
- James McGlynn CFA RICP®
Read more »

Keeping up with the Jonses— at least it looks that way.

"Ha, I once owned a shopping center in Illinois, an apartment complex in Florida, and an office building in Manhattan; the worst investments I ever purchased. But the Empire State Building, now there’s some bragging rights!"
- Dan Smith
Read more »

Wrapping It Up

"That's basically what I kept coming up with. I used the mid-level health prediction as we are both non-smokers in good health. But at the end of the day, there are important variables we can never know ultimately making it a personal decision."
- Patrick Brennan
Read more »

Time to Be Fearful

"I can always sleep at night, and most days in the afternoon too. 😁 Why? Because my hope is not found in wealth. - Happy Easter everyone."
- William Housley
Read more »

Prepping to Pull the Trigger

"My money market fund is giving me 1.25% above inflation at the moment…I'm happy beating inflation with zero risk."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Doubt the Forecast

WHEN PAUL EHRLICH'S obituary appeared a few weeks ago, it came and went without much notice. But during his lifetime, he was enormously influential. By training, Ehrlich was a biologist, but he was most well known for his 1968 book, The Population Bomb. It opened with this dire prediction: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.” In his writings and speeches over the years, he reiterated this point in terms that became even more extreme. In 1970, he argued that famine would kill 65 million Americans during the 1980s. And in 1971, he offered this prediction about the U.K.: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” It was destined to become “a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.” Why did Ehrlich hold these views? Earlier in his career, he had traveled to developing countries and concluded that their population growth was unsustainable. He argued that the world’s population needed to be cut in half and proposed a number of ideas to accomplish that. “The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions,” he acknowledged. Of course, none of Ehrlich’s predictions came close to being true, but that didn’t impact his popularity. He made more than 20 appearances on The Tonight Show—so many, in fact, that he was required to join the Screen Actors Guild. And despite Ehrlich’s impressively poor track record over nearly 60 years, The New York Times, in its obituary, still couldn’t criticize. Instead, the paper referred to his apocalyptic predictions as simply being “premature.” What can we learn from this? I see five key lessons for individual investors.
  1. No one can see around corners, and we shouldn’t believe anyone who can claim to be able to. Presumably, there was some scientific basis for Ehrlich’s predictions. The problem, though, was that all of his predictions were based on extrapolation, and he could only extrapolate from the facts available at the time. For example, he had no idea how advances in agriculture would outpace population growth, made possible by technologies like LED bulbs for indoor farming, something that hadn’t yet been invented at the time.
  2. We should be inherently skeptical of extreme predictions. Extreme views aren’t necessarily wrong. After all, extreme things can and have happened. The reason we should be skeptical is because the world is complex. As I noted a few weeks back, it’s possible for an observation to be correct but incomplete. And that was a key flaw in Ehrlich’s thinking.
The formula at the center of his research considered just three variables (population, affluence and technology). But when it comes to most things in the world, the ultimate outcome is dependent on many more variables than that. So someone like Ehrlich might have been accurate with one, or even more than one, of his observations. But at the same time, he was ignoring innumerable other factors, such as public policy decisions.
  1. In a similar vein, we should be wary of stories that sound convincing only because of the way they’re presented. I’ve discussed before the phenomenon of the “single story”—when an overly simplified, one-dimensional version of the facts takes on a life of its own. Later in life, Ehrlich acknowledged that he had benefited from this sort of thing: “The publisher’s choice of The Population Bomb was perfect from a marketing perspective…,” he wrote.
  2. We shouldn’t be too easily impressed by credentials. Despite being almost entirely wrong with his “population bomb” arguments, Ehrlich was a tenured professor at Stanford and received numerous awards. This carries an important lesson: Smart people can veer off course just as much as anyone else. As I’ve noted before, the scientist who invented the lobotomy received the Nobel Prize for his work. We should never blindly accept an argument based solely on its source.
  3. We should be careful of confirmation bias. That’s the emotional tendency to look for evidence that confirms pre-existing beliefs. In Ehrlich’s case, despite all the disconfirming evidence, he never backed down from his views. 
In 1980, economist Julian Simon challenged Ehrlich to a bet. Simon let Ehrlich pick a basket of commodities and wagered that each of them would be less expensive by 1990. For his part, Ehrlich was sure they’d all increase in price due to population pressure. Ten years later, every one of the commodities in the basket turned out to be cheaper, despite the population having grown by 800 million people over the course of the bet. Ehrlich held up his end of the bet, sending Simon a check for $567 in 1990, but he had his wife sign it, and he never acknowledged that he might have been wrong. Indeed, he doubled down. In 2009, Ehrlich commented that, “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.” The bottom line: Prognosticators can be convincing and are often entertaining. As investors, our job is to listen with a critical ear.   Adam M. Grossman is the founder of Mayport, a fixed-fee wealth management firm. Sign up for Adam's Daily Ideas email, follow him on X @AdamMGrossman and check out his earlier articles.
Read more »

Something to Think About

"My suggestion is to look at the Roth and Traditional over a 20 year span. I remember making some calculations, and for my age and situation, conversions did not help a lot. I propose somebody like a CPA and Advisor from Fidelity get together and push the numbers. When I pushed my numbers, it just did not work at age 75. What I do, is take the maximum RMD to not increase my tax bracket. That is working for me at age now 80. I challenge our community to push the numbers, maybe Bogdan S could take a stab at it."
- William Dorner
Read more »

Private Credit Stress?

"Excellent information. My take is the hucksters always have to initiate a new angle, higher returns. Well, I have chosen to put $0 in any of these and stick with the tried and true S&P 500. This, from all I hear from the best advisors, that is the ones you can trust, is Buyer Beware. Not for me, cost more and likely many more losers than winners. Apple, Google, and the like are one in a million."
- William Dorner
Read more »

Debreifing

"I’ve seen that too. According to one of our volunteers who used to work for the IRS, it’s pretty common."
- Marilyn Lavin
Read more »

Free Newsletter

Get Educated

Manifesto

NO. 17: OUR MOST valuable asset is often our human capital—our income-earning ability. A regular paycheck can be like collecting interest from a bond, which then frees us up to invest in stocks.

humans

NO. 3: WE LACK self-control. Prudent money management is simple enough: We should spend less than we earn, build a globally diversified portfolio, hold down investment costs, minimize taxes, buy the right insurance and take on debt judiciously. Yet folks struggle with such basic steps—because they can’t bring themselves to do what they know is right.

act

SET UP A HOME equity line of credit. These have lost some of their allure under 2017's tax law, because you can only deduct the interest if it's used to buy, build or substantially improve your home. Still, a HELOC is one of the cheaper ways to borrow, and it could come in handy if you have a financial emergency or as an alternative to education and car loans.

think

ULTIMATUM GAME. A player is given a pot of money and must offer a share to a second player. If the second player rejects the offer, neither gets anything. If the sole litmus test is financial gain, the second player should always accept, because at least he or she gets something. But players often reject small offers—a sign of how much we value fairness.

Newsletter signup

Manifesto

NO. 17: OUR MOST valuable asset is often our human capital—our income-earning ability. A regular paycheck can be like collecting interest from a bond, which then frees us up to invest in stocks.

Spotlight: Spending

I’ll take the “best” thing on the menu says Quinn

I was having breakfast recently in a small cafe when three people were seated at the next table. The server handed out menus and a woman asked her, “Between the pancakes, waffles and French toast, which is the best?”
I felt like saying, what a dumb question, but the quiet, reserved me said nothing. They are three different things and the “best” is highly dependent on personal taste. 
I was waiting for the customer to say,

Read more »

Still a Wild Child: When Spending Habits Never Grow Up

My friend is an independent IT Systems Integrator. She essentially pitches for tenders from large corporations and government departments for help with new software integration. It’s a very well-paid job, but there can be lulls between contracts. This requires a good deal of business savvy to manage not only the workload and tendering process, but also her intermittent financial situation and the need for constant training to stay relevant.
A woman who has her life together you would think.

Read more »

The Illusion of Wealth

I was sitting on the deck of my holiday home, enjoying the morning sunshine and breakfast, when a deep rumble announced the arrival of an expensive, sporty car. It was my neighbour. He’s a very nice man in his 40s who always dresses impeccably, with two well-turned-out kids and an immaculate wife – to all intents and purposes, a family living the dream.
Contrast that with me: I drive a seven-year-old SUV with 70,000 miles on the clock,

Read more »

Frugality, Minimalism, and Aligning Values

I’ve always been a minimalist – even as a teenager I had no interest in having lots of clothes, shoes, or other trappings of high school life in the 80s. That pull toward minimalism was reinforced during the 2 years I spent teaching English in Japan after college. No dedicated bedroom that sits empty and unused all day? My bed folds up and is stored in the closet? A tiny fridge forcing me to buy fresh fruit and vegetables every other day?

Read more »

Quinn’s super frugal experiment. Are you up for a challenge?

Five years ago I wrote a HD article titled Food for Thought. It was about all the food we waste and, of course the money as a result.
Yesterday I mentioned to Connie that we have things in our pantry and fridge we don’t even know we have. She was sure that was not the case. Today I pulled out a bag of candy and other goodies we had forgotten from Christmas. I’m assuming it’s from last Christmas but that is not a certainty. 

Read more »

Morning Delight

My wife, Suzie, is currently visiting her dad in Spain. This means I’m fending for myself, and I’ve found myself venturing into the local supermarket for essential supplies – like fruit and nut chocolate, my little indulgence! While wandering the aisles, I made an observation that got me thinking….. again!
Morning shopping, I’ve discovered, is a real delight. There are no crowds, just a quiet hum, and I even had time to chat with the checkout operator,

Read more »

Spotlight: Lim

Hard to Follow

"BUY LOW, SELL HIGH." This is probably the most famous investment adage. It sounds so simple and commonsensical—a sure path to success. Like so many investing truisms, however, following it is easier said than done. For one thing, how do we really know when we’re buying low? When it comes to a pair of jeans or a laptop computer, we have a good sense of value. When they go on sale, we snap them up without hesitation. It isn’t as clear with stocks. The intrinsic value of a stock depends on its earnings and dividend payments extending far into the future. Almost by definition, we can’t know these with any certainty. The price the market assigns to future earnings is in constant flux depending on prevailing interest rates and the vagaries of animal spirits. Suppose for a moment that stocks did come with price tags indicating their intrinsic value. What would be the result? Trading would grind to a near halt. After all, who would sell a stock for less than its true value or buy one for more? The lack of clarity around what constitutes a high or low price is what drives markets. As thousands of investors cast their votes daily, with every trade that they make, it’s assumed that stock prices will converge around their intrinsic value. That, at least, is the notion behind the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Prices, it’s believed, reflect the wisdom of the crowd. But crowds can sometimes behave more like herds, subject to stampedes of collective optimism or pessimism. These are reinforced by our natural attraction to compelling narratives, stories that help us make sense of reality. We’re also creatures of momentum, expecting the future to mirror the recent past. These forces are powerful and can conspire to drive stock prices far above…
Read more »

Read Before Selling

LIKE A TIRESOME rerun of Friday the 13th, COVID-19 has returned in its newest form, the Omicron variant. Last Friday, financial markets were shaken by the news, especially the potential for greater transmissibility and the fear that current vaccines will prove impotent against the new COVID variant. Yesterday saw a partial market rebound. Still, traders are betting that share prices will remain volatile. Much is unknown at this point, but many investors have taken a sell-now-and-ask-questions-later approach. This is understandable. The early 2020 market meltdown is still fresh in people’s minds. Tempted to sell stocks? Here are seven reasons to stay the course: 1. Markets are rarely fazed by old news. When COVID struck in early 2020, the world was in the dark about the implications of the new virus. Few things unnerve investors more than uncertainty, so it was hardly surprising they sold en masse. While the new variant is clearly concerning, it’s not a totally new ballgame. We’ve been here before and survived. In other words, the likelihood that investors will panic to the same degree seems low. 2. We have proven technology to fight Omicron and future variants. Human ingenuity is remarkable. That was clearly on display last year when biotech firms and big pharma developed hugely successful vaccines in record time. It may take a while to develop a vaccine for this newest variant—assuming that current vaccines are ineffective—but we have the capability. 3. An economic lockdown is now far less likely. Even in a worst-case scenario in which Omicron evades current vaccines and wreaks havoc on the health care system, it seems unlikely that we’ll revisit the original playbook of stay-at-home orders and shuttering of the global economy. I doubt that people, and the politicians who represent them, will tolerate such extreme measures. Result? The…
Read more »

Think Again

"WHO DOESN’T KNOW that already?" That’s the question we should ask when making an investment decision. Take Tesla. It builds wonderful cars. It’s an innovative company led by a visionary CEO. Its sales are growing by leaps and bounds. Question: Who doesn’t know that already? If the attributes of a company are widely known, more than likely its stock price reflects that. The question for investors isn’t whether Tesla is a great company. Rather, the question is whether Tesla is a great investment. Two very different things. Famed distressed-debt investor Howard Marks discusses this notion in his book, The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor. First-level thinking is commonplace, second-level thinking far less so. In Marks’s words, first-level thinking says, “It’s a good company; let’s buy the stock.” Second-level thinking says, “It’s a good company, but everyone thinks it’s a great company, and it’s not. So the stock’s overrated and overpriced; let’s sell.” Second-level thinking requires an appreciation of intrinsic value. In the words of Warren Buffett, “Price is what you pay; value is what you get.” Conflating the two is a common mistake of first-level thinking. Second-level thinking is probabilistic thinking. So much of investing is about the future and hence uncertain. It isn't easy to simultaneously hold a variety of scenarios in our mind and assign probabilities to each. But that’s what second-level thinkers must do. Second-level thinkers are also like world-class poker players, adept at appraising their opponents. They understand the importance of investor psychology and the way it shapes the investing climate. Consider some examples of first- and second-level thinking. First-level thinking: The economic data suggest the economy is slowing, maybe even headed into a recession. The Federal Reserve is intent on raising interest rates, which will be a further headwind. Time to…
Read more »

Leaving the Country

ARE THERE TIMES when a near 100% international stock allocation makes sense? I believe there are—and that today is just such a moment. Never in my life have I had such a low allocation to U.S. stocks. My overall portfolio is 60% stocks and 40% bonds. But the stock portion is comprised of just 15% U.S., with the remainder held in international stocks, split evenly between emerging and developed markets. I realize that’s unorthodox. It would certainly be viewed as heretical by most financial advisors. But I believe there are four reasons to buck conventional wisdom: 1. The “traditional” international allocation is irrational. It seems that most financial advisors and institutions recommend that international stocks account for 20% to 30% of a portfolio’s stock allocation. Like one of the 10 commandments, this advice has been handed down from on high and accepted without questioning. But is this recommendation actually evidence-based? Research by the Vanguard Group suggests that the benefits of international diversification, in terms of reducing volatility, plateau at around 40% foreign stocks. Further international exposure, Vanguard contends, leads to increased volatility. Others have suggested using global GDP as a guide. Today, the U.S. represents 25% of global GDP, so following this line of thought would mean allocating 75% of a portfolio’s stock allocation to international shares. On the other hand, efficient market proponents suggest weighting a portfolio according to global market capitalization, which would mean holding about 44% in international stocks, since U.S. companies account for 56% of global stock market value. No matter how you slice it, allocating just a quarter or so of a portfolio to international stocks makes little sense—and even less sense when considering today’s valuations, which I’ll get to shortly. Of course, investors aren’t machines. They need to be comfortable with their portfolios. It’s my…
Read more »

Funny Money

DO YOU SEE THINGS clearly when it comes to money? Here’s a test to find out. Which of the following scenarios would you prefer? A 5% raise, but the inflation rate is 10%. A 3% salary cut, but the inflation rate is 0%. If you chose the 5% pay raise, you’ve fallen victim to a “money illusion.” This term describes our tendency to view money in nominal terms instead of inflation-adjusted “real” terms. In the first scenario, you would have 5% more money to spend but you’d be able to buy 5% less in goods and services, thanks to the 10% inflation rate. In the second scenario, your nominal income would be down 3%—and that would also be your loss in purchasing power, because inflation was 0%. Consider another hypothetical. Say you paid $200,000 in cash for a house 30 years ago. You sell the home for $500,000. Let’s ignore sales commissions, taxes and other expenses. Would you be happy with this investment? On one hand, you would have made $300,000 on a nominal basis. But if you assume an annual inflation rate of 3%, your $200,000 home should be worth $485,452 after 30 years. On a real basis, you’d only come out $14,548 ahead on the sale. Had you invested the same $200,000 in the stock market, assuming a 7% annualized return, your investment would be worth $1.5 million after 30 years. The money illusion stems from our view of the dollar as a fixed unit of measurement, like the inch or the mile. In reality, the dollar is a store of value that fluctuates. The value of a dollar in 1982 has shrunken to just 35 cents today. Put differently, a dollar today could only buy a third of the goods and services that it could have bought…
Read more »

Why So Low?

IF THERE’S ONE THING that confuses me no end, it’s this: Why are interest rates—specifically long-term Treasury yields—so low? The yield on the 10-year Treasury note has lately been close to 1.6%, with 30-year Treasurys at around 2%. Yet year-over-year inflation is currently somewhere between 4.4% and 5.4%, depending on your favored metric. Think about what this means: Inflation-adjusted yields for both 10-year and 30-year Treasurys are deeply negative, assuming inflation remains elevated. Here are five theories for why Treasury yields are so low: 1. Quantitative easing is suppressing yields. Since the onset of the pandemic, the Federal Reserve has been buying $80 billion in Treasury debt each month, along with $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities. Increased demand leads to higher bond prices, which translates to lower bond yields. This theory may soon be tested. The Fed is expected to begin tapering its quantitative easing as soon as this month and may phase out bond purchases altogether by mid-2022. 2. Yields elsewhere are even lower. Sovereign debt in Europe and Japan sport even lower yields than the U.S. Yields on German and Japanese 10-year bonds both hover near zero. By comparison, 10-year Treasurys at 1.6% or so don’t seem so bad. This is the “best house in a bad neighborhood” argument. But given the inflationary pressures building globally, this argument seems tenuous. Consumer prices in Germany, for example, recently rose at their fastest pace in 28 years. 3. Investors are counting on the Fed to keep a lid on inflation. It’s hard to change mindsets, especially those forged over the past four decades. As I discussed a few months ago, most everyone on Wall Street, including those working at the Federal Reserve, have only experienced a benign inflationary environment. A related point: Does the Fed have the will to slay the…
Read more »