Stock market

Selling Could Be the Most Important Part of Investing

A recent study found that professional investment managers are fairly good at picking stocks to buy. Their research efforts are mostly targeted at this goal and there is a less structured process when it comes to selling. This could be costly, the study found.

Institutional Investor recently summarized the findings of the team which included researchers from the University of Chicago, Carnegie Mellon University, investment data firm Inalytics, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The study, “shows that institutional investors’ decisions to sell assets suffer because they tend to spend more time on the buying process than the selling process. 

Earlier research has shown that individual investors tend to be driven by different psychological processes when they buy and sell securities, according to the paper. This paper is one of the first to show the phenomenon in portfolio managers, however. 

The paper, entitled “Selling Fast and Buying Slow: Heuristics and Trading Performance of Institutional Investors,” analyzed the daily holdings and trades of institutional portfolio managers from 2000 to 2016.

Authors Klakow Akepanidtaworn, Rick Di Mascio, Alex Imas, and Lawrence Schmidt evaluated 783 portfolios, which averaged in size of approximately $573 million in assets under management. A total of 4.4 million trades were analyzed, according to the paper. 

“We document a striking pattern: while the investors display clear skill in buying, their selling decisions underperform substantially,” according to the researchers. The researchers showed that portfolio managers’ selling decisions underperformed a randomized control group.

This is especially true when it comes to assets that post “extreme returns,” both positive and negative. Portfolio managers decide to sell these assets at a 50 percent higher rate than assets that simply over- or under-performed, the paper shows.

buy trades vs. sell trades chart

Source: Selling Fast and Buying Slow

“This strategy is a mistake, resulting in substantial losses relative to randomly selling assets to raise the same amount of money,” according to the paper.

According to the researchers, it does not seem like portfolio managers lack selling skills altogether, however.

In fact, the researchers were able to show that during earnings season, when information from companies is widely available, portfolio managers’ selling decisions outperformed a control group by between 90 and 120 basis points (0.9 percent and 1.20 percent) per day.

At the same time, the researchers showed that there were no major differences between buying during earnings season and outside of it.

In other words, when portfolio managers were focused on company-specific information, they were able to improve their selling performance.

So why do portfolio managers struggle with the timing of when to sell assets? While the researchers said they do not have direct evidence for these reasons, they were able to provide an explanation after they interviewed several portfolio managers. 

These managers, according to the paper, view buying and selling as two distinctive processes, and as a result, do not allocate the same amount of time or energy to each. 

As one portfolio manager told the researchers: “Selling is simply a cash raising exercise for the next buying idea.”

Improving Selling

Few researchers or analysts have focused on selling. One who has is Donald Cassidy, was senior research analyst for Lipper Inc., a Reuters Co., from 1990 to 2006. Don’s work includes the book, “It’s When You Sell That Counts” which is now in its third edition.

It's When You Sell That Counts

The American Association of Individual investors has summarized Don’s work in an article called, “When to Sell a Stock: Practical and Profitable Rules.”

The article begins by noting the problem – “Selling is the hardest part of investing. Yet it must be done. If you cannot sell, your current portfolio will become your heirs’ problem.

Predetermined long-term holding implies average return performance, since markets rise and fall, and companies’ fortunes change over time. While fundamentals undeniably drive stock values in the long term, psychology sets prices in the meantime.

Because market psychology works on us all as investors, you must specifically work on learning to sell well, or you will predictably do it badly.”

The article includes a number of important points, including advice to:

  • Set intelligently placed stop-loss orders. Arbitrary percentage-down prices related to your original cost are irrelevant to the market. Technical breakdown points based on chart analysis are much better.
  • Never use stop-limits, since they let a rapidly declining market pass your order by.
  • If you have a paper loss but refuse to sell because you “think it will come back,” impose this test: Sell the stock and replace it with a related exchange-traded fund (ETF). If you are not confident enough to make that purchase, then it is clear that you are basing your outlook on simply hope rather than concrete expectations.
  • If you are unfortunate enough to be caught with a stock that gaps down on bad news, realize that the institutions are not yet done exiting, so the stock will languish at best for an extended period.
  • If you find selling appropriate after a down gap, wait until somewhere between the third and fifth day, when a moderate rally usually occurs as urgent selling abates. Typically, this tactic will net you a better price than selling during the rush of the first day.
  • If thinking about paying commissions keeps you from selling, ask yourself whether you worried about the commission when you were buying.
  • Never stubbornly hold on to a stock that has dropped just to make your original investment back. We all make buying mistakes; insisting on 100% price repair will leave you holding laggards when other stocks are doing much better.

In short, you should try to spend about as much time thinking about which holdings to sell as you spend deciding which stocks to buy. You should also never hold on to a stock that you would not buy again at today’s price.

“You should view holding as buying “again” for tomorrow. What you would not buy you ought to sell, since holding it depends on greater fools to support its price!”

Don notes that analysis is needed to make rational selling decisions, an idea that can summarized simply as:

“Hope is a major sign of troubled thinking in investing or trading. You should sell if your outlook is based solely on hope.”

Stock market

This Beaten Down Sector Could Be a Buy

News can often affect a stock’s price. That is especially true when the news is related to earnings and the company either beats or misses earnings by a significant amount. But there are other kinds of news that can move stocks.

Recently, political news has proven to be market moving and this is especially true for one sector, as Barron’s recently noted,

“The specter of Medicare for All continued to haunt health-insurance stocks after one of the strongest proponents of the idea, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind., Vt.), got a surprisingly good response to the idea at a Fox News town hall on Monday night in Bethlehem, Penn.

Industry leader UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH) saw its shares decline [recently] despite reporting better-than-expected first-quarter earnings of $3.73 a share, up 23% over the year-earlier period and 13 cents above the consensus estimate.

UNH weekly chart

UnitedHealth shares hit a 52-week low of $215.82 during the session [after earnings were announced].

Among other health insurers, Cigna, Anthem, and Humana all fell more than 5%. The managed-care stocks were among worst performers in the S&P 500 last week.

“Despite a strong quarter and guidance raise, shares of UnitedHealth Group gave up early gains and are now selling off again, along with all the MCO [managed-care organization] names and most provider stocks,” wrote RBC Capital Markets analyst Frank Morgan in a client note earlier Tuesday.

UnitedHealth sees 2019 earnings of $14.50 to $14.75 a share, slightly higher than the previous $14.40 to $14.70.

“We heard nothing materially negative on the UNH call this morning that would warrant the reversal,” Morgan wrote.

“We continue to believe shares are trading on fears of Medicare-For-All rhetoric, in a sector that was a crowded long favorite for many years. The selloff has expanded into our services provider coverage universe under the same Medicare-For-All premise.”

Sanders, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, tweeted: “Fox News tried to prove that people like our dysfunctional, profit-driven health care system. But they couldn’t hide the truth: the American people want Medicare for All.”

The managed-care stocks could be under a cloud until after the 2020 election due to the risk of Medicare for All, which could severely curtail or eliminate the role of the companies.

The stocks might get a boost if the Democratic presidential nominee—or the emerging front-runner this year—proves to be more moderate than Sanders and prefers to keep the current health insurance system largely intact.

On UnitedHealth’s earnings conference call Tuesday, CEO David Wichmann warned that Medicare for All would “destabilize the nation’s health system.”

Valuations have come down for the managed-care stocks, with UnitedHealth now trading for 15 times projected 2019 earnings while Anthem and Humana (NYSE: HUM) trade for about 13 times estimated 2019 earnings. HUM is shown below.

HUM weekly chart

That highlights a potential opportunity for investors.

Looking for Value

Barron’s also noted that, “Investing in health insurers today amounts to a bet against the Medicare for All proposal championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats running for president, which could eliminate a role for private insurers in the medical-care system.

Yes, the stocks have been battered. But given the long odds of an industry-killing plan becoming law, shares of the leading insurers look appealing.

“Anyone who has a 12- to 18-month horizon and a value mind-set should be buying,” says Ana Gupte, an analyst with SVBLeerink. She puts only a “generous” 5% chance of Medicare for All getting enacted.

Patience is required because the insurers could be under a cloud until the 2020 presidential election—unless a Democratic front-runner emerges and distances himself or herself from the Medicare proposal.

Even if that doesn’t happen—and if Democrats sweep the White House and both houses of Congress in 2020—any major overhaul of health care would probably not happen until 2023. From now until then, the health insurers would be producing significant earnings, Gupte maintains.

In any case, it isn’t going to be easy for the Democrats to win everything in 2020.

 President Donald Trump is seen as having close to a 50% chance of being re-elected, and the odds of Democrats winning control of the Senate, which would be crucial for passage of Medicare for All, are less than one in three, according to Dan Clifton, Washington analyst at Strategas Research Partners.

Ross Margolies, founder and chief investment officer of Stelliam Investment Management, compares Medicare for All to another progressive proposal, the Green New Deal: “It’s very aspirational, but there’s no way to implement it.”

He’s bullish on industry leader UnitedHealth. “It’s one of the great growth companies selling at a value multiple,” Margolies argues. UnitedHealth recently reported a 23% rise in adjusted first-quarter earnings, to $3.73 a share. It trades for 15 times projected 2019 profits of $14.70 a share—a reasonable valuation, given longer-term expected annual earnings growth of 13% to 16% a share.

Gupte favors Anthem, Humana, and UnitedHealth, which are less leveraged than CVS and Cigna. Both completed major debt-financed acquisitions last year. CVS bought Aetna; Cigna purchased Express Scripts.

managed care chart

Source: Barron’s

Bulls could agree with UnitedHealth CEO David Wichmann who blasted the idea on an earnings call.

“The wholesale disruption of American health care being discussed in some of the proposals,” he said, “would surely jeopardize the relationship that people have with their doctors, destabilize the nation’s health-care system, and limit the ability of clinicians to practice medicine at their best.”

Sanders didn’t let up. The Vermont senator tweeted that UnitedHealth’s “greed is going to end” when “we are in the White House.”

But investors should tune out Sanders and his tweets according to the bulls. Despite the noise, Medicare for All looks like a long shot. That means the stocks could be considered buys and investors buying them could have to stomach volatility since the news is likely to include fodder for both bulls and bears in the coming months as election rhetoric heats up.

However, in the long run, value often does prove to be the biggest factor in investment success, for investors who can ignore short term dips.

Stock market

What Stock Buy Backs Really Mean

Stock buy backs are a controversial topic in some circles. But investors should know that Warren Buffett is in favor of buy backs at times and that could help them spot potentially profitable opportunities.

A Political Concern

Buy backs have caught the attention of some important politicians. In February, The New York Times published an opinion piece called, “Schumer and Sanders: Limit Corporate Stock Buybacks.”

Written by the influential senators Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders, the article defined what the Senators see as a problem,

“So focused on shareholder value, companies, rather than investing in ways to make their businesses more resilient or their workers more productive, have been dedicating ever larger shares of their profits to dividends and corporate share repurchases.

senator concerns

Source: US Senate

When a company purchases its own stock back, it reduces the number of publicly traded shares, boosting the value of the stock to the benefit of shareholders and corporate leadership.”

They then proposed a solution,

“That is why we are planning to introduce bold legislation to address this crisis.

Our bill will prohibit a corporation from buying back its own stock unless it invests in workers and communities first, including things like paying all workers at least $15 an hour, providing seven days of paid sick leave, and offering decent pensions and more reliable health benefits.

Bernie Sanders

Source: US Senate

In other words, our legislation would set minimum requirements for corporate investment in workers and the long-term strength of the company as a precondition for a corporation entering into a share buyback plan.

The goal is to curtail the overreliance on buybacks while also incentivizing the productive investment of corporate capital.”

They are not alone in their plans. Other news reports indicate,

“Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) also plans to offer legislation to curb share repurchases. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) argued that company insiders should be prohibited from selling their own shares for a period of time after their firms announce buybacks.

More recently, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced a bill that would ban open-market buybacks.”

Some senators disagree, including Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) who noted, “Let me walk through why this is such a bad idea. I’ll give you three reasons. One it is a very disturbing and profound attack on freedom. Number two would be terrible for the economy.

And number three, it would hurt the very people that presumably they intend to help. Let me go through them in order.”

Warren Buffett Weighs In

In the other corner of this debate is Warren Buffett, the multibillionaire investor who doesn’t believe buy backs are necessarily bad. Buffett acknowledged that some people would misbehave in any activity.

“So it really wouldn’t have much to do with buybacks,” Buffett said. “I think buybacks, the degree to which they’ve been part of nefarious activity — and I’ve observed them for a lot of years — are very close to zero. But that just may be that there aren’t enough opportunities.”

Simply put, buybacks allow companies to distribute money to the shareholders. Another way of doing that is through dividends.

“And presumably, American business should distribute money to its owners, occasionally. And we do it through buybacks. We’ve done some. And we don’t do it through dividends. But most companies do it through having a dividend policy.”

The bottom line is if companies have met the needs of the business and the stock is underpriced then buybacks make “nothing but sense,” Buffett said.

Reports indicated, “during the fourth quarter, Buffett spent just over $421 million on share repurchases, including $233.8 million spent on buybacks of Berkshire Hathaway’s A shares between December 13 to December 24.

“If I knew, I’d have bought a lot more … and that’s not a big purchase for us, actually,” Buffett said of the December share repurchases in a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance’s editor-in-chief, Andy Serwer.

Buffett is right that it’s not a big purchase for Berkshire Hathaway, which is sitting on approximately $112 billion in cash and cash equivalents.

“We will buy Berkshire when we have lots of excess cash, all the needs of the business are taken care of,” he said. “We spent $14 billion on property plant and equipment last year … So we take care of the needs of the business, then we have excess cash.”

He added that he’d love to find other businesses to buy. However, in his widely-read annual letter published in February, Buffett said the immediate prospects for an elephant-sized acquisition “are not good” given the sky-high prices for businesses with “decent long-term prospects.”

In the same letter, though, he did tell investors that Berkshire “will be a significant repurchaser of its shares.”

“[If] I think the stock — and my partner Charlie Munger thinks the stock — is selling below intrinsic business value, we will buy in stock,” he told Yahoo Finance.”

Companies to Consider

Buy backs can help stock prices. Investors can avoid companies if they believe they are bad but if they believe buy backs can help stock prices, they may want to consider the companies with the largest buy backs.

According to CNBC, “Apple was the biggest spender when it came to buybacks. Last year, the iPhone maker spent $74.2 billion buying back its own shares — up from a total $34.4 billion in 2017.

In the fourth quarter Apple poured $10.1 billion on buybacks, lower than the $19.4 billion it spent in the third quarter. It has now spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars — $260.4 billion to be exact —over a 10-year period to buy back its own shares.

Oracle was the second largest buyer, followed by Wells Fargo, Microsoft and Merck.

But all sectors weren’t spending equally. Information Technology buybacks in the quarter dropped to $61.3 billion compared with $82.3 billion a year earlier. Health care buybacks more than doubled from the prior quarter.”

Health care stocks recently sold off and the buy backs could increase as companies view their stocks as more attractive at lower prices. Buy backs could point to an area where investors could see profits.

Stock market

This Peak Could Doom the Stock Market

Investors often focus on earnings, or sales, or how the company is growing its earnings or sales. Other investors might look at cash flows or other less popular measures of the financial health of a company. Among the less popular metrics is one that can be considered worrisome.

Net profit margin is a calculation that “expresses the profitability of an entire company, not just a single product or service. It is also expressed in a percentage; the higher the number, the more profitable the company.

A low profit margin might indicate a problem that is interfering with profitability potential, including unnecessarily high expenses, productivity issues, or management problems.

Calculating the net profit margin … requires the entire company’s revenue and costs. Divide the company’s net income (the profit after expenses are deducted from gross income) into total sales, then multiply the result by 100 to get the answer expressed as a percentage.

Let’s say gross sales are $150,000 and expenses are $75,000. That means net income is $75,000. Divide that number into gross sales, $75,000 divided by $150,000, to get .50. Multiplying .50 by 100 equals 50 percent, the net profit margin.

People using net profit margins to determine a company’s profitability are cautioned not to compare a business in one industry to a business in another. Industry characteristics vary so much that it’s unrealistic to expect a restaurant, for example, to be comparable to an auto parts retailer.”

Why Profit Margins Are Worrisome

Bloomberg recently summarized the problem:

“In the middle of what may be the worst quarter for company profits since 2016, there’s a common refrain: This is as bad as it will get. The last few months are the trough, and one quarter doesn’t make a year.

Anyone trading on that view have been a winner. The S&P 500 is en route to its fourth straight monthly advance and sits less than 1 percent from a record. But if you’re a bull, you should be aware of a dissident group of forecasters who see clouds looming on the S&P 500 earnings horizon.

Specifically, they’re asking how likely earnings are to bounce back should profit margins narrow.

“Why are we optimistic — because the Fed says we’re done?” wondered David Spika, president of GuideStone Capital Management, in an interview at Bloomberg’s New York headquarters. “Ultimately, we need earnings growth, we need economic growth. To me, it’s short-sighted.”

profit margin peak

Source: Bloomberg

One thing bulls don’t want to hear is Wall Street preaching that costs are about to start eating into the bottom line. At more than 10 percent, net margins are around the highest they’ve been in at least three decades, providing a boon to the bull market.

And while inflation pressures are few and far between, concerns over higher layouts for labor, oil and other raw materials are swirling.

Bridgewater Associates recently warned clients that the immense widening of margins over the last 20 years, which it says accounted for half of the developed world’s stock returns, could be at a turning point.

Strategists at Goldman Sachs have warned about profitability coming under pressure, too. At Morgan Stanley, researchers are pointing to decelerating global survey data as a precursor to lower margins.

“We are not convinced that the first quarter will be the trough in profit margins,” Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, wrote to clients [recently].

“To the contrary, the leading properties of the PMI data suggest that the recent global slowdown could reverberate for at least another three months.”

global PMI

Source: Bloomberg

One week into earnings season, and companies are already bemoaning higher costs. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., sometimes viewed as a bellwether for the global economy, mentioned higher salaries as one reason for lower operating income.

On average, profit margins top out four quarters before the market does, a 2015 study completed by Strategas Research Partners found. And it bears noting that warnings that profit margins were about to collapse were rampant when the paper was published four years ago.

Profits for S&P 500 companies are expected to have fallen 3.3 percent in the three months that ended in March. Forecasts show earnings should be flat in the second quarter, up less than 2 percent in the third, and then grow almost 9 percent in the fourth.

S&P 500 operating margin

Source: S&P

These estimates could be optimistic as Bloomberg noted,

“Estimates that distant have a habit of coming down and some analysts are already saying to forget about that big of a fourth-quarter rebound. While Wall Street firms have already taken the knife to estimates for the first three quarters, they haven’t yet made adjustments to the fourth, according to Ned Davis Research.”

“There appears to be some delaying of estimate cuts and/or expecting reacceleration in the second half of 2019,” Ed Clissold, the firm’s chief U.S. strategist, wrote in a April 16 note to clients. “Regardless of the reason, Q4 2019 numbers will likely be revised downward.”

For GuideStone’s Spika, margin compression poses a big question.

“The expectation is for a pretty significant decline in margins — we’re a little surprised that the market isn’t starting to price that in,” he said.

“The thing that’s odd is you’ve got stocks almost back at all-time highs, almost all based on the Fed pause. We’re looking at the expectation for an earnings recession — two consecutive quarters of down earnings — we’ve clearly got margin compression, and the market doesn’t seem to care.”

What all of this means is that companies could see profit margins decline and that could translate into lower earnings per share (all other things being equal). Of course, all other things are not equal since companies have been buying back shares.

Because of buybacks, it is possible margins can contract while earnings per share increase. That would be, in effect, masking the problem which is the fact that profitability is being squeezed. This quarter, as earnings reports are released, it could be important to consider more than just the earnings, glancing at margins as well since that could signal a change in the trend for many companies.

Stock Picks

Here’s Why You Should Know Your CEO’s Age

Value investing is one of the simple concepts in finance that is difficult in practice. The concept is to buy stocks that are undervalued, wait until they are fully valued or even overvalued to capture a profit, and repeat the process with an increasing amount of wealth.

Many investors are value investors, but no investor has attained the success of Warren Buffett, the billionaire value investor who brings unique insights to the process of wealth creation. One reason value investing is difficult could be the fact that so many investors are using the same information.

There is, after all, a limited amount of information available to investors. There is the financial statement which report less than two hundred individual pieces of information. Here, many investors ignore much of the information available and focus on just more popular data.

There could be thousands of investors looking for stocks with low price to sales (P/S) ratios, low price to book (P/B) values or low price to earnings (P/E) ratios. This can be useful but is unlikely to result in an unusual level of success since so many investors are looking at that same information.

In an effort to find something that other investors are missing in their analysis, there are some investors who will look beyond the financial statements but remain in the realm of publicly available information. There is also a series of regulatory filing including many footnotes to the financial statements.

This is a more complex challenge since the information may not be easy to access. But it could be more rewarding and many investors, especially professional analysts and portfolio managers, will look at less popular data. But they may not talk freely about what they do, concerned they could sacrifice their personal edge by sharing their methods.

When Investment Pros Talk, It Could Pay To Listen

Because not all professionals will talk, it can be useful to pay attention to the ones that do, especially when the investment pro goes in depth discussing their techniques.

Barron’s recently interviewed Gordon Haskett analyst Don Bilson who, they noted, “takes an even less traditional approach. He calls his research “event driven,” although other investors prefer the term “special situations.”

Many individual investors will share Bilson’s goal:

“I’m looking for events that can move a stock more than 10%: mergers and acquisitions and corporate restructurings, including spinoffs. Management change is a big one. Another is changes in the shareholder roster.

That usually comes after a series of missteps, and can be a turnaround opportunity. Shareholder activism is in there, too, and occasionally, environmental matters.”

What’s important to consider is whether or not individual investors can work towards that same goal and Bilson says his process is accessible to individuals, noting

“You’d be surprised…. Everything we do is traceable to publicly available information. We’re not really dealing so much in innuendo, but what, exactly, are companies saying on conference calls? And by exactly, I mean that we parse the adverb.

If the adverb changes from quarter to quarter, we’re the ones to amplify that. Corporations stick to scripts. When they change the script, it means a lot.

And it’s overlooked. If you’re not paying close attention to it, you’ll miss the important pivots that companies are telling you [about] without really telling you.”

Transcripts of calls, and previous calls for comparison, are available on a number of web sites for free. Some companies make the calls available on their investor relations web site so that an individual investor could listen to the tone of the CEO’s voice, just like analysts do.

Now, one of the reasons value investing is difficult is because investors can find value, buy the stock and then the stock fails to move. This is the risk of a value trap, a stock offering value but instead presenting a trap to investors which traps funds that could be employed elsewhere.

To reduce this risk, Bilson “We watch price action pretty closely—which stocks are moving; why are they moving. What’s the volume behind these moves? Who owns the stock?”

Hidden Information Might Be Hiding In Plain Sight

Bilson also looks at data that is publicly available but maybe often ignored by many investors, professionals and individual investors alike. One factor that could be overlooked, and that Bilson finds useful is:

“CEO age is important. Older CEOs are dangerous CEOs. Older CEOs are the ones who make moves. So we pay very close attention to 62-, 63-, 64-year-old CEOs, especially those without succession plans. Those are the people who make news.”

Barron’s followed up a question, “Where do you find information about CEO succession plans?” and Bilson responded,

“Sometimes, it’s obvious—say, a promotion to chief operating officer made by a 64-year-old CEO. That person is going to be the CEO in two years—or six months. Sometimes, it’s three years. Sometimes, the successor is pretty obvious. Other times, it’s not. You have to use a little guesswork.”

Many investors might wonder where the information about a CEO’s age is available and the truth is the information is relatively easy to find. It is in SEC filings and on websites like Yahoo which shows the data under the company profile, as shown below.

IBM chart

The fact they hired a CEO from outside the company is significant to Bilson who said, “…by and large, if you make a commitment, bring a new guy to a new city and set him up with a new [pay] package, that company is not going to be sold for X amount of years. So, in a sale situation, I’d much rather an internal promotion.”

This could make a deal difficult but not impossible. Other companies he likes include those involved in potential “M&A in the [Texas] Permian Basin. Finally, after so much talk about M&A last March or April, Concho Resources bought somebody.

Energen was then sold to Diamondback Energy, and now you’ve got QEP Resources (NYSE: QEP) up for sale. Probably, some other businesses in that region will go, as well.”

QEP weekly chart

QEP is a cheap stock whose CEO is about 61 years old. This could be an ideal buy in the sector.

Retirement investing

Rethinking Retirement With a Nobel Prize Winner

Retirement is a complex financial problem and it is one that has received significant attention from great thinkers.

MarketWatch.com recently reported that, “Nobel laureate Richard Thaler says drawing down retirement assets is even harder than saving them, partly because of uncertainty about a retiree’s lifespan.

Richard Thaler

Source: NobelPrize.org

To address this problem, he’s proposing meshing 401(k)s with Social Security, InvestmentNews reports.

Thaler, who won the 2017 Nobel Prize for his work on behavioral economics, says people should be allowed to contribute a portion of their 401(k) benefits into Social Security when they retire.

The contribution would essentially go into an inflation-adjusted annuity guaranteed by the government at fair actuarial value over a retiree’s lifetime.

“I’d much rather do this than have the fly-by-night insurance company in Mississippi offering some private version of the same thing,” Thaler was quoted saying Thursday at a retirement event hosted by the Brookings Institution.

Thaler, a professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, says his proposal might sound like a “wild and crazy idea” but would be fairly easy to implement. The government already administers Social Security, so no additional bureaucracy would be needed.

The professor already has influenced how 401(k)s function. His research led to the widespread adoption of mechanisms such as automatic enrollment, InvestmentNews notes.”

Thaler explained how he affected 401ks on his web site, Nudges.org,

Nudge

“It’s called the Automatic 401k re-enrollment. The WSJ reports:

In a bid to help employees get their retirement savings on track, more 401(k)-plan sponsors are shifting workers’ 401(k) dollars out of their current investment allocations and into the plan’s default option—usually a target-date fund.

It’s called re-enrolling. Employees have the options of sticking with their current investment selection, if it’s still offered, or choosing another mix. But in a re-enrollment, unless the participant specifically opts out, his or her 401(k) will be re-allocated to the company’s chosen default investment.

As with automatic enrollment, opt-out rates are low.

Mr. Reish and his colleagues, who represent several major 401(k) providers, were initially worried about potential push-back from employees. However, only one worker complained, saying a target-date fund would be too conservative, he says. Others opted out with no gripes about the process.

All told, about half of the employees re-elected their prior investment selection or selected some other investment strategy.

Employees who opt out are more likely to be better educated, older and more affluent than those who accept the default, says Mr. Utkus.

Reish & Reicher’s opt-out rate was higher than most companies that undergo a re-enrollment.

Indeed, for companies moving their 401(k) plans to T. Rowe Price Group, the acceptance rate is much higher and has increased in recent years, says Carol Waddell, director of product development for the company’s retirement-plan-services unit.

Among employers that shifted their 401(k) plans to T. Rowe Price and conducted a plan “reset,” roughly 87% of all participants remain in the target-date fund 18 months after the conversion, she says. Ms. Waddell adds that 57% of plans transferred to T. Rowe Price in 2009 conducted plan resets for their employees, compared with 14% in 2005.”

Thaler’s original innovation, automatic enrollment has been well received. The more recent idea involving an annuity may be less popular, but it is important to consider the source of the idea and to consider whether the idea could be beneficial.

Thaler is someone who should not be ignored. He sees value in an annuity and many investors should consider that.

Thaler is most likely attempting to reduce the longevity risk a retiree faces.

Longevity risk is defined by Investopedia as “risk to which a pension fund or life insurance company could be exposed as a result of higher-than-expected payout ratios.

Longevity risk exists due to the increasing life expectancy trends among policyholders and pensioners and can result in payout levels that are higher than what a company or fund originally accounts for.

The types of plans exposed to the greatest levels of longevity risk are defined-benefit pension plans and annuities, which guarantee lifetime benefits for policy or plan holders.”

The site notes that,

“Longevity risk affects governments in that they must fund promises to retired individuals through pensions and healthcare, and they must do so despite a shrinking tax base.

Corporate sponsors who fund retirement and health insurance obligations must deal with the longevity risk related to their retired employees.

In addition, individuals, who may have reduced or no ability to rely on governments or corporate sponsors to fund retirement, have to deal with the risks inherent with their own longevity.

Organizations can transfer longevity risk in a number of ways. The simplest way is through a single premium immediate annuity (SPIA), whereby a risk holder pays a premium to an insurer and passes both asset and liability risk.

This strategy would involve a large transfer of assets to a third party, with the possibility of material credit risk exposure.

Alternatively, it is possible to eliminate only longevity risk while retaining the underlying assets via reinsurance of the liability.

In this model, instead of paying a single premium, the premium is spread over the likely duration of 50 or 60 years (expected term of liability), aligning premiums and claims and moving uncertain cash flows to certain ones.

When transferring longevity risk for a given pension plan or insurer, there are two primary factors to consider:

Current levels of mortality, which are observable but vary substantially across socio-economic and health categories, and longevity trend risk, which is systematic in nature as it applies to populations.”

These solutions are not available to individuals and they are very important to each individual. Thaler is suggesting a low cost annuity to reduce the risk that an individual will outlive their money and that is useful to consider.

However, that is a difficult problem to consider because there are good and bad annuities. Buying an annuity may be the best choice for many investors but finding the right one will require considerable effort.

Importantly, blanket advice saying no annuity should ever be bought is most likely bad advice for many individuals.

Stock market

Understanding the Stock Market as a Game

There are differences, as we all know, between playing golf as a weekend player and a professional. These differences can be explained as the difference between a loser’s game and a winner’s game. That same difference can be used to understand why some traders win and others lose.

In his classic paper The Loser’s Game, Charles Ellis wrote,

“Simon Ramo identified the crucial difference between a Winner’s Game and a Loser’s Game in his excellent book on playing strategy, Extraordinary Tennis for the Ordinary Tennis Player. Over a period of many years, he observed that tennis was not one game but two.

winning the loser's game

One game of tennis is played by professionals and a very few gifted amateurs; the other is played by all the rest of us. Although players in both games use the same equipment, dress, rules and scoring, and conform to the same etiquette and customs, the basic natures of their two games are almost entirely different.

After extensive scientific and statistical analysis, Dr. Ramo summed it up this way: Professionals win points, amateurs lose points.

Professional tennis players stroke the ball with strong, well aimed shots, through long and often exciting rallies, until one player is able to drive the ball just beyond the reach of his opponent. Errors are seldom made by these splendid players.

Expert tennis is what I call a Winner’s Game because the ultimate outcome is determined by the actions of the winner.

Victory is due to winning more points than the opponent wins – not, as we shall see in a moment, simply to getting a higher score than the opponent, but getting that higher score by winning points.

Amateur tennis, Ramo found, is almost entirely different. Brilliant shots, long and exciting rallies and seemingly miraculous recoveries are few and far between.

On the other hand, the ball is fairly often hit into the net or out of bounds, and double faults at service are not uncommon. The amateur duffer seldom beats his opponent, but he beats himself all the time. The victor in this game of tennis gets a higher score than the opponent, but he gets that higher score because his opponent is losing even more points.

As a scientist and statistician, Dr. Ramo gathered data to test his hypothesis. And he did it in a very clever way. Instead of keeping conventional game scores – “Love,” “Fifteen All.” “ThirtyFifteen.” etc. – Ramo simply counted points won versus points lost.

And here is what he found. In expert tennis, about 80 per cent of the points are won; in amateur tennis, about 80 per cent of the points are lost.

In other words, professional tennis is a Winner’s Game – the final outcome is determined by the activities of the winner – and amateur tennis is a Loser’s Game – the final outcome is determined by the activities of the loser.”

Ellis concluded, and a recent article in Institutional Investor confirmed that “Investing in public markets has become a loser’s game, and probably has been for a long time.”

This shift is seen in asset flows to passive managers.

Top five asset managers

Source: Institutional Investor

Beating the Market

In simplest terms, the experts are telling the average investor to follow the well known advice “if you can’t beat them, join them.” This means passive index funds are increasingly popular and that sets up an interesting dilemma that individual investors must consider:

If the stock market declines by 50%, is it really your goal to lose 50%?

Remember that the stock market has declined by 50% twice in the still young 21st century.

SPX monthly chart

Investors often seem to forget about those brutal losses in bull markets. The experts begin explaining that it is impossible to beat the market in the long run and highlight bull market returns. When bear markets are considered, active strategies can be useful.

In A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation, Meb Faber noted,

“In his 2008 book Stocks for the Long Run 5/E: The Definitive Guide to Financial Market Returns & Long-Term Investment Strategies, Jeremy Siegel investigates the use of the 200-day SMA in timing the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) from 1886 to 2006.

His test bought the DJIA when it closed at least 1 percent above the 200-day moving average, and sold the DJIA and invested in Treasury bills when it closed at least 1 percent below the 200-day moving average.

He concludes that market timing improves the absolute and risk-adjusted returns over buying and holding the DJIA. Likewise, when all transaction costs are included (taxes, bid-ask spreads, commissions), the risk-adjusted returns are still higher when employing market timing, though timing falls short on an absolute return measure.”

Faber then tested an even simpler strategy using the 10 month moving average. His results are shown below.

total returns vs. timing total returnsSource: A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation

Notice that the simple timing model beat the long term passive investment model. That’s because of the important impacts bear markets have on long term performance.

Faber explains, “All of the G-7 countries [G-7 countries are the world’s largest developed economies] have experienced at least one period where stocks lost 75% of their value.

The unfortunate mathematics of a 75% decline require an investor to realize a 300% gain just to get back to even – the equivalent of compounding at 10% for 15 years!”

A 50% loss requires a 100% gain just to get back to even. That could take many years or even decades. To this, the passive investment advocates note that stock prices always come back and that advice requires ignoring Japan which is not really an anomaly.

Japanese stocks peaked in 1989 and remain well below that all time high. In fact, after thirty years, the benchmark average for that country remains more than 40% below its all time high. Ignoring that reality places an individual’s retirement at risk. That is irresponsible and yet, many investment experts insist that risk should be ignored.

Given the high level of risk and life changing consequences, buy and hold passive investing might be too risky for almost all individual investors.

Stock Picks

This Precious Metal Could Be a Buy Right Now

Gold is often considered an investment, but others might believe it is more. The Asia Times recently noted, “gold quietly shapes our world.”

Gold is “very useful in medicine in the form of gold-containing drugs.

There are two classes of gold drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. One is injectable gold thiolates – molecules with a sulfur atom at one end, and a chemical chain of virtually any description attached to them – found in drugs such as Myocrisin, Solganol and Allocrysin.

The other is an oral complex called Auranofin.

Gold is also increasingly being used in nanotechnology. A nanomaterial is generally considered a material where any of its three dimensions is 100 nanometers (nm) or less.

Nanotechnology is useful because it is not restricted to a particular material – any material could in principle be made into a nanomaterial – but rather a particular property: the property of size.

For example, gold in its bulk form has a distinct yellow color. But as it is broken up into very small pieces it starts to change color, through a range of red and purple, depending on the relative size of the gold nanoparticles.

Such nanoparticles could be used in a variety of applications, for example in the biomedical or optical-electronic fields.

Another exciting advancement for gold in nanotechnology was the discovery in 1983 that a clean gold surface dipped into a solution containing a thiolate could form self-assembled monolayers. These monolayers modify the surface of gold in very innovative ways.

Research into surface modification is important because the surface of anything can show very different properties than the bulk (that is, the inside) of the same material.

Gold nanoparticles have also proven to be an effective catalyst. A catalyst is a material that increases the rate of a chemical reaction and so reduces the amount of energy required without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.

This is important because catalysis lies at the heart of many manufactured goods we use today. For example, a catalyst turns propylene into propylene oxide, which is the first step in making antifreeze.”

As an investment, some analysts believe now is an ideal time to buy gold. Kitco reported,

“Gold prices holding firmly above strong support at $1280 this year, even as the U.S. dollar’s strength has weakened gold’s currency component, is a testament to the metal’s institutional support. According to the World Gold Council, central banks added the highest level of gold reserves in 2018 in over 50 years.

China’s central bank also increased its gold reserves to 60.62 million ounces in March from 60.26 million in February. China has previously gone long periods without revealing increases in gold holdings.

When the central bank announced a 57 percent jump in reserves to 53.3 million ounces in mid-2015, it was the first update in six years. The latest pause was from October 2016 until December last year.

… the fundamental and technical factors I have mentioned in recent missives could still propel the gold price higher by later this spring.”

Barron’s noted that silver could be the better investment.

“It is difficult to be pessimistic about silver at these levels,” with prices that don’t provide an incentive to boost supply, says Maria Smirnova, senior portfolio manager at Toronto-based Sprott Asset Management.

“We expect silver to outperform gold,” says Smirnova. “Silver has lacked retail investment demand, so a sustained rally in gold will lead to the speculators coming and buying silver.”

Silver monthly chart

Total physical demand for silver rose 4% last year, to a three-year high of 1.03 billion ounces, according to the Silver Institute’s World Silver Survey, compiled by a team at financial data and analytics provider Refinitiv.

The report … showed that global industrial silver demand fell 1% last year, to 578.6 million ounces. All told, silver’s physical market posted a “minor deficit” of 29.2 million ounces in 2018 which is considered to be close to in balance.

Dow Jones Commodity Index

Source: Barron’s

Smirnova expects industrial demand to “remain stable, despite slower [economic] growth.” A recent forecast from the International Monetary Fund revealed expectations for global economic expansion of 3.3% this year, down from an estimated 3.5% in January.

“Silver does not represent large components of end products,” Smirnova explains, pointing out that electronics, cars, and medicines don’t use a lot of the metal per unit, so an economic slowdown probably won’t have a big impact on it. Its use in solar applications is also “insulated from economic growth” because that market is “more driven by government incentives and the need for renewable energy.” Instead, it’s the “return of retail investment demand [that] will be the driving force behind an increase in the silver price,” Smirnova predicts.

The World Silver Survey found that global investment in silver bars and coins grew 20% last year, with bar demand alone up 53%. The study also revealed a third consecutive annual decline in global production of the metal. It fell 2% in 2018, to 855.7 million ounces.

“Silver is cheap, at $15 [an ounce] as it is not encouraging new supply,” says Smirnova. “Primary mines are not generating a lot of cash at these levels or are losing money.”

Still, some analysts urge caution. Adam Koos, president of the Libertas Wealth Management Group, believes that silver is a “wait-and-see game” right now. However, he has recently detected “momentum [for gold] waning in favor of silver.”

Given that, he wouldn’t be surprised to see a “changing of the guard at some point in 2019, putting [silver] in the lead.” Koos adds, however, that he’d want to see prices break above $16 before risking any “serious capital.”

Investors seeking exposure to physical silver can consider Sprott Physical Silver Trust (ticker: PSLV), which Smirnova manages. Those interested in silver stocks might want to look at the Ninepoint Silver Equities Class funds, which are subadvised by Sprott Asset Management.

Exchange-traded funds focused on the metal include the iShares Silver Trust (SLV), as well as Global X Silver Miners (SIL) and Aberdeen Standard Physical Silver Shares (SIVR).

Retirement investing

A Hidden Problem For Retirement Planning

Retirement planning is a significant challenge to many investors.  They must decide how much to save now to allow them to retire later and that problem involves assumptions about potential returns, the sequence of returns or the risk, the rate of inflation and the length of time the assets will need to be used for.

The Wall Street Journal recently highlighted the problem in terms that are facing government agencies around the country, “The pressures are coming from a slate of problems, and the longest bull market in U.S. history has failed to solve many of them.

There is a simple reason why pensions are in such rough shape: The amount owed to retirees is accelerating faster than assets on hand to pay those future obligations. Liabilities of major U.S. public pensions are up 64% since 2007 while assets are up 30%, according to the most recent data from Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research.

Here is how it got that way:

The Financial Crisis Happened

10-year returns on pension funds

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Public pension funds have to pay benefits—their liabilities. They hold assets, which grow or shrink through a combination of investment gains or losses and contributions from employers and workers. Those assets generally rose faster than liabilities for five decades starting in the 1950’s because government was expanding and the number of retirees was smaller.

In the 1980’s and 1990’s, double-digit stock and bond returns convinced governments they could afford widespread benefit increases.

But the value of their holdings—their assets—began to fall in the aftermath of the dot-com bust in the 2000’s, and the 2008 financial crisis followed soon after. State and local retirement systems lost 28% in 2008 and 2009, according to the Boston College data.

liabilities and assets for public pensions

Source: The Wall Street Journal

“The first thing you have to do is make up what you lost,” said Sandy Matheson, executive director of the Maine Public Employees Retirement System. “And it takes years. And then you have to make up what you didn’t earn on what you didn’t have. It’s a pretty steep climb.”

Governments Fell Behind on Their Payments

Cities and states set out to ramp up their yearly contributions to public pension funds as a way of making up for their investment losses.

spending on public pensions

Source: The Wall Street Journal

Some were able to keep up with those payments. But others weren’t as they struggled with lower tax revenue and increased demand for government services in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis. New Jersey made less than 15% of its recommended pension payment from 2009 through 2012. It now has a little more than one-third of the cash it needs to pay future benefits—despite robust investment returns in recent years.

These same problems could trip up individual investors.

Barron’s recently noted, The two most crucial questions in retirement planning—how long are you likely to live, and how much of your life will be spent in relatively good health?—have long been dismissed as unknowable.

But thanks to facial analysis, gene testing, and other new technology, advisors and investors may finally be able to get answers that meaningfully change the way they navigate saving for and living in retirement. And it has as much to do with your health as it does your portfolio.

Lifespan is arguably the crux of all financial planning, especially how much an individual should save for retirement, and how much he or she can safely spend once retired. It can also influence decisions related to timing Social Security benefits, buying annuities, and getting long-term care insurance.

Most people rely on crude tools, wild guesses and wishes to determine how long they’ll live. In a survey released by AIG Life & Retirement last week, 53% of respondents said their goal is to live to the age of 100.

Yet, the financial reality of living that long is daunting. In the same survey, the majority of respondents said they fear running out of money more than death itself.

The solution to managing longevity risk is to plan for it.

Lifespan tables are a starting point for many would-be retirees. But they are based on an entire population of people, and don’t take into account such factors as lifestyle, health, or family history.

Consider [an individual] who is 65. A standard lifespan table from the Social Security Administration suggests he’ll live to be 83. By his own assessment—which encompasses a number of factors, including biomarkers—he is on track to live into his 90s.

Calculators can give a more accurate read, but the results can vary dramatically depending on methodology and inputs. Anyone who goes this route should stick with a calculator that give results in probabilities rather than absolute numbers, says [one expert], who recommends the American Academy of Actuaries’ Longevity Illustrator.

Of course, life expectancy is just one component of longevity. Health span—how many of the years you have left will be spent in relatively good mental and physical health—should also be part of the equation.

“People say they want to live to be 100, but the number itself is less relevant than how healthy you are,” says ay Olshansky, a leading researcher in longevity and a professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Illinois.

Indeed, health doesn’t just determine quality of life, it is one of the single biggest wildcards for retirement planning.

This is where facial analysis—and other new technology, such as saliva-based tests for longevity genes and other biomarkers—could offer a more nuanced look at lifespan.

A new venture, Wealthspan Advisors, is gearing up to roll out a platform for advisors using the same technology that Olshansky and other researchers helped develop for the insurance industry.

Instead of simply asking clients how long they think they will live, planners ask a series of questions and take a photograph of a client’s face. From that photo, the program provides an estimate for both lifespan and health span, and illustrates how lifestyle choices will influence those outcomes.

“When you look young for your age, it usually means that you are aging at a slower rate,” Olshansky says, noting that the program isn’t fooled by makeup and cosmetic procedures.

Would-be retirees shouldn’t rewrite their financial playbook based on a single snapshot, but technology like this could offer a more accurate picture for planning.”

Stock Picks

This Could Be the Biggest Winner of the Driverless Car Revolution

Traders are excited about driverless cars. They see a tremendous investment opportunity. Driverless cars, also referred to as autonomous vehicles, are designed to sense their environment and navigate roads without human input.

Autonomous vehicles rely on technologies like GPS and radar to study their surroundings and make intelligent decisions about the car’s direction and speed. Depending on how soon the vehicles are introduced and adopted, the implications for investors are potentially large.

Automated vehicles are quickly nearing a level of maturity that will allow manufacturers to start deliveries to consumers. A large group of companies are actively developing complete automated driving systems and the components that go into those systems.

This list includes traditional auto companies, suppliers, non-automotive technology companies, and startups. Several of these companies entered this market recently but rapidly moved into contention through acquisitions, investments, and strategic hiring of key personnel.

In short it is a competitive market and there will be winners and losers. The losers are likely to outnumber the winners, a situation that has historically been the case before. Barron’s recently reviewed the market and reached a possibly surprising conclusion.

“The United Kingdom has emerged as the No. 1 location on earth to support autonomous vehicles, or AVs, in a new analysis conducted by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, or SMMT. The U.K. lobby group has calculated that it will generate an economic boost of 62 billion pounds sterling ($81.1 billion) per annum by 2030, which will boost the U.K. economy and a range of firms.

But How Can Investors Benefit?

The key is to identify the sectors most likely to profit, and then some of the investible stars that lead the way in their fields.

The car makers are an obvious choice. The automotive giants with well-advanced AV programs are Daimler ’s Mercedes-Benz, Volkswagen’s Audi, and BMW; Ford Motor (NYSE: F) and Tesla (Nasdaq: TSLA); Tata Motors (NYSE: TTM) Jaguar Land Rover; and Nissan Motor.”

A long-term chart of Ford is shown below.

F monthly chart

The stock is near multiyear lows and the concern for investors might be the market for nonelectric cars. Those cars, of course, make up the majority of the company’s business and could be a drag on Ford’s performance for some time.

A pure play in electric cars could be TSLA.

TSLA monthly chart

The chart shows the stock has delivered significant gains in the long term however the company has stumbled recently, largely on concerns that the company’s CEO, Elon Musk, is not focused enough on the company as he directs attention to other projects.

Barron’s continued, “Sajid Yacoob, head of global electric vehicles at Tata Consultancy Services, says that these stocks are well placed for growth because they are embracing change.

“When you see established OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] focus on autonomous activities, you see a bump in share prices,” he says. “This is because the market is moving away from traditional operations to this value-added business model.”

But the sectors extend to a bunch of less obvious industries—think technology, telecoms, transport, infrastructure, insurance, and legal. Once driverless cars are built, the next two vital components are telecoms and power.

AVs rely heavily on communications such as 4G and, eventually, 5G—the mobile connectivity that links them to the environment, such as intelligent traffic lights and road sensors.

Among these, Yacoob says, the strongest telecoms players are the U.K.’s Vodafone Group (Nasdaq: VOD) and EE, a joint venture between Germany’s Deutsche Telekom and Orange, formerly France Télécom.”

VOD is available in the US and the long term chart is shown below. This stock is also weighed down by the legacy business.

VOD monthly chart

Barron’s concluded, “In terms of power, most of the auto makers are developing their own battery technology. Japan’s Nissan has built its own state-of-the-art battery plant in northern Britain.

Next up are the firms developing the software and hardware that allow cars to “talk” to the roads around them. These are electronic gadgets that sit inside vehicles that use wireless internet to synchronize with similar boxes placed at traffic junctions and along highways.

Yacoob highlights Germany’s Continental, a blue-chip stock on the benchmark DAX index that is probably best known for tires but is also a leader in electronics, as well as the privately owned engineering company Bosch.

In Europe, four countries, the U.K., the Netherlands, France, and Germany, are battling to be the first to deploy these autonomous robots on the roads. They believe that the technology will unlock economic growth, jobs, and wider improvements.

The rollout of the new infrastructure and new software and hardware will generate an estimated £18 billion for firms and create about 420,000 jobs, according to the SMMT. Investors could benefit from owning a piece of the firms delivering all of this.”

With so many of the potential investments in overseas markets, investors should consider their options carefully. Many large brokers allow investors in the US to access individual stocks in overseas markets directly through their accounts.

While this could be tempting to some investors, the risks should not be ignored. Investing in stocks in other countries carries many of the same risks that investing in stocks on US markets carry. That includes company specific risks along with risks associated with the stock’s sector and the broad stock market.

These stocks carry additional risks including risks associated with currencies. One large broker notes, “U.S. stocks can be impacted by the value of the dollar relative to currencies of other countries.” And adds,

“International investments involve additional risks, which include differences in financial accounting standards, currency fluctuations, geopolitical risk, foreign taxes and regulations, and the potential for illiquid markets.”

While the risks may be acceptable to some, they must be considered, especially when investing in new technologies. Another factor that must be considered is the issue of taxes.

Investing in foreign stocks can require additional tax forms and the work involved may not be worth the effort for smaller investments. For smaller investors exchange traded funds could offer the best way to access international markets.