Home

Archives

The Independent Investor: Why Some Corporations Are Leaving America

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
10:01PM / Friday August 01, 2014

In recent weeks, politicians and concerned citizens alike have decried the growing number of corporations that have opted to renounce their citizenship and move off-shore. Rather than simply playing the blame game, a better approach might be to examine the underlying cause for this growing exodus.

Taxes, as you might imagine, are the crux of the matter. It is true that U.S. corporations pay the highest tax rate in the world at 35 percent. It is an often-quoted statistic but not entirely accurate. The effective tax rate is more like 25 percent when all the deductions and allowances are accounted for. Nevertheless, that number is still high and many corporations fear it is going to grow larger in the years ahead.

The United States also insists that companies pay that same rate on income that was made overseas by its subsidiaries and repatriated home. In comparison, many countries tax only domestic profits, (those that are made in-country) while ignoring profits made overseas in countries like Ireland where tax rates are much lower.

As a result, some companies have resorted to a legal maneuver in which they merge with a foreign company or declare that its U.S. operations are now owned by its existing foreign subsidiary. By taking advantage of this tax loophole, a company can then shift reported foreign profits outside of American tax jurisdiction. As a result, they are only paying taxes on profits that are made in the United States. The rest of their worldwide income is repatriated to their new legal address in their new foreign domicile with little or no tax burden.

This is an especially appealing option to many technology and drug companies because much of their profits are derived from intellectual propriety like patents. If they transfer those patents overseas (and they do) a major portion of their profits becomes tax free.

To be clear, these companies are still paying taxes here. They are not moving jobs or production overseas. They are free to keep their top executives in the United States and most do! Bottom line these so-called “inversions” are nothing more than a change of address, a new mailbox that now resides in a foreign country.

Despite the furor these inversions have caused, we are not talking about many companies. Only 41 U.S. corporations have reincorporated in lower-tax countries since 1982, including 12 since 2012. Eight more are planning to do so this year. The U.S. Treasury estimates a decline in tax revenues of some $17 billion over a decade. That’s not much. What worries the politicians is that the pace may be quickening despite the Internal Revenue Service’s attempts to discourage the trend.

Senator Dick Durbin is working on a measure called the “No Federal Contracts for Corporate Deserters Act,” which will prevent inversion companies from benefiting from federal contracts. Others have resorted to name calling and deriding these companies as unpatriotic.

There is an argument that what made these corporations great was their ability to benefit from the things our government has provided - patent protection, our legal system, education, training, infrastructure, research and our ability to defend their interests from others in time of strife. And now they are turning their back on us in the name of higher profits?

There was a time when we could have explained away this attitude by reminding Americans that corporations are nothing more than economic animals driven solely by the profit motive. However, the Supreme Court changed all that when they declared corporations “individuals” with the same rights and responsibilities as humans. Should we therefore expect a new level of loyalty and good citizenship from these newly-minted citizens?

Clearly, our tax code is a mess. In order to remain competitive in this global marketplace, this country needs to adjust corporate and individual taxes at some point. However, we all know a tax overhaul is impossible given the present state of congress. As such, we should expect more of these inversions in the future as companies fend for themselves in the absence of action by our government.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

The Independent Investor: How Much Is Too Much to Spend in Retirement?

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
02:53PM / Thursday July 17, 2014

More and more baby boomers retire each year. One of the questions that trouble them the most is whether they have enough savings to last their lifetime. The answer largely depends on how much they plan to spend each year.

The historical guideline that most financial planners use is a 4 percent drawdown of your retirement savings after taking account of social security and other non-portfolio sources of income, such as rentals or part-time work. That number has been shown to provide most retirees with a comfortable living over the course of a 30-year retirement.

However, I advise my clients to use the 4 percent rule of thumb as a starting place and adjust along the way. Times change and so do markets, so no single number will be appropriate for every situation. Take inflation, for example. Every year inflation climbs higher. Over the last five years, inflation has been fairly well contained but that doesn't mean it will always be so.

I suggest that above and beyond the yearly 4 percent savings drawdown, enough money should be withdrawn to account for the inflation rate. This year, for example, inflation should come in slightly above 2 percent. In which case, a retiree should plan on withdrawing 6 percent of his funds next year to accommodate for these higher costs.

For the last 30 years or so, conventional financial wisdom has dictated that retirement portfolios should be predominantly invested in bonds. Advisers argued that this was the safe, conservative approach for those who can no longer afford to play the volatility of the stock market. As a result, some planners are now arguing that the 4 percent guideline should be lowered given the historical low rates of returns in the fixed income markets. They are extrapolating that since rates are low now they will therefore continue to be low in the years ahead. I think that is nonsense.

First off, as I have written before, bonds are no longer a "safe and conservative" investment. I believe that bond prices in the future will fall considerably as interest rates rise. Why keep the lion's share of your retirement savings in a losing investment that will continue to decline over the next several years?

The state of the bond and stock markets will also impact that 4 percent rule. I suggest that you adjust your spending based on how the markets perform. If the stock market is declining, the economy stalling and/or interest rates are rising; you might want to pare back your spending and your withdrawals. If the opposite occurs, you may consider withdrawing more money, but within reason.

I have one client, a single woman age 82, with health issues, who has about $1.5 million invested fairly conservatively with us. Each year we have managed to generate enough returns to satisfy her 6percent withdrawal rate and make substantially more above that for her. The problem is that every year we do, she immediately withdraws those additional profits, leaving nothing for those "rainy day" years when the markets are down. I have my hands full convincing her to leave some of those profits alone. The point is that you must remain flexible while still planning for the future.

But not everyone need abide by the 4 percent rule. Actuaries will tell you that if you follow the 4 percent rule you have a 90 percent confidence level that your retirement savings should last your lifetime. But 90 percent is a high rate of probability, maybe too high for your liking. You may opt to spend more and reduce your probabilities to a more reasonable 75 percent that your money outlives you.

That lower confidence level might actually be more appropriate for your planning purposes. By now, you may realize that if you have not discussed this with an investor adviser it is never too late to start.

The Independent Investor: The Fed Turns Off the Spigot

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
06:15PM / Thursday July 10, 2014

The Federal Reserve Bank announced an end to their latest quantitative stimulus program on Wednesday. The markets worldwide sold off on Thursday. Was it just a coincidence?

It was not as if their announcement was unexpected. The Fed has been winding down its $85 billion a month purchases of bonds and mortgage-backed securities since the beginning of the year. Each month they have pared back $10 billion/month incremental purchases.

June's policy meeting confirmed that the last purchases would end in October.

Some investors were relieved, while others were concerned. Many believe that the longer the Fed's program continues the less impact it will have. Others disagree. That is nothing new, since, from the outset, the entire Quantitative Easing (QE) program has been mired in controversy.

The initial round of QE in 2008 was intended to prevent the economy from plunging into a second Great Depression. The Fed succeeded in that desperate bid and followed the first QE with successive bouts of stimulus in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Unfortunately, its goal — to jump-start the economy and return it to a healthy growth rate — has had, at best, mixed results. While unemployment has fallen from almost 10 percent to 6.1 percent in June, the economy has remained mired in a slow-growth recovery. At the same time, this unprecedented meddling in the economy has resulted in a number of distortions, some good and some not so good.

Keeping interest rates low was supposed to convince American investors to sell their low-yielding, safe-haven U.S. Treasury bonds and buy riskier assets such as stocks and corporate bonds. The hope was that would in turn spur an increase in lending, consumer spending and investment. Very little of that actually happened. Investors and banks alike either remained in cash or their Treasury bonds.

It was the stock market and rampant speculation that has been the main beneficiary of the Fed's efforts. Some argue that the gains in the stock market have only benefited a tiny portion of the population (the One Percent) and there has been precious little "Trickle Down" impact on the economy.

Although the unemployment rate has declined, economists argue that the numbers are deceiving. Many After years of attempting to find a job, many people have simply dropped out of the rolls thereby reducing the unemployment rate. The data also indicate that a growing number of these gains are low-paying, part-time jobs, something the Labor Department's numbers fail to account for within these trends.

Then there are the risks. Potential inflation heads that list. Contrary to those who have been predicting hyperinflation, the numbers do not bear that out. For the last two years inflation has been running below the Fed's target rate of 2 percent.

However, that could change. If, at some point, banks begin to lend those trillions of dollars, instead of speculate with it, if corporations begin to invest in plant and equipment rather than buy back their stock or someone else's, then the story could change.

The multiplier effect of money begins to come into play. That is when the dollar I lend to you is used to buy a widget or two, in turn, the widget seller turns around and uses that same dollar to pay my neighbor to make more widgets and so on and so on. In that way one dollar becomes many more. That's what causes inflation. We haven’t gotten to that point yet. And the Fed says they will raise rates when and if that happens.

Some say all the Fed has done is cause a gigantic bubble in financial assets. The Fed says no, markets, in their opinion, are simply fairly valued. No one, including the Fed, really knows for sure. In many ways this entire QE program has been a grand experiment and the final outcome has yet to be written.

So back to the stock market, if you trace the behavior of markets through these various QE programs, one thing stands out. In every instance, once investors understood that the QE program was ending, the stock market declined. One wonders if this will happen again this time.

The Independent Investor: Should You Pay Off Mortgage Before Retiring?

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
03:21PM / Thursday June 26, 2014

Many retirees, concerned with no longer having a steady paycheck, have asked me for advice on whether to pay off their mortgage early. There is no definitive answer but here are some variables to consider when making a decision.

Your monthly mortgage payment in retirement may represent a significant portion of your monthly income. If you only have social security as an income stream, then chances are that a mortgage payment will significantly reduce the amount you will need to meet your monthly expenses. If so, then pay off the mortgage. However, be careful you don't significantly reduce the amount of money you have available for emergencies, general expenses and discretionary spending. You don't want to end up house-rich but cash-poor.

By paying off your mortgage now, you reduce interest rate risk, especially in a rising rate environment. Naturally, there are several factors at play here. How long and how much debt remains on your mortgage will be a crucial factor. If you have an adjustable rate mortgage and rates double over the next five years then it makes sense to pay off the loan or at least convert to a fixed-rate mortgage.

On the other hand, if you took advantage of the low interest rate environment over the last few years and re-financed, you might now have a thirty-year fixed rate mortgage with an interest rate of 3-5 percent. In that case, it may make sense to keep the mortgage. Why?

If, as many predict, interest rates do rise substantially in the years to come, your borrowing cost on that fixed mortgage will look like a very good deal.

Retirees must also understand the opportunity costs of paying a large lump sum out of your retirement savings to be free of that mortgage. While being debt-free may feel good, could there be other investments that might provide a better return?

Let's go back to the retiree who refinanced and now has a 30-year fixed at 5 percent. If interest rates do rise from here sometime down the road, that retiree has the opportunity of taking advantage of those higher rates. Theoretically, he could invest that lump sum money into a safe U.S. Treasury bond yielding 6 or 7 percent, maybe more.

While he waits for rates to rise, there is always the stock market. Stocks have averaged a 7 percent return historically for well over the past 100 years. He could invest the money in a group of dividend stocks, which would not only generate him income but also price appreciation. In long-term bull markets like today's, the average return on equities has been much, much more.

Of course, each individual's situation is different. Paying off the last $100,000 of a mortgage out of a retirement nest egg of $1 million is much different from someone who only has saved $300,000. As always, the mortgage interest rate you are paying is critical to the equation. There are also alternatives. If there is no prepayment penalty, you can always pay down the principal faster or simply double your overall monthly payment.

But numbers aren't everything. For some people debt is, and always will be, a dirty word.

The peace of mind they receive from being debt-free may trump whatever opportunity they may have elsewhere. My only advice is to weigh all your options carefully before making that decision.

The Independent Investor: Unhappily Ever After

By Bill SchmickiBerkshires Columnist
02:44PM / Friday June 13, 2014

Over the next decade roughly 75 million Americans will retire. While most of us are well-aware of the need to plan, save and invest for that momentous moment, very few of us are actually prepared for the non-financial challenges of retirement itself.

Recently, as a result of one local company’s early retirement incentive plan, as well as the bankruptcy of a local hospital, I have had some firsthand experience in dealing with the expectations of retiring clients in this area. What I have found is that the majority of men are ill-prepared for retirement, more so than women. At the same time, their spouses are extremely worried — with good reason.

Studies show that men have a much harder time adjusting to retirement than do women and are far more naive in understanding what retirement does to one’s quality of life. Those who retire unexpectedly due to sickness, job loss, those who have become accustomed to working long hours or who bring their work home with them have the most difficulty in retirement.

It seems that most men tend to define themselves and their self-worth on the basis of their careers and the money they make. After 30 or 40 years of polishing their identities as providers, senior workers and/or producers, they find themselves at a loss when that ends. Many men are suddenly faced with an identity crisis they have not confronted since they were teenagers. The more of a workaholic they are, the less likely they will have developed other outside interests that could help define and transition them to a new identity and role.

Women, on the other hand, are much more likely to have several roles — worker, mother-caregiver, community activists, etc. — throughout their life, all of which aid in a transition to retirement. Women are much more likely to have had their working careers interrupted by child-rearing or by taking care of elderly parents than men.

I know my own wife, Barbara, the COO of our company, also maintains a successful career as a photographer, has a large network of friends and acquaintances and is a member of several community organizations and social groups. In general, I believe women tend to be more engaged with others and more connected to their communities in terms of social support and networking. Retirement, to them, may be just another change in a life that is full of changes.

Seventy-five percent of workers believed that their quality of life would improve once they retired, but only 40 percent of retirees found that it actually did. So if you are planning to retire, forget about your dreams of being perfectly happy walking on the beach every day or playing golf or minding the grandkids. None of that is guaranteed to fulfill you, or even hold your interest beyond the first couple of months. There is no free lunch in retirement.

The only sure thing in retirement is that at some point you will die. Your problems do not disappear, they just change in nature and many times, your problems actually grow in size and importance (since you have little to distract you). Sure, you may live longer by retiring from a stressful job that was either physically or mentally taxing, but that doesn’t mean you will live healthier. Your chances of becoming addicted to alcohol, narcotics or prescription pills actually increase.

Finally, the most important truth of all is that you will never be able to save enough money to retire happily ever after because money and happiness have nothing to do with each other. In my next column, I will give you some pointers on how to become one of those 40% of retirees who actually enjoy retired life. I’ll leave you with a big hint — it starts with your spouse.

Bill Schmick is registered as an investment adviser representative with Berkshire Money Management. Bill’s forecasts and opinions are purely his own. None of the information presented here should be construed as an endorsement of BMM or a solicitation to become a client of BMM. Direct inquires to Bill at 1-888-232-6072 (toll free) or email him at Bill@afewdollarsmore.com.

Page 53 of 90

...

The Independent Investor: Why Some Corporations Are Leaving America

The Independent Investor: How Much Is Too Much to Spend in Retirement?

The Independent Investor: The Fed Turns Off the Spigot

The Independent Investor: Should You Pay Off Mortgage Before Retiring?

The Independent Investor: Unhappily Ever After

Support Local News

How important is local news to you? You can support independent, unbiased journalism and help iBerkshires grow for as a little as the cost of a cup of coffee a week.