Market Watch: Another Week of Uncertainty Looms

August 11, 2014

Monday, August 11

While Friday was seen as a victory for Wall Street, the higher close highlighted the day-to-day volatility of the market.

Despite the widespread reports of an ongoing bull market, Friday’s rally was needed to push the Dow Jones average just barely into the black for 2014. Overall, the Dow is down almost 600 points since attaining its all-time high less than one month ago.

The geopolitical scene is no more predictable, as a second round of air strikes against Iraqi insurgents occurred after the close of business Friday. A frank proclamation from President Obama followed, warning there would be ‘no quick fix’ to the crisis.

At the same time, Israel and Palestine agreed Sunday to a 72-hour cease fire. The situation in Ukraine cooled considerably, with division among rebels allowing Ukrainian forces to retake key points.

Retail data will impact market direction this week, as Macy’s and Wal-Mart deliver second-quarter earnings reports. Experts believe these reports may give us some gauge on how consumers are reacting to global tensions.

Friday Closing Bell

Dow Jones Industrial Average: 16553.93

S&P 500: 1931.59

NASDAQ: 4370.90

Economic Watch: Monday figures to be a quiet day in terms of data. The release of information begins to pick up Tuesday with the monthly budget, followed by several earnings reports Wednesday and Thursday.

Bank of America Agrees to Record-Breaking Settlement

August 8, 2014

We’re only a week into August, but it’s already a month that will go down in infamy at Bank of America.

The firm agreed temporarily this week to a record-setting $16-17 billion settlement over mortgage misconduct in the build-up to the 2008 financial crisis. This projected settlement comes on the heels of last week’s $1.3 billion deal to resolve some 17,000 bad mortgages handed out by the bank’s Countrywide Financial arm in an operation known as ‘The Hustle’.

Bank of America has agreed to pay a total of $9 billion in restitution, split between the federal government and certain state governments. This portion of the settlement is designed to provide consumer relief in the form of reduced mortgage rates for affected homeowners. The additional $7-8 billion dollars would be paid via so-called “soft dollar” relief. “Soft dollar” relief refers to the practice of paying fines via commission revenue, as opposed to normal, direct payment, which would be known as “hard dollars.” This arrangement opens up the possibility that once again, it will be clients and taxpayers helping to foot the bill for the institution’s wrongdoing.

If the deal is ratified, it would become the most expensive single settlement in the history of corporate America. The current benchmark occurred at the end of 2013, when J.P. Morgan Chase struck a $13 billion agreement with the federal government over similar issues pertaining to the sale of inferior mortgages.

Market Watch: Geopolitical Tensions Raise Fears

Robert Senior

August 8, 2014

Friday, August 8th

As tensions rise in the Middle East and continue in Ukraine, Wall Street responded with drops across the board Thursday. Friday’s outlook is even bleaker.

Following a report that Russian troops had mobilized along the Ukrainian border, stock prices began dropping Wednesday and continued their downward momentum Thursday. Even the most optimistic jobs report in years wasn’t enough to stem the tide.

Thursday Closing Bell

Dow Jones Industrial Average: 16368.27 (-0.46%)

S&P 500: 1909.57 (-0.56%)

NASDAQ: 4334.97 (-0.46%)

Early reports Friday saw stock futures considerably weaker with worldwide markets in the red across the board. Increasing threats from Iraqi extremists against minority groups in that nation contributed to this trend.

Economy Watch: A few key companies will issue second-quarter earnings before the opening bell today. The Bureau for Labor Statistics will release its worker productivity figures this morning.

Report Casts Doubts on Future of Social Security

Phil Cannella

August 4, 2014

Social Security benefits are a considerable portion of any retiree’s budget. That’s why this week’s news from The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College was disconcerting—if not unexpected.

A study entitled Social Security’s Financial Outlook: The 2014 Update in Perspective was released in an August newsletter by Alicia Munnell, Director of the Center for Retirement Research. Among other findings, the program’s 75-year deficit rose to 2.88% of taxable payroll. In plain terms, this means that in order to continue issuing the current level of benefits for the next 75 years to all retirees, payroll taxes must immediately increase by 2.88%.

As unlikely a solution as that may be, the real issue is that it would only solve the problem statistically. As the ratio of retirees to workers continues to rise, the Social Security program is forced to draw from the interest on its trust fund assets to cover benefits. By the year 2020, taxes plus interest will fall short of the required payments, forcing the program to draw from the trust fund itself. Add it all up and at this sustained pace, the trust fund will be completely exhausted by the year 2033.

Luckily, even the exhaustion of the trust fund won’t mean an end to Social Security. Payroll taxes will continue to accumulate, covering about 75% of current benefits. Unfortunately, that does leave 25% uncovered, meaning that benefits as a portion of pre-retirement earnings—known as the replacement rate—will drop from 36% to 27%. That’s the lowest level since the 1950s.

The cost of continuing to keep the program solvent will only continue to rise. The required taxable payroll has grown almost a full percentage point since 1994 (from 2% to almost 3%) and in another 20 years—with baby boomers retired and the trust fund depleted—it will rise another point to almost 4%. And that assumes that life expectancy stays the same over that period.

“The shortfall is manageable,” wrote Dr. Munnell. “But with the deficit rising to about 4 percent in two decades, action should be taken soon to avoid larger tax/benefit changes later.”

In all, the report just reinforces what we’ve known for some time—Social Security is facing a long-term shortfall if we don’t take action—and soon. The actions that are available are in line with the approaches to similar programs, but will the workforce stay strong enough to sustain the program?

Current retirees have few worries when it comes to their own plans. But for their children and grandchildren, the picture is bleaker. Subsequent generations won’t be able to rely on Social Security benefits in retirement—certainly not to the same extent as Baby Boomers. In light of this report, retirees might consider setting aside a portion of savings—leaving a legacy—for family members who may bear the brunt of Social Security’s downfall.

The Secret Fees Hidden Within Mutual Funds

Phil Cannella

July 17, 2014

One of the cardinal rules mutual fund investors follow is the avoidance of ‘load’ fees—essentially, the sales charge associated with joining a fund. Unfortunately, that leads these investors into perhaps a bigger mistake.

That’s because they’re overlooking two more fees funds assess. One is covered in the prospectus, but the other fee is one that is rarely discussed and even less frequently disclosed. In fact, you could call it a ‘hidden’ fee.

The first fee is the annual expense ratio, which pays everything from the fund manager’s salary to the electric bill at the home office. The average expense ratio is about 1.5% a year—and rising.

While the charge is debited on a daily basis, you’ll never see it appear on your monthly statement. You’ll have to go into the fund prospectus to find the appropriate disclosure.

Even if you can live with that fee—after all, the people who work for the fund need to make money too—the second hidden fee is one most financial advisors won’t discuss. But don’t blame them… many don’t even realize the fee exists!

Trading expenses are the dirty little secret of the mutual fund industry. They won’t be discussed in face-to-face meetings; they won’t be disclosed in the prospectus. To learn about these fees, you’ll need to access the fund’s Statement of Additional Information—a document that makes the prospectus look like a Dr. Seuss book.

Pour over this challenging read long enough and you’ll finally come to a section on these fees that average 1.44 % annually—almost an identical fee to the expense ratio. But again, don’t expect anyone to just hand this information over. Fund companies and brokerage firms are NOT required to share it with you.

So if these fees take about 3 percent of your annual gains, they must be essential to running a successful fund. Right?

Consider this: Morningstar is an independent investment research company that made its reputation—and plenty of money—largely off of its system of star ratings for mutual funds. Much like hotels, movies and other entities, Morningstar awards star ratings based on the overall quality of the product. The more stars a fund receives, the better the investment.

But a few years ago, Morningstar released a study that stated expense ratios were a better assessment tool than star ratings.

Let’s repeat that—the company that popularized star ratings for mutual funds released a study that said you’d have more success by simply choosing a fund with lower fees than you would by following those ratings.

“In every single time period and data point tested, low-cost funds beat high-cost funds,” read the study.

Try finding a fund advisor who can give you data that reliable!

4 Years Later: What Happened To The Dodd-Frank Act?

Phil Cannella

July 17, 2014

In the summer of 2010, almost two years removed from one of the biggest financial disasters the United States has ever seen, there was reason to believe there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Best of all, it seemed the lessons we learned after the crash of 2008-2009 were not going unheeded.

Perhaps the best evidence of this was the signing of the Dodd-Frank Act by President Obama on July 21, 2010. Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Barney Frank (D-MA) spearheaded a proposal that President Obama described as a “sweeping overhaul of the United States financial regulatory system, a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the Great Depression.”

Among the Act’s almost 100 provisions, was the authority given to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to write a regulation requiring financial advisors to act in the best interest of their clients at all times—otherwise known as ‘fiduciary responsibility.’

A fiduciary responsibility is ‘a legal duty to act solely in another party’s interests.’ Fiduciaries may not profit from their relationship with their principals unless they have the principal’s express informed consent. They also have a duty to avoid any conflicts of interest between themselves and their principals or between their principals and the fiduciaries’ other clients. A fiduciary duty is the strictest duty of care recognized by the United States legal system.

Fast-forward four years, and many experts are warning of another impending financial crisis. But at least this time investors will be protected by the fiduciary responsibility of their brokers, right?

Not so fast. See, not long after the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law—and further expanded to cover clients with retirement plans by the Department of Labor (DOL)—the lobbyists and the financial industry itself became involved, concerned that such a responsibility could cut into profits and commissions. You can guess what followed.

So here we stand at the four-year anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Act, no closer to fiduciary responsibility in the markets.

At least the Department of Labor keeps us apprised of their progress, slow as it may be. In May, the DOL announced they’d be delaying the re-proposal of their rule relating to IRAs until January 2015. The SEC, for their part, is still deciding whether they’ll pursue the regulation at all.

Barbara Roper, Director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America, is staunchly in favor of imposing fiduciary duty on financial advisors. To Ms. Roper, it’s a question of loyalty—advisors present themselves as a representative of the client when their obligation is to their firm. Such a regulation, she argues, would allow investors to enter any arrangement with their eyes wide open.

“It’s about distinguishing advice from a sales pitch,” she summarized.

At the same time, Ms. Roper makes these remarks with her own eyes open, pointing out that decision-making hasn’t been the strength of the SEC to this point.

“If it’s this hard to make a decision on whether to engage in rule making,” she reasoned, “how hard will it be to reach a consensus on a final rule?”

Calm Before the Storm: Earnings Season Set To Begin

Phil Cannella

July 8, 2014

The news cycle has been quite complimentary towards the lack of stock market volatility recently. But that could be set to end as soon as this afternoon.

After the closing bell, second-quarter earnings season kicks off with the release of data from Alcoa, a top aluminum producer and traditionally the first major company to disclose its figures in a given quarter.

The Alcoa release will signal the start to a period of time—several weeks, traditionally—in which companies reveal their second-quarter prowess to stockholders and other investors. There are four earnings seasons each year, typically occurring 1-2 weeks after the close of each quarter. While earnings season has no official end date, it is generally considered to be concluded once most major companies have released earnings.

So if earnings season reports happen several times annually, why is today so significant? The current bull market has been marked by consistency—a sustained, strong climb to all-time highs in the market. Today, experts are using terms like ‘corresponding violent reaction’ and ‘bombarded with information.’

Some of the reports are bound to be positive, while others may dampen moods on Wall Street. Whatever the results, expect to see some sudden jolts in prices in the coming weeks as analysts discuss whether earnings met, exceeded or fell short of their expectations. Shares of companies regularly jump—or fall—by 20% or more during earnings season.

So whether the news this afternoon and in the coming days is good or bad, it’s time to say goodbye to the quiet summer days on the market.

U.S. Economy vs. Stock Market

Phil Cannella

June 26, 2014

Most websites on investing and financial planning can’t wait to tell you about two things—the record highs of the Dow Jones Industrial Average or S&P 500, and the impressive levels of growth expected in our nation’s economy in the coming months.

So why did the United States’ GDP drop in the first quarter of this year?

Why are consumer confidence ratings continuing to suffer?

Why do worrisome issues such as the underwater housing market and a slower-than expected rebound of the unemployment rate continue to dominate the nightly news?

The truth is that a robust stock market can be attributed to any number of factors—some of which provide a false sense of security to investors who may be setting themselves up for failure.

The current heights in the stock market are largely due to investors’ willingness to pay more for identical returns. One late 2013 report stated that investors, on average, paid 30 percent more last year than they did in 2012. Earnings, to say the least, did not justify that jump in prices. At the time, analysts argued that this was fair due to a 10 percent growth expectation in 2014. However, we’re now at the halfway point of 2014 and indications are no longer strong.

After lofty economic predictions for the year 2014, analysts quickly backtracked, predicting a 0.6 percent drop in GDP for the first quarter. They claimed that the decrease was due to a harsh winter, with well-above average snowfall hampering production in areas of the country typically unaffected by such weather patterns.

But even taking the weather into account, these same analysts must have been blindsided by the reality of a full 1 percent drop in GDP—a significantly worse outcome than their revised predictions.

Even more recently, the month of May saw a drop in consumer confidence. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan index tagged confidence at 81.9—down from 84.1 just one month earlier in April.

The main reason for the drop was the pessimism respondents expressed in regard to future potential for wage increases. May’s survey indicated that after taking inflation into account, nearly half of all households surveyed anticipated a drop in income (after adjusting for inflation, which consumers now believe will occur at a higher rate than initially expected) and a decline in living standards in the year ahead.

When attempting to predict the market’s behavior, measures such as consumer behavior can be stronger indicators than past GDP numbers or forecasts originally issued almost a year ago.

But a lot of brokers and economists would prefer to play the numbers game, trying to convince potential investors that the stock market’s future will be strong, based on outdated GDP data and pure conjecture without factoring in the realities and mistrust still facing the average consumer.

So who do we trust? Growing stock numbers constructed around reports and educated guesses, or what we see around us every day—people still struggling more than five years post-crash?

Crisis In Iraq: Should We Worry About The U.S. Economy?

Phil Cannella

June 24, 2014

Even with troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the unrest in the Middle East continues to affect the United States’ economy on an almost-daily basis.

Last week, markets opened lower on Monday morning due chiefly to concerns over escalating tensions in Iraq, where Sunni insurgents began campaigns to overtake regions of the country.

Oil prices were the first indication, as various banks are calling Iraqi unrest the greatest threat to production and supply this decade. What’s more, traders have failed to recognize the threat posed by increasing violence in the region, according to experts.

“Brent crude was projected by Wall Street analysts to average as much as $116 a barrel by the end of the year,” wrote Mark Shenk of Bloomberg.

But earlier this month, the number rose above $114 a barrel—and the year isn’t yet halfway over. How far prices may climb with continued insurgent advances is anybody’s guess.

As we all know, when the price of oil rises or falls, the price of gasoline moves accordingly. But think about the impact on other commodities: the price of food and other goods rises, as transportation is affected. Jobs are lost, leading to governments paying more unemployment benefits or even extending stimulus packages. Salaries, pensions, social security benefits—these don’t rise to combat higher oil prices.

What’s more, savvy consumers recognize these changes and tend to be more conservative with purchases. This means fewer vacations, fewer trips to restaurants, and less money spent on entertainment. This “bare bones” lifestyle can lead to further job losses in related industries—triggering the domino effect that can lead a vulnerable economy into a full-blown recession. In fact, out of 11 post-World War II time periods categorized as recessions, ten corresponded with a spike in oil prices.

Nations with new governmental structures like Iraq’s face uprisings on a regular basis. This begs the question: How serious is the current threat? What is the likelihood that this disturbance will last long enough to create the economic disturbances mentioned?

Thus far, insurgent forces have seized a couple of key locations north of Baghdad—a relief to some, as the majority of oil-producing interests are in the south and east of the nation. But how confident can investors feel, with an Al-Qaeda splinter group within miles of the Iraqi capital—and advancing every day?

Perhaps the strongest indications of the seriousness of the situation are the reactions of our nation’s leaders. Just last week, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested the possibility of working with Iran to quell the continued uprisings in Iraq. Contradictory statements—including denials from a Pentagon spokesperson—followed, but Kerry’s comments make it clear that such an unforeseen alliance is an option.

Can you picture a situation so unpredictable and volatile that the United States is willing—and perhaps openly pursuing—the idea of working hand-in-hand with a nation that is the very symbol of unrest and uncertainty in the Middle East? Such a scenario is possibly the best example of the unpredictability of world politics and the effect that they have on our nation’s economy.

So while experts are calling a complete cessation of crude oil production in Iraq “highly unlikely”, ask yourself this question: What words do you think these same experts would have used to describe the prospects of the United States joining forces with Iran?

Fiduciary Responsibility on Wall Street? Maybe Later

Phil Cannella

May 30, 2014

The Department of Labor is once again forced to delay the passing of new legislation that would impose a fiduciary standard on advisors working with the retirement assets of millions of Americans.

The rule, which seeks to raise the standards of practice for investment advisors, was first introduced in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis. However, the rule was withdrawn shortly after introduction, due to fierce backlash from lobbyists and interest groups working for Wall Street.

Citing reasons such as loss of commissions for investment advisors, these interest groups and lobbyists have once again successfully prevented regulators from creating a rule that will force investment advisors to act in the best interest of their clients.

The agency moved the re-proposal of this regulation from August to January of next year. It is expected that the delay will allow lobbyists and interest groups to further their fight against the existence of a fiduciary duty on investment advisors.

The abstract of the rule as published by The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs reads, “This rulemaking would reduce harmful conflicts of interest by amending the regulatory definition of the term “fiduciary” to more broadly define as fiduciaries, employee benefits plans, and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) those persons who render investment advice to plans and IRAs for a fee…The amendment would take into account current practices of investment advisers, and the expectations of plan officials and participants, and IRA owners who receive investment advice, as well as changes that have occurred in the investment marketplace, and in the ways advisers are compensated that frequently subject advisers to harmful conflicts of interest.”

Essentially this rule would clearly define investment advisors as fiduciaries. Under this new title, investment advisors would be subject to regulations designed to prevent them from using corrupt practices or managing client assets with self-interests, such as high commission investment products.

Many experts have concluded that the lack of regulation over Wall Street was a main contributing factor that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Advocates of the rule insist that it is a necessary reform that is severely needed on Wall Street.

The story surrounding this fiduciary duty rule shares a lot of similarities with that of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was an Act that contained more than 90 provisions of current legislation designed to bring more regulation over Wall Street. The Dodd-Frank Act is all but forgotten by main street America and its original purpose has been diluted by countless revisions and adjustments made to the Act since its proposal.

Despite the attempts by the Dodd-Frank Act to break down the “too-big-to-fail banks,” the six largest banks in America are now 38 percent larger than they were at their peak just before the financial crisis in 2008.

The question that is now being asked by advocates of further regulation over Wall Street; is Wall Street too powerful to regulate?