Thursday, October 27, 2011

The Single Formula for Wealth

By J.D. Roth, Forbes Magazine
Link
The basics of personal finance never change. They haven’t changed in thousands of years, and they’re not going to change for thousands more. Fundamentally, all you need to know about managing your money is this: Spend less than you earn.

That’s it. If you spend less than you earn, you’ll do fine. Everything else is details. Those details are important, I know, but most of them are common sense and widely known.

The basics of personal finance

Smart personal finance can be reduced to one simple equation:

[WEALTH] = [WHAT YOU EARN] – [WHAT YOU SPEND]

If you spend more than you earn, you have a negative cash flow. You’re losing wealth and in danger of going into debt. (Or, if you’re already in debt, you’re digging the hole deeper.) If you spend less than you earn, you have a positive cash flow, which will let you climb out of debt and build wealth.

So, basic personal finance comprises three essential skills:

  • Earning — Your ability to bring in money. This skill requires resourcefulness and a willingness to work.
  • Spending — Your ability to live frugally and spend wisely. This skill generally requires sacrifice and the ability to prioritize.
  • Investing — Your ability to produce a surplus and to make that surplus grow. This skill takes patience and research.

Spend less than you earn — invest the difference. That’s all you need to know. The rest is developing the mindset and skills to make these things happen.

The basics are the basics for a reason. And until everyone grasps the concept, the fundamental formula of personal finance needs to be trumpeted from the rooftops: To build wealth, you have to spend less than you earn. It’s not new. It’s not unique. It’s simply the truth.

Estate-Planning Musts for New Parents

The most important thing is to be sure that you have a will. This is not only to transfer assets but to appoint a guardian for your child if for some reason the child is orphaned. People don't realize that a will is the only document they can use to do this, and if they don't, then the whole matter has to go to court.

And, by the way, not being able to agree on a guardian is a major stumbling block for young parents--even those who are fairly diligent about wanting to do their will.

If the spouses for whatever reason happen to pass away at the same time then a court would need to decide, but at least you have named guardians out there and available rather than having the court start from scratch.

It's also wise to let your guardians know that you are appointing them as guardians and make sure that they are comfortable with that assignment. People should choose them carefully. If your college roommate has a wild and woolly social life, this is not the person to chose. So, you need to think in terms of, is this someone who could stand in your shoes as a parent. They are never going to do as good a job as you did, but you do need to consider their suitability.

It is also advisable to create a trust for the money that you leave the child under these circumstances, and put someone in charge of that trust who is not the same person who you make the guardian.

Many people think that trusts are only for the wealthy, but much less affluent people ought to think in terms of a trust, so that if you pass away, the money that you leave to raise your child is in safe keeping.

When you make the guardian of the child the same person as the guardian of the money, you do build in certain conflicts of interests, and you don't get the kind of checks and balances you would get if you name different people for different functions.

Excerpted from Morningstar


Monday, October 24, 2011

Invest In Real Estate With $1,000 (Or Less)

Since the housing market peak in 2005, investing in real estate has been fraught with peril, to say the least. The commercial and residential real estate industries have struggled since, but as any contrarian will tell you, market downturns can offer appealing opportunities to pick up investments on the cheap.

The good thing for smaller or individual investors is that there is no need to buy individual properties. A number of alternatives exist that offer more liquid and diversified investment options. In other words, don't worry about having to take out a $250,000 loan or whether your credit score is high enough to garner a favorable interest rate. Here are some options to get you started in real estate for a fraction of what it would cost to buy an actual property.

Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)
A real estate investment trust (REIT) represents one of the easiest ways for individual investors to gain exposure to real estate assets. A REIT is simply a security that invests in a basket of real estate assets or related securities such as mortgages or mortgage-backed securities.

There is a dizzying array of REIT investment out there for investors to choose from. For instance, certain REITs specialize in commercial real estate, multi-family communities (apartment complexes), shopping malls, or even amusement parks.

Another important consideration with REITs is that they must pay out 90% of their taxable profits as distributions. This allows them to avoid corporate income taxes and also means that investors tend to rely on REITs for what can be a generous yield.

It is also worth pointing out that since these firms must pay out most of their income to shareholders and need to invest in expensive real estate, they can have significant debt on the balance sheet. This is generally not a concern in normal economic conditions and revenue from rent received on their properties usually far exceeds debt-servicing costs, but it does mean that they can be hit during downturns in the economy. As with most industries, leverage is a double-edged sword.

Real Estate Funds
Investing in REITs may be especially appealing for stock pickers and those interested in bottom-up security selection. Others may find real estate funds more suitable. For starters, they are more diversified and lessen the likelihood that an individual firm will torpedo overall returns. They can also allow for more broad exposure across geographies, such as across the U.S. or even internationally, and can also spread bets across property types, be it commercial, residential or by industry.

Additionally, more traditional bond funds can also invest exclusively in real estate assets. Some funds invest primarily in mortgages backed by the Government National Mortgage Association, which is also known as Ginnie Mae.

Private Equity
By definition, private equity (PE) is equity capital that does not trade on a public exchange. In essence, companies can either be public or private, but they are still companies that have operations and earn returns for shareholders.

Private equity investors generally specialize in managing pools of private companies. The line between the public and private realm is somewhat blurred as PE firms frequently buy public companies at a hefty premium and take them private. As with REITs, this can involve significant amounts of debt and needs to be taken into consideration when investing in the space.

Investing in a true PE fund is usually reserved for wealthy individuals and large institutions that are supposedly more sophisticated investors and have the ability to handle what is a very illiquid asset class. However, in recent years a number of PE firms have gone public, which means that retail investors can gain exposure to the space with very low investment amounts.

Bottom Line
As with any investment, further due diligence is needed to determine if it meets your individual circumstances or if the investment is a decent value at current prices. You may also find better individual options in the general categories above. The overall takeaway is that there are many liquid, straightforward ways to play the real estate markets these days. Finally, down markets mean there are many potential deals out there, and real estate is generally a solid investment option during periods of high inflation.

5 Things You Didn't Know About Life Insurance

Everyone knows what a life insurance policy is - it's an insurance contract in which an insurance company promises to pay out a monetary benefit to policy beneficiaries after the insured passes away, as long as premium payments are paid consistently and no misrepresentations are made on the application. Based on that definition, you can tell that life insurance is a pretty straight-forward policy, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a sophisticated financial planning instrument.

There may be some things that you don't know about life insurance that could help to fortify your financial plan against certain risks and give you access to additional cash when you need it.

Cash Value Loans
If you have a permanent life insurance policy and you need money for almost anything - paying taxes, supplementing retirement or college savings, funding a medical treatment or paying for a dream vacation, you can take a loan out of your life insurance policy's cash values in order to satisfy that need. Cash value loans are tax free, since they aren't considered gains but loans that you need to pay back, and interest is paid back to your policy rather than a lender. Just remember that if you don't pay back the loans before the death benefit is paid out, it will reduce the proceeds that your heirs receive.

Accelerated Benefit Rider
If you should be diagnosed with a terminal illness, you can access a percentage of the death benefits of your policy before you pass away if you have the Accelerated Benefit (sometimes called the Terminal Illness) rider. This can help defray some medical expenses and living expenses when you are no longer able to work, and can help you and your family stay comfortable financially during this difficult time. It is important to note that using this rider will greatly decrease the death benefit your heirs receive since it is accelerating a portion of the benefit to be received prior to the insured's death.

Decreasing Premiums/ Death Benefits
Term insurance policies offer a death benefit for a limited period of time. They are often used to cover temporary, large debts like mortgages because the term of the policy's benefit can be chosen for the number of years that the debt will be outstanding. But term policies are even more flexible than that. You can design yours so that the death benefit decreases over the years, much as your mortgage balance will, or you can design it to have decreasing premiums.

Variable Subaccounts
When you invest in a variable life insurance policy, there are subaccounts that you can pick from to invest your cash values in. These subaccounts are created from underlying investments like stocks, bonds and money markets. They can vary in risk, volatility, and growth depending on how the underlying assets perform. If you become unhappy with the performance of one of your subaccounts and you wish to make adjustments, you can. Additionally, you can allocate a percentage of your cash values to multiple subaccounts.

Probate-free Death Benefit
Unless your assets are in a trust, your estate will need to go through probate after your death. Even if you have a will and no one who can contest it, your heirs will be forced to wait until after probate to receive your estate. Life insurance proceeds, however, do not need to go through probate unless the estate is named as the beneficiary.

The Bottom Line
Your life insurance policy can be as simple as you want it to be, or it can be a complex product designed to complement your overall financial plan and hedge against losses, terminal illness expenses and probate. It's up to you to design a policy that works the way you need it to, either as a simple death benefit or a sophisticated planning tool.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Dividends: A Baby Boomer’s Best Friend?

By Neil McCarthy and Emanuele Bergagnini

The yield on a 10-year U.S. Treasury note is close to 2%, the interest rate on many CDs is below 1% and inflation is running above 3%. What is an income-seeking investor to do? The current environment appears to favor equities with a track record of paying and growing dividends. What’s more, dividend-paying stocks look even more attractive given the lack of income-generating alternatives in a low rate world and currently attractive equity valuations. In today’s rapidly changing retirement landscape, we believe that investors in search of income—most notably Baby Boomers—may find dividend-paying equities to be a suitable option.

Why dividends are more important

The latest data point to tepid U.S. economic growth for at least the remainder of the year. While we still don’t expect a double-dip recession, near-term demand will continue to be constrained by weak job growth, a depressed housing market and consumer deleveraging. We also believe massive U.S. budget deficits and a growing probability of tax increases, as well as increased regulation of the market and economy, have the potential to hinder growth prospects over the medium to long term. The Federal Reserve has responded to ongoing economic weakness by stating that it will not raise its Fed funds rate well into 2013 and implementing “Operation Twist”—an effort to lower longer term interest rates, in part to drive capital out of U.S. Treasuries and into riskier assets.

We believe investing in stocks that pay dividends, particularly those with consistently growing dividends, is a potentially attractive income-generating option. More than 80 stocks in the S&P 500 Index offer a dividend yield at or above the 3.5% annual rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index in August. In comparison, 10-year U.S. Treasuries offer a yield a little over 2%. Since companies may be able to pass along higher costs to customers, there is the potential for them to keep growing while paying dividends.

A smarter source of retirement income?

As millions of Baby Boomers enter retirement, we expect demand for income-paying securities to grow. In the past, retirement income needs drew on three main sources for funding: defined benefit pension plans, Social Security and savings. Today, fewer investors can count on pensions as a reliable source of retirement income, and uncertainty surrounds the long-term future of Social Security. As a result, more investors will likely need to rely on their personal savings and investments to help pay for retirement.

Bonds have been and will continue to be a retirement portfolio mainstay. However, we believe today’s low rate world makes dividends look increasingly appealing as a source of income. First, investors may risk a loss of purchasing power, since U.S. Treasuries are currently lagging inflation. Second, yields can scarcely fall any lower, potentially exposing investors in longer maturity bonds to capital losses, when and if yields eventually rise.

Conversely, U.S. companies today collectively hold a record level of cash on their balance sheets and are generating high levels of free cash flow. Companies clearly have the means and the motive to pay dividends since returns on cash are currently so low. In addition, if and when interest rates rise, it will likely occur as a result of improving economic fundamentals, which may support stock price appreciation. However, there is no guarantee that the issuers of the stocks held by mutual funds will declare dividends in the future or that, if dividends are declared, they will remain at their current levels or increase over time.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

2012 Retirement Plan Contributions

Starting in 2012, retirement savers can put a little more into their nest eggs. The contribution limit for 401(k), 403(b) and most 457 plans, along with the federal government's Thrift Savings Plan, increases to $17,000 from $16,500. (You can add $5,500 more if you are 50 or older.)

The deduction for taxpayers making contributions to a traditional individual retirement account is phased out for single filers covered by a workplace retirement plan if they have modified adjusted gross incomes between $58,000 and $68,000, up from $56,000 and $66,000.

For married couples filing jointly in which the spouse making the IRA contribution is covered by a workplace retirement plan, the new income phase-out range will be $92,000 to $112,000, also up $2,000.

For an IRA contributor who isn't covered by a workplace retirement plan but is married to someone who is covered, the deduction will be phased out between $173,000 and $183,000, up $4,000.

The income-phase-out ranges are higher for Roth IRA contributions as well. The income limits also are going up for low- and moderate-income workers seeking the retirement saver's credit.

Friday, October 21, 2011

How Dollar-Cost Averaging Can Smooth Your Returns


By David Kathman, CFA, Morningstar

Even though U.S. stocks have made some impressive headway in recent weeks and have certainly rebounded significantly from the lows they hit in March 2009, many investors are still feeling scarred from the past decade's volatility. Some investors have retreated to bonds or left large sums of money sitting fallow in cash; others have ventured into gold as a means of diversifying away from core equity and bond investments.

If you've stayed invested in the stock market, either directly or through mutual funds, it's natural to be looking for ways to smooth out your portfolio's returns going forward. And if you've retreated to the sidelines, you may be wondering if now is a good time to get back in. One way for both sets of investors to achieve peace of mind is through dollar-cost averaging, a simple, time-tested method for controlling risk over time.

How It Works
The basic idea behind dollar-cost averaging is straightforward; the term simply refers to investing money in equal amounts at regular intervals. One way to do this is with a lump sum that you'd prefer to invest gradually--for example, by taking $1,000 and investing $100 each month for 10 months. Or you can dollar-cost average on an open-ended basis by investing, say, $100 out of your paycheck every month. The latter is the most common method; in fact, if you have a 401(k) or similar defined-contribution retirement plan, you've probably already been dollar-cost averaging in this way.

One reason dollar-cost averaging is so attractive is that it forces you to invest no matter what the market is doing, thus helping to avoid the poor decisions most people make when trying to time the market. When the stock market is going down, lots of people become fearful and reluctant to put money into stocks. That may help avoid some losses in the short term, but when markets eventually start going back up, someone who has avoided stocks will lose out on the gains. Those who invest a fixed dollar amount every month, on the other hand, will be in a much better position to benefit when the market bounces back, and meanwhile they'll often be buying stocks at bargain prices.

In a bull market, the opposite is true: dollar-cost averaging prevents you from getting carried away and putting too much money in stocks that may be too expensive and poised for a fall. In the raging bull market of the late 1990s, lots of otherwise rational people were swept up in the mania and loaded up on stocks trading at exorbitant prices; when the market crashed, many of those investors got badly burned. Investors who dollar-cost averaged into a stock portfolio missed out on some of the upside at the height of the bubble, but they were generally in much better shape when the market went south.

Why It's a Good Idea
As these examples show, dollar-cost averaging can help investors limit losses, while also instilling a sense of investment discipline and ensuring that you're buying shares at ever-lower prices in down markets. Numerous studies have confirmed that it also results in better returns than strategies that involve moving in and out of the market.

For example, a Fidelity study looked at how several different strategies would have performed from January 2000 to January 2004, a period that included the dotcom bust and the start of the subsequent recovery. The study found that the best results came from steadily investing $500 every month into an S&P 500 stock portfolio. This dollar-cost averaging strategy even outperformed a "bear-market dodger" strategy that started putting all its new money into cash in April 2000, at the height of the market bubble. Strategies that shifted into cash after the market had declined 20% (bear-market refugee) or at the market bottom (doomsday capitulator) did even worse.

Certainly it's possible in retrospect to identify plenty of times over the past few years, such as the summer of 2008, when you would have been better off moving temporarily into cash. Such times are only obvious in retrospect, though. Somebody who moved into cash in early March of 2009, when market sentiment was arguably worse than summer 2008, would have missed the strong recovery that ensued.

The point of dollar-cost averaging is that it's impossible to predict the market's ups and downs accurately, and most investors who try to do so end up hurting their returns.

How to Do It
If you decide that dollar-cost averaging is a good idea, there are a number of ways to implement such a plan. If you're really disciplined, you can set one up on your own, figuring out how much you want to invest and then sending in a check each month. However, most people find it easier to stick to a dollar-cost averaging plan that's set up to work automatically. As noted above, most 401(k)'s and similar retirement plans, such as 403(b)s, involve a form of dollar-cost averaging, as they take a fixed percentage of your paycheck and invest it in a prearranged group of funds or other investments. It's best not to mess around too much with the percentage you contribute to your 401(k). The advantages of dollar-cost averaging will be diluted or lost if you change this percentage in response to market conditions, for example, by cutting back your contribution when the market is going down.

Many mutual funds also have automatic investment plans that allow you to invest a fixed amount automatically every month. In many cases, the minimum initial investment needed to get into these funds is much lower if you set up an automatic investment plan; this makes such plans especially attractive for kids or recent college graduates who want to invest but don't have a lot of money up front.


Avoid These Four Investment Mistakes

By Morningstar

Whether it's the Dutch tulip craze of the 17th century, the dot-com mania of the late 1990s, or the rush into real estate of the early to mid-2000s, there's no shortage of examples of investors behaving irrationally.

In the world of traditional economists and finance professors, though, that's not supposed to happen. If investors are rational decision-makers, then emotion-driven bubbles shouldn't be possible. Yet human weaknesses can limit our ability to think clearly. Many studies of investor behavior have shown that investors are too willing to extrapolate recent trends far into the future, too confident in their abilities, and too quick (or not quick enough) to react to new information. These tendencies often lead investors to make decisions that run counter to their own best interests.

The idea that investor psychology can result in poor investment decisions is a key insight of an increasingly influential field of study called behavioral finance. Behavioral-finance theorists blend finance and psychology to identify deep-seated human traits that get in the way of investment success. Behavioral finance isn't just an interesting academic diversion, however. Its findings can help you identify--and correct--behaviors that cost you money.

What commonplace mistakes should investors avoid? Here are a few key behavioral-finance lessons worth heeding.

Don't Read Too Much Into the Recent Past
When faced with lots of information, most people come up with easy rules of thumb to help them cope. While useful in some situations, these shortcuts can lead to biases that cause investors to make bad decisions. One example is "extrapolation bias," the overreliance on the past to assess the future. Instead of doing all the necessary and possibly tedious homework in researching a potential investment, investors instead "anchor" their expectations for the future in the recent past.

The problem, of course, is that yesterday doesn't always tell you what tomorrow will bring. If you don't believe us, just ask investors who swarmed red-hot technology- and Internet-focused stocks in 1999 and 2000 expecting the good times to continue, or those who bought overpriced real estate in the mid-2000s with the expectation that "home prices always go up." They didn't, in many cases, and some people suffered huge losses.

That's worth keeping in mind if you're drawn to the strong performers of recent years, whether it's emerging markets or precious metals. The recent volatility in those areas is a reminder that the past is no guarantee of future performance.

As Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig has said, "whatever feels the best to buy today is likely to be the thing you'll regret owning tomorrow." Investors tend to pour money into funds after they've performed well and rush for the exits after they underperform, resulting in much lower returns (or even losses) for average investors compared with funds' reported returns.

Realize That You Don't Know as Much as You Think
In a 1981 study asking Swedish drivers to assess their own driving abilities, 90% rated themselves as above average. Statistically speaking, that's just not possible. But most of us are just like the Swedes: We think we're more capable and smarter than we really are. As an investor, you should check your excessive optimism at the door. You might believe you're more likely than the next guy to spot the next Microsoft, but the odds are you're not.

According to several studies, overconfident investors trade more rapidly because they think they know more than the person on the other side of the trade. And all that trading can be "hazardous to your wealth," as University of California, Berkeley professors Brad Barber and Terrance Odean put it in their 2000 study of investor trading behavior. The study looked at approximately 66,000 households using a discount broker between 1991 and 1996 and found that individuals who trade frequently (with monthly turnover above 8.8%) earned a net annualized return of 11.4% over that time, while inactive accounts netted 18.5%. Investors who traded most often paid the most in brokerage commissions, taking a huge bite out of returns.

All that trading might have been worthwhile if investors replaced the stocks they sold with something better. But interestingly, the study found that, excluding trading costs, newly acquired stocks actually slightly underperformed the stocks that were sold. That means that rapid traders' returns suffered whether or not fees were taken into account. Some researchers have come to a similar conclusion studying fund manager trading--standing pat is often the best strategy.

If you constantly check your portfolio, you may be tempted to take action at the slightest hiccups in your holdings or in the market. Limit the number of times you even look at your portfolio; a checkup once or twice a year will be plenty for most investors. That will help you stay disciplined and will save you money on transaction fees.

Keep Your Winners Longer and Dump Your Losers Sooner
Investors in Odean and Barber's study were much more likely to sell winners than losers. That's exactly what behavioral-finance theorists would predict. They've noticed that investors would rather accept smaller but certain gains than take their chances to make more money. On the flip side, investors are reluctant to admit defeat and sell stocks that are underwater in hopes of a rebound. As a result, investors tend to sell their winners too early and hang on to their losers for too long.

That's why it pays to have clear reasons in mind for your purchase of any investment right from the get-go. If your expectations don't pan out, then it's time to sell. Crafting an investment policy statement that lays out basic parameters for your portfolio and what you're looking for in individual securities is a key way to instill discipline in your financial decision-making process.

Periodically rebalancing--but not too often--is another way that investors can avoid mental mistakes when buying and selling. Rebalancing involves regularly trimming winners in favor of laggards. That's a prudent investing strategy because it keeps a portfolio diversified and reduces risk; it ensures that you periodically harvest your profitable holdings. But rebalancing too frequently could limit your upside. Instead, rebalance only when your portfolio is out of whack with your target allocations. Minor divergences from your targets aren't a big deal, but when your current allocations grow to more than 5 or 10 percentage points beyond your original plan, it's time to cut back.

Avoid Compartmentalization
One other key mental mistake is focusing on individual securities in isolation rather than looking at your portfolio as a whole. If you're adequately diversified overall, your portfolio won't exhibit big swings on a day-to-day basis. But individual holdings can and will gyrate around quite a bit, and that could lead you to focus a disproportionate amount of time and energy on certain positions at the expense of the big picture.

It's All About Discipline
Fortunately, you don't have to be a genius to be a successful investor. As Warren Buffett said in a 1999 interview with Business Week, "Success in investing doesn't correlate with IQ once you're above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing." It's true that not everyone is gifted with Buffett's calm, cool demeanor. But challenging yourself to avoid your own worst instincts will help you reach your financial goals.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

How to be a better investor

By Bob Frick, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

Remember how you felt that day not long ago when the Dow Jones industrial average plunged more than 500 points over fears that a French bank might sink because of its holdings in U.S. subprime mortgages? Sacré bleu. That rout followed a 400-point surge the day before because investors had concluded that a downgrade of America's debt rating wasn't the catastrophe some had feared it might be. News of the downgrade had precipitated a 600-plus-point drop the day before the rally. Clearly, on such seesaw days, the markets aren't sanely analyzing news developments and incorporating them into share prices. Rather, the markets are emotional barometers.

Yes, we live in trying times, and investors should be concerned about a feeble economy and volatile, often irrational markets. But now more than ever, we need to shunt aside emotions and approach our investments with logic and detachment, and take a long-term view. This is true especially because it's human nature to base many of our decisions on how we feel about what's just happened.

The recent past — such as the stock market's summer swoon and the 2007-09 bear market — has been anything but pleasant for investors. We tend to extrapolate what's happened lately into the future, especially when we're anxious. And loss of wealth is so painful to our psyches that we often sell just to make the pain go away, even if the appropriate strategy is to hang on to our investment.

Here is a four-step plan to help investors through what are bound to be turbulent times ahead:

  • Don't over-monitor. Studies show that the more we examine our portfolios, the riskier we think they've become.
  • Always sleep on an important decision. Don't make moves based on the heat of the moment.
  • Seek a second opinion. It doesn't matter whether the provider of that view is a financial adviser, a friend or a spouse. Second opinions provide perspective, and the most valuable ones challenge your preconceived notions.
  • When the market drops, view it as assets going on sale. That doesn't mean you "start chucking money at stocks wholesale," says Egan, but you should consider buying prudently during declines.

In addition to heat-of-the-moment reactions, we need to guard against other common mental hurdles that experts say interfere with our ability to make the most of our investments.

Chasing returns

Perhaps our most persistently damaging behavior is to buy what's been hot. The notion of chasing returns refers to buying a stock, fund or other investment after it's had a good run, selling it after its price drops, then moving on to the next hot prospect. The result: Return-chasing investors trap themselves in a portfolio-draining cycle of buying high and selling low.

Every year, Dalbar, a market-research firm, releases a study that compares investors' returns with the performance of the stock and bond markets. Standard & Poor's 500-stock index returned 9.1% annualized for the 20-year period through 2010, but Dalbar found that the average investor in stocks earned just 3.8% a year. And the Barclays Aggregate Bond index returned 6.9% annualized for the 20-year period, but fixed-income investors on average earned 1% annually.

The top two culprits behind performance-chasing are the recency bias and the herd mentality. Recency is the triumph of emotional, short-term thinking over logical, long-term planning. Studies have shown that investors allow a variety of recent events to determine their interest in stocks. For example, a 2007 study of soccer-crazy countries found that their stock markets typically fall after the national team loses. Another study showed a tendency to want to buy a stock when it has been in the news. So when we see a stock or a mutual fund with a great short-term record, we may react reflexively and buy, although the short-term record is usually meaningless.

The herd mentality has an even more insidious impact on results. The urge to follow the crowd is so hard-wired into our psyches that the pain centers of the brain are stimulated when we ignore the masses. Running with the pack — say, to minimize danger or improve our chance of finding food — made sense in the prehistoric past. But following a pack of investors who've made good money recently in, say, gold or Treasury bonds is asking for trouble because those assets have already had a good run, and you may be buying at or near the top.

So how do we train ourselves to think independently and focus on long-term goals? Marty Martin, a financial psychologist at Aequus Wealth Management Resources, in Chicago, says he tries to combat the herd instinct in his clients by showing them graphs with the ups and downs of markets and asset classes over long periods. At first, clients may think they see patterns they can bet on. If they do, he asks them: "What do you think will actually happen to that investment in the future? Not hope will happen." In other words, given the random ups and downs plainly evident on the graphs, can you say with certainty what the next move will be?

The best way to deal with the dangers of return-chasing is simple: Build a diversified portfolio and rebalance it regularly. Rebalancing forces you to cut back on investments that have been performing relatively well and to buy those that have been relative laggards — in other words, it forces you to buy low and sell high.

House money

Making a killing isn't all it's cracked up to be. In fact, reaping a big gain may set you up for a fall because of the house-money effect. Think about walking into a casino and, on your way to the roulette table, dropping a spare quarter into a slot machine, which comes up cherries and gushes out hundreds of dollars in change. The house-money effect says that when you reach the roulette table, you're more likely to make riskier bets than if you hadn't just pocketed a windfall.

The evidence for the house-money effect is clear. Experiments show that 77% of subjects who were given $15 would accept a coin toss to win or lose $4.50. But just 41% of subjects who were given no money would take the bet. Studies show that professional traders who clean up in the morning are more inclined to make riskier trades in the afternoon. The recent real estate bubble provides evidence of the house-money effect at work on a grand scale. Many homeowners, feeling flush as the value of their properties skyrocketed, extended themselves by running up their credit cards, taking out home-equity loans and buying second homes.

The house-money effect wreaks havoc on individual investors, says Richard Peterson, a psychiatrist whose MarketPsych firm studies investor biases and advises clients on how to beat them. Peterson has found that investors' loss-avoidance instincts recede after they make big gains. "You're not only excited about the gain; you lose your ability to detect risk," says Peterson.

One way you're more likely to boost risk is to simply hold on to your winning investment, Peterson says. The risk is that a single investment or type of asset — think real estate, gold, Internet stocks — becomes an outsize portion of your portfolio.

Although the house-money effect and return-chasing are different problems, the solution is the same: Diversify and rebalance. If you don't have the discipline to rebalance, hire an adviser to help you. Or invest in a mutual fund that holds multiple kinds of assets and rebalances them automatically, such as a target-date fund.

Paralyzed by fear

Ever notice that the golfer who stands over the ball longest usually hits it the worst? It's not that he's striving for a Zen-like calm before swinging; it's that he's afraid to hit the ball.

The same phenomenon occurs in investing. Fear of making errors induces paralysis and causes many people to sit on cash that should be invested, or to hold on to losing positions that should be closed out. The reason is plain: Losses hurt. Experiments have shown that the pain of losing is twice as great as the pleasure derived from winning the same amount of money.

This loss aversion can paralyze investors to the point where "they don't care about being right anymore — they just don't want to be wrong," says Shlomo Benartzi, a professor at the University of California-Los Angeles and chief economist at the Allianz Global Investors' Center for Behavioral Finance.

Complicating matters is a phenomenon known as mental accounting, which has us wired to judge our success or failure by looking at our gains or losses up till a certain point. Research has found, Benartzi says, that people are "exquisitely sensitive" to a reference point. With a gambler, the reference point is his initial stake. With an investor, it could be the level of the Dow industrials when she plunked her money into the stock market.

Benartzi suggests using "fuzzy" mental accounting to our advantage. For example, instead of investing a lump sum all at once, he suggests dividing it into four equal parts and investing each portion gradually — say, some every three months. That strategy makes it more difficult for the investor to identify an obvious reference point and makes loss aversion "much less likely to kick in," Benartzi writes. Who knew dollar-cost averaging offered such keen mental benefits?

Overcoming procrastination requires a different strategy, which Benartzi calls precommitment. He suggests that advisers ask clients who have abandoned stocks whether they're willing to go back into the market in the future. If the answer is yes, the next question is "When?" Once the client has chosen a date, he now feels in control and has made a commitment to invest. Those two ingredients — control and commitment — can spur even a reluctant investor to act.

Setting goals without an adviser or other confidante is tough. But help may be as close as your employer or a mutual fund company. If you participate in a 401(k) plan, you can have your employer regularly deduct a set amount of money from each paycheck. Or you can set up regular transfers from your bank account to a fund.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Thought Provoking Statement

"...(This) is what a lot of investors forget. The stock market is one of the few places where when things go on sale, people like them less. If you put up a giant sign at your local Whole Foods that said "all produce half off," people would go bananas. But an equity goes down, without a corresponding decline in business value, and people run for the hills. It's quite an unusual phenomenon..."

Pat Dorsey, Sanibel Captiva Trust Company

Mutual Funds Dragged Down by Global Unease

By Conrad De Aenlle, New York Times

INVESTORS are supposed to hate uncertainty, but they lived with it fairly comfortably for two years after the last recession ended.

Then, in the third quarter, the weight of many unanswered questions, mainly about the economic recovery’s staying power and the soundness of Europe’s financial system, dragged stocks sharply lower.

The 14.3 percent decline in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index in the three months through September was the worst quarterly loss since 2008 and left the index down 10 percent since the start of 2011. Treasury Bonds, often a haven in difficult times, went in the opposite direction, recording double-digit gains and pushing yields on 10-year instruments as low as 1.7 percent.

The catalyst for both moves, an ironic one at that, appeared to be S.& P.’s downgrade of Treasury debt in early August after a rancorous debate in Congress over federal spending left no clear path to long-term deficit reduction. The deterioration of Europe's debt crisis added to the downward momentum, as a resolution of Greece’s problems remained elusive, raising fears of default.

Perhaps even more unsettling to investors was the prospect of contagion in Europe — a wider destabilization of treasuries and banks in the region resulting from anticipation of just such a calamity. In this picture, investors spooked by events in Greece would sell bonds elsewhere, driving up interest rates and adding to debtors’ stress.

The chance that these economic woes will derail an already fragile global economic recovery, spread alarm in the stock market. Yet there was more. Political stability in pockets of the Middle East and North Africa remained in doubt, as did China’s ability to maintain strong economic growth while controlling inflation. And supply-chain disruptions for manufacturers in certain industries, a remnant of the March tsunami in Japan, continued to cause concern.

“There are crisis situations all over the world,” said David Marcus, chief investment officer of Evermore Global Advisors. “Investors have been in panic mode, selling indiscriminately without regard to value. They want out at any price.”

When assets are sold at any price, they become cheap. And that has indeed happened to stocks, some investment advisers contend, which were trading at about 12 times earnings as the quarter ended, compared with a long-run average of closer to 15. Buying now may not make for a peaceful night’s sleep, but it could result in healthy gains for the long term, they say.

“There is an absolute fear of having money exposed to anything that can fluctuate in value,” said David Steinberg, managing partner of DLS Capital Management. Investors who take a chance now “are going to be rewarded once the dust clears,” he predicted. “There is a very high probability of high returns and a low probability of losing a lot on a long-term basis.”

In the short term, though, fund investors have lost a lot. The average domestic stock fund in Morningstar’s database fell 16.2 percent in the third quarter.

Funds focusing on cyclical industrial companies, financial services and natural resources were among the weakest performers. Those with concentrations in consumer-oriented companies and utilities lost ground, but less than average.

International stock funds, down 18.3 percent, fared worse than domestic ones and were dragged down by a 23.7 percent decline in Europe portfolios.

Taken as a whole, bond funds were little changed in the quarter, down 0.6 percent, but there were exceptions. The persistent appetite for the perceived safety of Treasury bonds sent long-term government bond funds to an average gain of 26.9 percent.

Conditions may improve for the long haul, but ponderous progress on major issues could bring more pain in the short run. Rick Rieder, chief investment officer for actively managed fixed-income portfolios at BlackRock, says, for example, that he foresees no immediate end to Europe’s crisis.

And as much as that might unnerve investors, however, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing, in Mr. Rieder’s view. Keeping Greece on the brink as a financial zombie could give governments, central banks and commercial banks time to arrange credit lines to keep financial systems going and institutions solvent.

Time is also a factor in the quandary over the federal deficit. The clock is ticking toward the November deadline for a bipartisan panel to find more than $1 trillion in spending cuts that Congress must approve; if it doesn’t do so, automatic cuts are to be imposed.

Time can be an ally to investors in another way. With valuations so low on stocks but uncertainty too great to push them higher, Mr. Rieder encouraged anyone who could commit capital for several years to consider buying stocks with high dividend yields. Then they could wait out the unsettling present until a brighter future emerged. “Nobody doubts that if you take a long-term perspective, they are attractive,” he said.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

‘Tax the Rich’ Harder Than it Sounds

By Charles Carlson

You may have read that part of President Obama’s deficit-reduction plan is a tax based on what is being called the “Buffett Rule.”

Named after famed investor and ardent Obama backer Warren Buffett, the Buffett Rule would help ensure that individuals with incomes over $1 million would pay federal income taxes at rates at least equal to those earning lesser amounts of money.

The idea for the Buffett tax seems to have evolved from a piece Buffett penned in The New York Times earlier this year. In the piece, Buffett wrote that his effective federal tax rate last year was just over 17%, less than the tax rate of any other person in his office.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” Buffett writes. “It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice."

Now, while Buffett’s comments fit nicely with the “class warfare” rhetoric being fomented by the White House, I find his statements a bit misleading. Based on Buffett’s remarks, it would seem that many millionaires and billionaires have lower tax rates than you or me. That is simply not the case.

According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, individuals earning over $1 million this year will pay, on average, 29.1% on federal taxes. Those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay 15%.

But what about Buffett and his 17% tax rate? How does he pay only 17% of his income in federal taxes? Surely it isn’t “fair” that he pays a lower rate than his secretary, is it?

Actually, I would argue that it is not only “fair,” but it is better for you and me and our investments that Buffett’s tax rate is lower than his secretary’s. Here’s why.

The bulk of Buffett’s income—as is the case with many super-rich—is not salary, but investment income. And investment income—capital gains and dividends—is taxed at lower rates for everyone, not just Buffett.

Said differently, any salary that Buffett makes is not taxed at a lower rate than his secretary’s income. In fact, depending on the salary amount, it’s likely it will be taxed at a higher rate. However, while a salary may be most if not all of the annual income for you or me, it represents a very, very, very small portion of Buffett’s annual income.

Capital gains and dividend income represent big components of the annual “income” of the super-rich. And long-term capital gains and dividends are currently taxed at a maximum rate of just 15%.

That’s why Buffett’s effective tax rate is only 17%. His income consists primarily of tax-preferenced investment income.

What concerns me about the “Buffett Rule” is that anything that messes with the preferred tax rates on investment income—even if changes impact only the “super rich”—will likely have a negative impact on the stock market. It’s simple math, really. If you increase taxes on investments, you reduce expected after-tax returns.

And if expected returns are reduced, asset prices will adjust downward accordingly. How much will they adjust downward? I don’t know. But I can tell you that wealthy individuals typically have lots of flexibility to modify their behavior based on changes to the tax code.

If investment taxes are increased on the wealthy because of a “Buffett Rule,” I’d be willing to make you a big wager that the result would not be a positive for stocks. And that’s bad news for all individual investors, rich or not-so rich.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Avoid These 'Investments' When Saving for Kids


By Christine Benz, Morningstar

Although there are some immutable concepts in the realm of money and investing, such as "buy low and sell high" and "start early," the best vehicles for achieving various financial goals tend to ebb and flow over time.

That's definitely true when it comes to saving for children. While U.S. savings bonds might have been the de rigueur gift from grandma and grandpa 30 years ago, settling for their currently meager interest rates seems like a questionable bet right now. And even though UGMA/UTMA--Uniform Gift to Minors Act/Uniform Transfers to Minors Act--custodial accounts might have been one of the best options for college savings a few decades ago, the emergence of 529 plans makes these "kiddie trust" accounts much less compelling now.

If you're saving on behalf of a child, the following options may not add up.

Life Insurance

Buying life insurance for kids fails the sniff test on a couple of separate counts. First, the main reason anyone needs life insurance is to replace lost income--for example, new parents should buy such coverage to provide a financial safety net for their children in case anything should happen to them. But unless your child has a budding career as a model or actor, it's unlikely that he or she is generating a meaningful level of income that you'd need to replace if something happened to your child. Moreover, while whole (or cash-value) life insurance policies are often pitched as savings vehicles, their long-term rates of return will pale alongside investment vehicles that aren't as larded with commissions and expenses, such as 529 plans or mutual funds and ETFs.

UGMA/UTMA Accounts

In the scheme of things, UGMA/UTMA accounts aren't a disaster: It's better to save for kids' future than not do so, and these accounts give you the ability to save on behalf of a child without the cost and bother of setting up a trust. UGMA/UTMA accounts also give you wide discretion over the specific investments that you hold. However, if your aim is to build up a child's college fund, these accounts can backfire for a couple of different reasons.

First, your child will have discretion over any assets in a UGMA/UTMA account when he or she reaches the age of majority (18 or 21, depending on the state). Most parents assume that their children will do the right thing and use the money to pay for college as you intended them to, but you're definitely ceding a level of control with these accounts. In addition, because the assets in a UGMA/UTMA account legally belong to the child, that can work against your child when it comes time to apply for financial aid.

You can circumvent both the loss of control and financial-aid problems by saving for college within the confines of a 529 plan; the person who sets up the account retains control of the assets, and 529s are treated more favorably in financial-aid calculations than are UGMA/UTMA accounts. (If your child already has UGMA/UTMA assets, it's possible to fund a 529 plan with that money, thereby obtaining more favorable treatment in financial-aid formulas.)

Savings Bonds

For people who value safety, using U.S. savings bonds to save for college might appear to be an attractive option. The bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government (hold the political comments, please). In addition, interest on Series EE and I-bonds might be entirely or partially free of federal tax if the money is used to fund qualified college expenses at an eligible institution, provided your income falls below certain thresholds.

The trouble is that yields are about as low as they can go--currently 0.60% for Series EE bonds and 0.74% for I-bonds, according to Treasurydirect.gov. True, I-bonds' yields are inflation-adjusted, and higher-yielding bonds may eventually become available, making I-bonds and EE bonds a more viable option for college savings. But for now, given that the inflation rate in college costs (roughly 8% per year currently) is far outstripping the general inflation rate, the math just doesn't add up for these bonds as a viable college-savings vehicle.

Balanced Funds

Using balanced funds to invest for your kids isn't a disaster, particularly if you expect to tap the assets within the next five to 10 years to pay for college or some other expense. There's something to be said for the "set it and forget it" appeal of funds that mix both stocks and bonds together, and recent Morningstar research shows that investors exhibit better timing decisions with balanced funds than they do stock funds. Moreover, there will certainly be times when bonds outperform stocks--the past decade is a prime case in point.

But when saving for very young children for whom college may be 12 or 17 years in the future, it makes sense to take advantage of that very long time horizon by investing primarily in stocks at the outset, then gradually transitioning to heavier weightings in safe assets such as cash and bonds. If you don't want to do the heavy lifting of asset allocation, nearly all 529 plans offer age-based options that gradually become more conservative as college draws near.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Don't Buy Too Much Insurance! - The Not-So-Good


By Jennifer Silver-Goldberg, Wall Street Journal 8 October 2011

In this age of hurricanes, tsunamis, market crashes and banking crises, it isn't any wonder that people are feeling insecure. Companies are responding by rolling out a raft of newfangled insurance policies designed to protect against real—and perceived—risks.

Here is a guide to the insurance policies you can safely skip.

Juvenile Life Insurance

Just had a baby? Chances are that you will get an offer to buy the infant life insurance. The pitch: If a horrible illness afflicts him or her, the policy will provide you with a lump sum to put toward burial costs or unpaid medical bills.

In addition, many policies for adults allow policyholders to buy a rider that covers all the children in a family.

But the chances of a child dying are slim—only one in 3,000 children perish each year—meaning you are likely shelling out cash needlessly.

Instead of getting a juvenile life-insurance plan, consider increasing your own coverage. If the primary breadwinner dies, the financial consequences are far more severe.

Tuition-Protection Insurance

Another insurance policy aimed specifically at parents: tuition-protection insurance.

The policies typically allow you to get back some tuition money if your child gets sick, has to withdraw from school or gets injured—but not if Junior fails to meet academic standards.

However, most colleges already offer some kind of refund if a student drops out because of a medical condition. What's more, the policies set serious restrictions; some won't refund tuition if the withdrawal is due to mental health or if a student simply drops out because of disinterest or other factors.

Identity-Theft Insurance

In June, Citigroup disclosed that a hacking attack had breached its computer systems, potentially affecting about 200,000 customer accounts—the latest in a string of cyberattacks on financial institutions. Such attacks have made consumers more skittish.

A wide range of companies are offering some form of insurance against identity theft, particularly credit-card theft. Some include credit monitoring and will send alerts if a new account is opened under your name or there are sudden moves in account balances. Some even offer to cover any expenses fraudulently charged to credit cards. Other companies offer broader coverage, such as cash to cover expenses associated with identity theft.

But such coverage is repetitive because credit cards already come with built in identity-theft protection. Most cardholders aren't responsible for any unauthorized or fraudulent charges on a card and issuers provide free credit-monitoring tools, which render the extra coverage unnecessary.

Payment-Protection Insurance

This coverage is offered by credit-card issuers. The promise: If you lose your job or get sick, the issuer will waive finance charges and minimum payments.

The nation's nine largest card issuers received $2.4 billion in fees for debt-protection products in 2009, but paid out only $518 million in benefits to consumers—a low payout ratio, according to the GAO.

Cancer and Critical-Illness Insurance

Insurers offer two types of policies designed to supplement existing health-insurance coverage: cancer policies and those that cover a broader range of critical illnesses. The problem: Many are riddled with exclusions and don't cover the most common form of the illnesses they purport to address.

For instance, some cancer-insurance plans exclude skin cancer entirely, while others won't cover basal-cell skin cancer, the most common kind.

Some critical-illness plans don't cover common illnesses such as cancer, or set strict limits on the number of illnesses they do cover.

Divorce Insurance

One firm is offering protection plans in case "happily ever after" doesn't pan out. Roughly 22% of women and 21% of men over the age of 15 have been divorced, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

SafeGuard Guaranty, a firm based in Bernersville, N.C., rolled out a divorce-insurance program called WedLock last year. The idea: For $15.99 a month, you can secure $1,250 in coverage, which can be used to cover the costs of divorce or any other expenses. The only problem is that couples have to wait four years before they can cash in the policies. That means if you get divorced before your fourth anniversary, you don't get the benefit of any of the premiums.

Don't Buy Too Much Insurance! - The Good

By Jessica Silver-Greenberg, Wall Street Journal, 8 October 2011

In this age of hurricanes, tsunamis, market crashes and banking crises, it isn't any wonder that people are feeling insecure. Companies are responding by rolling out a raft of newfangled insurance policies designed to protect against real—and perceived—risks.

In addition to health insurance, some other types of coverage are indispensable. Among them:

• Term life insurance. This type of life insurance—which provides a death benefit for a specific period, such as 10 to 20 years, with premiums generally set at a flat rate—is the best bet for most people, say independent insurance consultants. "Permanent life" insurance, by contrast, combines a death benefit with a savings account, and carries steep commissions. Unless you are using the policy to build tax-deferred savings, there are few real benefits.

Disability insurance. It often is a good deal, say financial advisers, because it pays a portion of your salary, unlike other illness-related insurance that offers a lump sum.

Check whether the plan will cover just a percentage of your salary or will factor in payments based on total income, including commissions and bonuses. And look for a plan that will provide benefits if you can no longer perform your current job; some plans will prevent you from receiving benefits if you are still able to do a comparable job. Finally, check whether there are ceilings on payments for certain conditions, such as mental-health illnesses.

Umbrella liability coverage. These policies help protect your assets from seizure if you are sued, and are well-suited for people who have accumulated assets, like a home, and work in professions vulnerable to lawsuits, such as medicine.

Basic policies cover only a portion of your total assets and often skimp on coverage for brokerage accounts, cars and retirement accounts. If you consolidate your insurance accounts by getting car and home insurance from a single insurance firm, you can save on premiums for umbrella liability coverage, too. But if you are renting, and don't own your home, you can skip the coverage.

Earthquake and flood insurance. Most homeowner's policies don't cover earthquake and flood damage. If you live in an area prone to natural disasters, it is worth forking over extra to get protection.

The vast majority of flood-insurance policies are offered through the National Flood Insurance Program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The insurance covers water damage to homes from events ranging from tsunamis to mudslides, and costs, on average, around $570 a year, though premiums are higher in high-risk zones. You can get more information at FloodSmart.gov.

Some property insurers sell earthquake insurance as an extra in a standard homeowner's policy or separately. Deductibles range from 2% to 20% of the insured value of the home.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Retirement Will Be WAY More Expensive Than You Think

By Joe Udo, US News and World Report

The two biggest problems all retirees will face are related to finance and health. A new study commissioned by NPR, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Harvard School of Public Health shows us what we already know, but often refuse to believe.

Some 22 percent of pre-retirees predict that their finances will suffer after retirement, and 35 percent of retirees say their finances have gotten worse. Only 13 percent of pre-retirees think their health will decline in retirement, but 39 percent of retirees report that it's true.

Many of us wear rose-colored glasses when we plan for the future, and we need to begin viewing retirement more realistically. When we stop working, our major source of income dries up.

And as we get older, it is obvious that our health will deteriorate. So why are so many people underestimating the difficulties of retirement? It is best to plan for these two problems while we are still working and have a good income.

Finance. Some two-thirds of Americans do not save enough for retirement. It's time for a reality check. We all need to resolve to save more for retirement and follow through. If you are not saving for retirement right now, it's time to make a plan. It's better to start saving for retirement as early in your career as possible so compound interest will work in your favor.

The longer you put off retirement saving, the more difficult it will be to retire comfortably. There are tax-advantaged retirement saving vehicles such as a 401k and Roth IRA that will reduce the drag of taxes on your long-term savings.

Health. This is a much more difficult issue because there are so many things that we can't control. However, we can focus on the aspects of our health we can do something about.

Over 68 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, which is a long-term health risk. Heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, gout, and many other medical conditions are associated with obesity.

There are also many other lifestyle choices that we can make to maintain good health. Smoking and excessive drinking cause many future health problems such as cancer, liver disease, and diabetes.

It's best to moderate our enjoyment of these pleasurable vices to give our future self a better chance at staying healthy. It is important to minimize these health risks as much as we can.

This may not be easy, but the healthier you are now, the less likely you are to have to deal with costly health problems later.

Are you compromising your retirement years by not maintaining a healthy lifestyle and not contributing to your 401(k) plan? It's not too late to think about the future and start a long-term plan for your retirement.

It is much easier to begin saving for retirement and working on your health while you are young. If you ignore retirement savings and maintaining your health until you are 65, it could be too late to do something about it.

This originally appeared at U.S. News and World Report.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Our Take on the Third Quarter


By Jeremy Glaser with Morningstar

Investors hoping for a sleepy summer were deeply disappointed in the third quarter. Sovereign debt woes and concerns about the strength of the economy sent the market on a wild ride that at times resembled the volatility of the financial crisis in 2008.

Sovereign debt and deficits dominated the headlines through much of the quarter. In the United States, a heated battle over raising the debt ceiling led the nation to the brink of default. A last-minute deal averted the immediate crisis as both sides agreed to create a bipartisan congressional committee to consider ways to balance the budget and bring down the deficit. Despite the deal, Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States' sovereign debt rating to AA+ from AAA.

But in many ways the real action was in Europe. Successive plans to stem the sovereign debt crisis and contain it to peripheral Eurozone economies failed to soothe investors. Worries that the problems could lead to bank failures, or to the end of the euro altogether, sent shares of French and other European banks plummeting and credit spreads on sovereign debt soaring. Coordinated central bank intervention, continued promises from leaders that they are wiling to act, and another around of Greek austerity measures calmed markets somewhat toward the end of the quarter. But there remain many outstanding questions about whether the Eurozone is taking the right steps to solve the crisis and get Europe back on the path to growth.

Economic data during the quarter also gave the market reasons to worry. There weren't signs that the U.S. economy was completely collapsing, but there also weren't any clear signs that the economy was retuning to robust growth. The economy remains stuck in neutral. Job growth is anemic, at best, the housing market remains stuck in the basement, and manufacturing data showed some weakness as well in the quarter. On the other hand, consumer spending remained surprisingly resilient, and inflation stayed largely in check.

Corporations continued to report decent earnings in the quarter. Belt-tightening during the peak of the recession and exposure to emerging markets left firms with lean cost structures and kept profitability high even in the face of relatively weak U.S. demand.

As we turn to the fourth quarter, the pressure points that emerged in the third quarter will still be in focus. We expect the next three months will be filled with plenty of drama surrounding the Eurozone and how to fix the finances of the United States. The real question is what impact these debates will have on investors.

What’s Next for the Global Markets?

Extracted from BlackRock Market Commentary written by Bob Doll, Peter Fisher, and Mike Trudel of BlackRock, Inc.

It would be an understatement to suggest that the past several weeks have been eventful ones. Markets have remained in a highly volatile trading pattern since early August as investors have become increasingly concerned about the European debt crisis, the weakening US economy and potential actions by policymakers designed to address these problems.

Trying to assess what all of this means for the markets and what investors should do with their portfolios can be challenging. The European debt crisis has intensified in recent weeks as the possibility of a Greek default has grown and fears have been escalating. So far, policymakers in Europe have been taking incremental actions, such as increasing bond purchases but clearly these actions have been insufficient to stem the crisis.

The divisive political backdrop in Europe has hindered aggressive action. Each country in the Eurozone has its own agenda and interests to consider and it’s far from certain that individual countries would be able to come to agreements on their own.

Ultimately, the hope is that the Europe's banking leaders will be able to accomplish what European governments have not been able to due to political constraints. The extent to which Europe’s policymakers are successful will be critically important in helping to determine the future direction of the world’s economy and financial markets.

The economic situation in the United States has clearly deteriorated over the past couple of months. The labor market has been stagnant, housing remains weak and the beleaguered US consumer is struggling. Additionally, the United States is facing its own fiscal issues.

Nevertheless, the United States remains in somewhat better shape than Europe. The data is pointing to weak growth, but growth nonetheless. On balance, the economy will continue to “muddle through” at a weak, but still positive, rate. Over the coming quarters, US growth should be slightly better than the 1% rate it reached in the first half of this year, and while that growth rate could hardly be called robust, growth on the positive side of zero still places the US economy in expansion mode.

On balance, we would peg the odds of a recession occurring in the United States over the next two to three quarters at around one-in-three. Although that figure remains uncomfortably high, it still indicates a greater chance that a recession will not happen. Should the situation in Europe deteriorate further, however, that would certainly push the odds of a US recession higher. In any case, even if a recession were to occur, it would almost certainly be shallower than the recession sparked by the 2008–2009 credit crisis.

The investing environment today is one that is dominated by uncertainty, with the Europe situation remaining dominant. These are clearly difficult times for investors, but we believe opportunities can still be found.

Stock markets have been punished by the flight-to-quality trade that has dominated the markets in recent months. Yet, corporate earnings have remained resilient thus far, which suggests equity valuations have become more attractive. The question, of course, is whether markets have reached a bottom, or whether they have further to fall.

As with the direction of the economy, the future direction of stock prices will be highly dependent on the outcomes for Europe and the US economy. As our view skews to the more optimistic side regarding these issues, we also are retaining our positive long-term outlook for stocks.

Within the United States, we see some significant opportunities in many areas of the market. Given our view that a US recession is unlikely, we find cyclical areas of the market (such as technology and energy) that have seen significant declines to be quite attractive — particularly those companies that have decent balance sheets. Additionally, we favor high-quality growth companies. Companies that have the ability to grow their earnings in a weak economy represent a particularly good opportunity; within this theme, we have a favorable view of the healthcare sector. Additionally, we continue to focus on companies with the ability to generate strong levels of free cash flow. Companies that have the ability to raise dividends, buy back stock and make new investments are well positioned.

Outside of the US, our investment themes are quite similar. There are many high-quality companies with attractive valuations and high earnings potential. In particular, we think it makes sense to focus on companies that have access to markets experiencing stronger economic growth (chiefly in emerging markets such as China). As with our preferences within the US, we are focused on companies that generate strong levels of free cash flow. Many companies around the world have robust balance sheets and the ability to return cash to shareholders through dividends, share buybacks, etc. and these companies offer some significant value, in our view.

Finally, we would point out that there are some opportunities available in European markets. Compared to US stocks, European equities have experienced much sharper declines, as these markets have already priced in an economic and financial meltdown. Certainly, this is an area of the market that must be approached cautiously, but we do see some value in select European stocks.

We know that maintaining a long-term focus during times of intense market volatility can be difficult. At times like these, we would encourage investors to remain in close contact with their financial professionals, who can help identify tactical opportunities that may be appropriate for investors’ long-term investment plans.