SMI Visitor's Weblog

Welcome to the SMI Visitor's Weblog. Below you'll find selected excerpts reprinted from our Member's Weblog, plus occasional posts created especially for our visitors.

If you are already an SMI Web Member, click the following link to go to the SMI Member's Weblog. If you're not a Web Member yet, but would like to have access to all of SMI's content — including the SMI Member's Weblog — click to learn about becoming an SMI Web Member.

Uncertain times, a certain God

Ever struggle with trusting God in your finances? Join the club.

When economy seems to be teetering and the stock market is a roller coaster, trusting God for your financial future (and, yes, your financial present) can be tough.

In a conversation Monday on Minnesota-based Faith Radio, SMI's Assistant Editor Joseph Slife talked with host Neil Stavem about being confident in our "certain God" in an uncertain world.

The Faith Radio Network, a ministry of Northwestern College, includes stations in Minneapolis/Saint Paul and Duluth, Minn.; Madison, Wis.; Fargo, N.D; and Sioux Falls, S.D.

You can listen to the 14-minute conversation below — or right click here (and "save link as") to download an mp3.

New student loan debt clock

The college financial aid site, FinAid.org, has launched a counter that keeps track of aggregate student debt. This new "debt clock" has no particular useful function, except to cause users to say, "Wow, that much?" (and, of course, to drive traffic to FinAid and its sister site, Fastweb).

Clock creator Mark Kantrowitz, who runs FinAid.org, concedes that the number is an estimate (although one based on government statistics). "I think it's probably in the right ballpark, give or take," he told the New York Times.

Published figures showed $830 billion in private and federal loans outstanding as of June 2010. Kantrowitz is estimating that the amount is rising by about $2,854 a second (taking into account both new loans and repayments).

Rapidly growing school debt has many people asking, "Is a college education still worth the investment?"

Be ye perfect

Scripture does urge us to "aim for perfection," but I don't think this is what the apostle Paul had in mind.

From Money Magazine (via CNN):

Chris Peplinski is pursuing his own brand of flawlessness: an 850 credit score.

The 37-year-old stay-at-home dad from Rogers, Ark., has already nabbed 813 on the FICO scale, the credit scoring system most lenders use in sizing up potential borrowers....

Nevertheless, Peplinski won't be satisfied until he hits the maximum: 850. Why? "Your credit score tells a lot about you," Peplinski explains. "A high score means you're responsible and in control of your life. You're trustworthy."

To reach his goal, Peplinski...tweaks his behavior to eke out every possible additional point. Two years ago, he took out a car loan even though he and his wife, Chrissy, had the cash to buy their wheels outright.... He did it because FICO favors those with a variety of credit types, such as mortgage, credit cards, and auto loans.

"I probably paid $100 in interest," he says. "But it was worth it because we raised our credit scores by 15 points."

Money rightly notes that Peplinksi (and others like him also quoted in the story) are "obsessed."

Of the score strivers MONEY interviewed, most check their score obsessively, at least every few months — at a cost of $50 or more a year. They also fixate on their credit reports, upon which the scores are based.

There is, of course, no need for any of this. Sure, it's a good idea to check your credit reports every so often for errors (once a year is plenty and doing so is free). And, as noted in SMI's August-issue article, Know the Score (subscribers' link), it's also good idea to also check your credit scores once in a while.

But there's no reason to be obsessed about any of this. If you simply live within your means and pay your bills on time, you'll be fine.

Peplinkski makes his case below:

The Hindenburg Omen

I've seen a number of articles recently discussing the so-called "Hindenburg Omen." I ignored them until today because I don't think it's a relevant issue at all. But I've received some reader requests to discuss it, so I'm doing so now.

Mark Hulbert provides the following snapshot of this indicator:

The core idea behind the Hindenburg Omen is that it's bearish whenever there are a large number of both new 52-weeks highs and new 52-week lows on the NYSE.

If we trace the Omen's genealogy even further back, however, we find that it is a direct descendant of an indicator called the High Low Logic Index, which Norman Fosback, editor of Fosback's Fund Forecaster, devised in the 1970s.

In his classic textbook Stock Market Logic, Fosback explained why a large number of both new highs and new lows is bearish: "Under normal conditions, either a substantial number of stocks establish new annual highs or a large number set new lows — but not both.... [When both nevertheless occur], it indicates that the market is undergoing a period of extreme divergence.... Such divergence is not usually conducive to future rising stock prices."

The trouble is that for this Hindenburg Omen, even when properly computed (more on that in a moment) it has a pretty stinky predictive record. Here's Barry Ritholtz's withering response to a recent Wall Street Journal article on the subject:

Now, I'm open to all manner of data analysis. But when you tell me (toward the end of your story) that (emphasis mine): "The Omen was behind every market crash since 1987, but also has occurred many other times without an ensuing significant downturn. Market analysts said only about 25% of Omen appearances have led to stock-market declines that can be considered crashes," you have pretty much wasted my time. Wake me up when you find something with an actual correlation — last I checked, 25% isn't even in coin-flip territory.

Jumping back to Hulbert, he brings up the very valid point that this indicator may not have even triggered under its traditional definition. Originally the threshold for new highs/lows was 5%, then it got reduced to 2.5% (you can read his full article for the details, if you're interested). But there are so many issues that trade on the NY stock exchange now that aren't even operating companies (think closed-end mutual funds, preferred stocks, etc.), there's a real question about the data the current Hindenburg alarmists are citing:

According to Ned Davis Research, the institutional research firm, a Hindenburg Omen would not have been triggered if analysts were to focus just on common stocks. On Aug. 12, for example, the day that this Omen was supposedly triggered, just 0.4% of common stocks on the NYSE hit new 52-week highs, according to the firm.

To summarize, there are plenty of things to be legitimately concerned about in the current economic/market picture. The Hindenburg Omen is not one of them.

Credit cards and college students

The Level 1 article in our latest Sound Mind Investing newsletter — Big News on Campus: New Law Limits Credit Card Pitches to Students (subscribers' link) — focuses on changes in credit card rules that will directly affect teenagers and young adults.

Among them: Under the Credit CARD Act of 2009, card issuers are not supposed to open accounts for anyone under age 21 unless the young person has "sufficient income" and an "independent ability" to repay. (Alternately, an underage applicant can have a financially responsible adult co-sign on the account.)

But neither the CARD Act nor the regulations issued under the Act by the Federal Reserve clearly define "sufficient income" and "independent ability." The result: confusion.

CreditCardGuide.com (a site affiliated with well-known Bankrate.com) has been checking around to find out how various credit card companies are responding to the unclear rules.

Without specific standards for what it means to have an "independent ability to make required minimum payments" nor for proving such "ability," it has been up to card issuers to lay down the policies. The outcome, not surprisingly, is a mixed bag of vague and lenient policies....

One major credit card issuer has set the "sufficient income" level for those under age 21 at a mere $2,000 per year. Applicants are allowed to include scholarships, grants, and parental contributions in that total. Since these sources of income for most full-time students would exceed more than $2,000; effectively any student under the age of 21 could be approved under that guideline.

Other card issuers don't give specific income information in the online application material, nor guidelines for which sources of income are acceptable. In online chats, however, customer service reps from several card issuers specifically stated that personal income may include other income than employment income, including financial aid such as grants — and even loans.

As for verifying any stated sources of income, the verification process for that income appears to be as loose as the income requirements themselves. For example, when asked how proof of income should be provided, the customer service rep for one card issuer in an online chat replied, "On the application, put how much income you have in one year." When asked if the card issuer would call for verification, the rep indicated that there would be no following up.

The potential problems are apparent: some young people will no doubt stretch the truth on card applications, claiming income that doesn't exist; others will simply claim students loans or grants as income, making the new rules largely ineffective.

Asked how card issuers will gauge "sufficient income," Gerri Detweiler, a personal finance expert for Credit.com, told SMI that credit reporting agencies will use "capacity scores" for young credit card applicants. They're "similar to credit scores in that they gather information from various sources and predict an applicant's ability to pay," she said.

Of course, credit agencies will have a limited amount of data on which to draw because most young people lack a financial history, so it is unclear just how helpful a "capacity score" will be.

Whatever the challenges of implementation, these new rules are now the law of the land. We'll simply have to "wait and see" to judge their effectiveness.

Are bonds bubbling?

Economists and investing analysts are engaged in a serious debate about whether the U.S. economy is headed toward inflation or deflation. The deflation arguments have picked up speed this summer, fueled by an increase in reports showing that the economy appears to be slowing again.

While the experts remain (sharply) divided about whether we will tip into outright deflation or not, the mere threat of it has had profound implications on the investment scene.

High-quality bonds are one of the few investments that would be expected to perform quite well in a deflationary environment, and investors have been pouring money into bonds like crazy over the past few years (though not necessarily because they believe the deflation story — there are other reasons investors have flocked to bonds as well, such as fear/loathing of stocks, asset re-allocation by aging boomers, etc.).

The incredible surge of money into bonds and bond funds since 2008, coupled with the stark overall performance difference between stocks and bonds over the past decade, has led to intriguing questions: Are bonds in a bubble? Are stocks attractively priced relative to bonds?

Unfortunately, there aren't clear-cut answers, largely because the answers hinge on the way the deflation/inflation economic path unfolds. And contrary to what many experts would have you believe, nobody knows what will happen next.

This chart (click here to enlarge) stunned me when I stumbled across it recently at The Big Picture blog. For some time now, SMI has been warning about the increasing risk of bond funds due to bond valuations getting stretched (see, for example, my October 2009 article, Re-Evaluating the "Safe" Part of Your Portfolio), but I had no idea that Treasury returns over the past decade resembled those of tech stocks during their heyday.

Big Picture author Barry Ritholtz adds the following commentary:

Over the past few months, I have been saying US Treasuries remind me of the dot com stocks circa 1997-98 in three ways:

1) You knew momentum was taking them (much) higher;
2) You knew it was going to end badly;
3) If you were honest, you admitted you had precisely zero idea when the day of reckoning would be.

Plenty of others, though, say this isn't a bond bubble. They would argue this is merely the rational response to looming deflation on the horizon.

While acknowledging that it's unknowable at this point how this will turn out (future deflation will mean bonds continue gaining, whereas avoiding deflation and a legitimate turn towards economic recovery will potentially expose them to grave danger), it is interesting to note that this long "reversion to the mean" process of stocks becoming cheaper and bonds becoming more expensive has led to valuation conditions we haven't seen in some time.

For example, consider this chart of the Dow Jones Industrial Average Dividend Yield minus the 10-Year Treasury Yield (courtesy of Bespoke Investment Group). The huge amount of money flooding into Treasuries has pushed their yields below the yield currently being offered by the Dow's stocks. Aside from a brief spike during the financial panic, this condition hasn't been seen in nearly 50 years.

Whatever you think about the underlying merits of it, fund flows out of stocks and into bonds have been breathtaking. USA Today reports that since the beginning of 2008, bond funds have had $601 billion of cash inflows, while stock funds have seen $240 billion in outflows.

But here's something to keep in mind: As headlines like this one from the New York Times become more common — "In Striking Shift, Small Investors Flee Stock Market" — remember that small investors usually aren't "ahead of the game" when it comes to timing their investment moves. More often than not, they do things at exactly the wrong time.

Now available: September issue of SMI!

The September 2010 edition of the Sound Mind Investing newsletter is rolling off the press today — and, of course, it's already available online to our web members.

Even if you're not yet an SMI subscriber, you can still access a few goodies (just use the links below).

Did you know that even during the stock market's "worst of times," perseverance still rewarded the steadfast? SMI's founder and publisher Austin Pryor has details in Facing Your Fears: What If We Have a Market Like We Had During the Great Depression?

Also free to non-subscribers is this month is an article on how you're likely to boost your returns if you invest at a particular time of the month. Read Profiting from Monthly "Seasonality" in the Stock Market.

And our friends at Crown Financial Ministries explain how a strong sense of career direction can help young people avoid costly trial and error when pursuing an education. Find out more in Guiding Your Children Toward Their Career Calling.

Rounding out our September issue are these subscriber-only articles:

• "Mortgage-Backed Bond Funds: Higher Yields for Long-Term Savers";
• "Preferential Treatment: Preferred Stocks Outpace Bond Yields";
• "New Law Limits Credit Card Pitches to Students"; and
• "What Is Your Most Valuable Possession?" — a thought-provoking piece on the value of time.

Our September cover story — by William Bernstein, author of The Investor's Manifesto — offers advice on "Fine-Tuning the Risk in Your IRA, 401(k), and Other Retirement Accounts."

In addition to encouraging articles and step-by-step guidance on how to implement our performance-producing and time-tested investing strategies, SMI web members also gain access to terrific online tools such as our 401(k) Fund Tracker.

Not yet an SMI print subscriber or web member? Today's a great day to sign up! If you become a web member, you'll gain instant access to the September 2010 issue, plus back issues for the past three years!

Employees still taking huge risks with their 401(k)s

We've been writing for years about the huge risk employees take with their 401(k) savings when they invest a large portion in the company stock of their employer. And while the trends have improved over the years, this new Forbes report indicates a whole lot of employees have yet to get the message.

For example, when we last wrote about this issue in December 2007, 57% of the assets in Coke's 401(k) plan were invested in Coke stock. Forbes says that level is 51% today. Better, but not much.

Let me put it bluntly for the benefit of new readers. This is one of the biggest risks "normal" people take with their retirement savings. It's also one of the most easily correctable ones, in most cases.

I've heard people agonize about the decision to reduce the amount of company stock they own. In many cases they legitimately believe their employer is a great investment — significantly better than the alternatives they would invest in if they were to sell company stock. Some of them are even right about that.

Unfortunately, it's a risk you can't afford. The landscape is littered with the carcasses of blue-chip, brand name companies whose employees never dreamed they would fail. And yet they did. You simply can not take the chance that your retirement savings will be devastated at the same time you lose your job and benefits. That's way too many eggs for any one basket, no matter how confident you are in that basket.

Tea Party pressure on defense spending?

In addition to writing for Sound Mind Investing, I also churn out the "Money" page for WORLD, the bi-weekly Christian-based news magazine.

I mention this because my report in the August 28 issue (already available online) relates to a comment someone made on the SMI member blog a few days ago: "I say 'Thank you Lord' for the rise of the Tea Party movement," he wrote. "Wouldn't it be great if the government had to cut back on spending and lower taxes?"

Many Americans would agree with that sentiment — in theory. But where would such spending cuts be made? Social Security (the biggest area of federal spending)? Medicare? Veterans' benefits? The choices quickly get tough because voters are on the receiving-end of so many federal dollars.

That's why it seems likely that the easiest area to cut will be the defense budget, as Tea Party-inspired conservatives make common cause with Congressional doves. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates tried to get out in front of the budget-cutting forces by making his own proposals for defense-spending reductions.

If you're interested in this sort of thing, read the WORLD story, "Tea Party at the Pentagon."

Update: Tuesday's Wall Street Journal provides a brief primer on the Tea Party movement by Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe, authors of the newly released book, Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto (HarperCollins).

Condolences — and confidence

As we noted in the cover article of July's Sound Mind Investing newsletter, the thing that drives SMI is our desire to help people become more generous givers.

For many years, generosity has also the primary teaching focus of writer and pastor, Brian Kluth, author of the popular devotional, 40-Day Journey Toward a More Generous Life.

Last night, after an eight-year battle against cancer, Brian's wife Sandi passed from this life to the next. We hope you'll hold Brian and his family in your prayers.

Powered by Movable Type  |   Subscribe  |   Email Updates