FREE NEWSLETTER

Indexing is for those wise enough to realize that they aren’t wiser than the collective wisdom of all investors.

Latest PostsAll Discussions »

Investment Versus Speculation

"I’m thinking of friends who have speculated in houses during their entire adult lives. To the best of my recollection they have owned 14 homes over the past 50 years, including the condo in town, and park unit in Florida that they currently own. Some houses were renovation projects and some were new builds. They lived in every single property long enough to escape capital gains taxes.  While not a bad plan, (if you don’t mind moving frequently), low house prices in Metro Toledo don’t provide for much profit margin. When calculating the profit made on each sale, they failed to include in the cost of property tax, mortgage interest, and utilities. They made a little money but have not become real estate tycons.  At the same time, they are the definition of ‘risk averse’. A couple attempts at market investments ended abruptly at the first signs of trouble, and at the most inopportune times. All 401(k) contributions have been in bond or stable value funds.  They would have accumulated much more money with proper investments versus house speculation.  I’m in total agreement with your final paragraph and sentence. "
- Dan Smith
Read more »

Giving Up on Owning a Home

"I can remember being in a similar situation in the early 1980s. I was on the 8-year plan to finish college, because I got started just when tuition was skyrocketing at 15% per year, and I was living in my own tiny apartment working as a research technician. Buying a house was, for all practical purposes, totally out of reach and mortgage rates were whole number multiples of what today's rates are. (It also didn't help being the tail end of the Baby Boomers - born 1961) I didn't buy my first house until I was almost 50 years old, but we paid cash on the barrel head, because I didn't like the mortgage rate that we were being offered on a loan. We were buying what would qualify as a starter house, because I was living & working overseas in the oil business and our eldest needed some place to lay his head when the dorms closed during university vacation periods. My point? Yeah, it's tough nowadays, but it was no walk in park for me, either. Unless your last name is Vanderbilt or Rockefeller (i.e., you come from moneyed parentage), success in life requires strong character to make the hard choices."
- John Doe
Read more »

Social Security Spousal Benefits

"This is a great description of the rules involved with figuring social security benefits when coordinating with a spouse. I know it has been mentioned before, but I think the Open Social Security calculator is worth mentioning here again in helping to strategize when to claim benefits."
- Doug C
Read more »

Quinn’s super frugal experiment. Are you up for a challenge?

"Ed, yes, thank you for asking. Everything went through fine, I updated in my guardianship post from December. Spouse will have to do a report to the court every 2 years. We were also very relieved that the bond we thought we would have to post, was waived by the judge. The “big” things like the house and car sale have closed. We are sleeping better. C"
- baldscreen
Read more »

A Big Little Move (by Dana/DrLefty)

"Thanks for the good thoughts! I already have my husband designated for survivor benefits for my pension, but we set up a trust and a successor trustee for her to provide some stability and guidance when she’s older."
- DrLefty
Read more »

The Cardinal Sin

THERE’S A LITANY of investment sins. But one may top them all. I’m guessing it’s one you haven’t given much thought to. Until recently, neither did I. The cardinal investment sin: selling your winners too soon. From 1926 to 2016, more than half of all U.S. stocks—57.4% to be exact—returned less than one-month Treasury bills. In other words, you were better off putting your money into risk-free T-bills than owning these stocks. In fact, more than half of common stocks delivered negative total returns. These stats come from an academic paper by finance professor Hendrik Bessembinder. Now here’s the real kicker: Bessembinder found that the best-performing shares, a mere 4% of all stocks, were responsible for the stock market’s entire gain over and above T-bills. The remaining 96% of companies collectively generated returns that simply matched one-month T-bills. These findings have profound implications for investors. If just 4% of stocks—we'll call them the winners—account for the lion’s share of stock market returns, you had better own them or you’re doomed to underperform the market. If you invest in total market index funds, you will own these winners by default. On the other hand, if you’re picking individual stocks, your odds aren’t great. But let’s say you’re really smart (or lucky) and happen to pick a fair share of the winners. You face another big hurdle. You must hold on to your winners and not sell them prematurely. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Most investors display a strong tendency to sell their winners and ride their losers. This has been termed the disposition effect, first described by behavioral economists Hersh Shefrin and Meir Statman. The disposition effect can be explained by mental accounting and loss aversion. When an investor buys a stock, a mental account is subconsciously created. The initial investment or cost basis is recorded in this account. If the position is subsequently sold for less than its cost basis, the mental account is closed at a loss. Since losses are painful—particularly to our egos—investors do everything in their power to avoid this from happening, hence the tendency for investors to cling to their losers and even double down on them. Mental accounting also explains why investors are so quick to sell their winners. Selling a position for a gain closes the mental account in the black. This feels good and strokes the investor’s ego. It also serves as a salve for the pain caused by the losers in the portfolio. Prospect theory says that investors weigh losses more heavily than equal-sized gains. That means the mental anguish from a $1,000 loss must be counterbalanced by gains far in excess of $1,000, thus serving as further impetus for selling winners. From a tax standpoint, the disposition effect is an anomaly that shouldn’t exist. After all, our tax code rewards us for taking capital losses and penalizes our capital gains. Despite these incentives, the disposition effect is alive and well. It appears that investors are willing to pay a heavy tax to preserve their self-esteem. [xyz-ihs snippet="Mobile-Subscribe"] Taxes aside, consider the enormous damage done to a portfolio by selling winners too early. As demonstrated in Bessembinder’s paper, strip out the big winners from a portfolio and you are left with middling returns that are on par with T-bills. Why are the winners so vital to a portfolio? Because of the inherent asymmetry between losers and winners. A losing stock has limited downside. At worst, it can go to zero. In fact, in Bessembinder’s study, a 100% loss was the single most frequent outcome for individual stocks over their lifetime. On the other hand, winners had virtually unlimited upside. If you talk to seasoned investors, most will confess they struggle far more with the sell decision than the buy one. A recent study of institutional investors confirms this striking discrepancy. While the authors found clear evidence of skill in buying, selling decisions underperformed badly. In fact, they were worse than random selling strategies. Given the data from Bessembinder’s paper and the behavioral biases plaguing the sell decision, perhaps the best strategy is the one espoused by Warren Buffett: "When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. We are just the opposite of those who hurry to sell and book profits when companies perform well but who tenaciously hang on to businesses that disappoint. [Celebrated fund manager] Peter Lynch aptly likens such behavior to cutting the flowers and watering the weeds." The greatest investing sin may also explain why active managers find it so hard to beat mindless index funds. Notwithstanding lower fees, cap-weighted index funds have fundamental advantages over their actively managed brethren. As alluded to earlier, a total market index fund by definition will own all the winners. More important, it lets them ride. The manager of an index fund won’t be tempted to sell the winners, nor does he have an ego to preserve. What’s my advice to active managers and stock pickers? As much as possible, ignore your cost basis and focus on the fundamentals. Remember that the market is right most of the time, so let your losers go and enjoy the tax loss harvest. Most important, fight the urge to cash in on your winners with every fiber of your being. John Lim is a physician and author of "How to Raise Your Child's Financial IQ," which is available as both a free PDF and a Kindle edition. Follow John on Twitter @JohnTLim and check out his earlier articles. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]
Read more »

Very Fast, Not Very Smart

"Your comment give me a glorious mental image of greedy gerbils stuffing their cheek pouches with money while the bankrupt lemmings hurl themselves off a cliff in despair. I know, Norm — my mind needs a serious talking to."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Blood Money

"Glad we're aligned on index funds, though my defence sector pitch clearly needs work. I've been told I have the look of someone who'd try to lure you into a pump and dump, which is a reputation I'm apparently doing nothing to dispel. The article link in your reply was a welcome bonus; it made the Guinness 0.0 almost convincing…which, in a bar, is really the best you can hope for."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Treasury Tax Reporting

IF YOU HAVE a Money Market Fund (e.g. VUSXX, VMFXX), Treasury fund (e.g. SGOV), or any other Treasury ETF (e.g. VBIL), you need to know how to report it on your taxes correctly. If you don’t, you are overpaying on your state taxes unknowingly. 

How and why?

These funds hold U.S. Treasury Bills. Treasuries are exempt from state and local taxes. Of course, this only matters if you hold these funds in a taxable brokerage account, which most people do.

The broker sends you a 1099-DIV form, but it’s your responsibility to figure out how to report it on your taxes correctly. By the way, bad tax preparers can miss this sometimes, or if you self-prepare, this may be something you aren't aware of (I hope most of you reading HumbleDollar are familiar with this!)

This is one of those areas where the reporting rules are technically simple, but the execution is where people mess up. The IRS gets their share regardless (since interest is fully taxable at the federal level), but if you don’t adjust properly, your state will too, even when it shouldn’t.

The 1099-DIV doesn’t break out how much of the dividend was allocated to Treasuries. The software also wouldn’t know how much based on the 1099-DIV. This means that you generally have to figure out how to report it (or ensure your CPA does it correctly).

Now, the 1099-DIV will have a breakdown of every single stock/ETF you have, but you have to find out the percentage of a fund that holds Treasuries.

This percentage is not on your brokerage statement. It comes directly from the fund provider (Vanguard, iShares, Schwab, etc), usually buried in their “tax center” or “year-end tax supplement” pages.

Let me give you an actual example.

Say, in 2025, you received $5,000 of dividends from two funds.

Then, if you scroll down, you will see a “Detail Information” of your dividends:

Interest

We can see that $2,456.78 came from Vanguard Federal Money Market fund.

The entire $2,456.78 will be taxed at the federal level, but how do we figure out what’s taxed at the state level?

This is where the extra step comes is.

During the end of the year, the fund manager (e.g Vanguard for VMFXX) will post a “US government source income information” on their Tax page.

This report tells you what portion of the fund’s income is derived from U.S. government obligations (Treasuries), which is the key to the state tax exemption.

VMFXX

We can see that 66.61% of VMFXX holdings for the 2025 tax year were income derived from the U.S. government and, therefore, are not taxable at the state level.

So, we would take $2,456.78 * 0.6661 = $1,636. Of the total, $1,636 is derived from U.S. obligations, and you would only pay state taxes on the remaining ~$819.

That $2,456.78 is still fully taxable federally. This is strictly a state adjustment.

It’s also important to note that some states say "if less than 50% of the fund is from the U.S. government (like Treasury Bills), you can treat it as 0%.”

For example, California, Connecticut, and New York are some of these states. So, if the fund has only 35% coming from the Treasury, you shouldn’t even calculate the exempt amount for these states.

Now, if you buy Treasuries directly from TreasuryDirect, they will send you a 1099-INT, and you can just enter that information directly into the tax software. No extra calculations are needed. That’s because the income is already clearly identified as U.S. government interest, no allocation required.

So, how do you report that dividend interest calculation?

In most tax softwares, after entering the 1099-DIV, it will ask: "Did a portion of dividends came from a U.S. Government interest?'

So, you would just check it off/select and enter the amount from Treasuries ($1,636 in our example).

Behind the scenes, this flows into your state return as a subtraction or adjustment, depending on the state.

Some software might ask for the percentage of dividends that are state tax exempt. However, this is a bit tricky because you might receive other dividends in your brokerage account.

In that case, calculate the amount from the Treasury, say $1,636, and divide it by your total dividend amount (e.g. $5,000)

If you have someone do your taxes and you have some of these Money Market Funds or other Treasury ETFs, double-check your state tax return and see the amounts reported. This will save you some money. It's also not too late to amend your tax return if this was missed.

Specifically, look for a “U.S. government interest subtraction” or similarly labeled line item on your state return. If it’s zero and you held these funds, that’s a red flag.

If you live in a no tax state, this would not apply to you, but still good to know in case you move!

I hope you found this one valuable.

  Bogdan Sheremeta is a licensed CPA based in Illinois with experience at Deloitte and a Fortune 200 multinational.
Read more »

Simplify Everything

"That's a great idea especially with the prices. My wife notes the aisle location of the item the first time we get it and adds it to our shared Notes app shopping list, and it comes up again automatically when we add that item in the future. Then we sort the list by aisle making shopping speedy and efficient and helps us in only getting what we really need."
- Doug C
Read more »

Investment Versus Speculation

"I’m thinking of friends who have speculated in houses during their entire adult lives. To the best of my recollection they have owned 14 homes over the past 50 years, including the condo in town, and park unit in Florida that they currently own. Some houses were renovation projects and some were new builds. They lived in every single property long enough to escape capital gains taxes.  While not a bad plan, (if you don’t mind moving frequently), low house prices in Metro Toledo don’t provide for much profit margin. When calculating the profit made on each sale, they failed to include in the cost of property tax, mortgage interest, and utilities. They made a little money but have not become real estate tycons.  At the same time, they are the definition of ‘risk averse’. A couple attempts at market investments ended abruptly at the first signs of trouble, and at the most inopportune times. All 401(k) contributions have been in bond or stable value funds.  They would have accumulated much more money with proper investments versus house speculation.  I’m in total agreement with your final paragraph and sentence. "
- Dan Smith
Read more »

Giving Up on Owning a Home

"I can remember being in a similar situation in the early 1980s. I was on the 8-year plan to finish college, because I got started just when tuition was skyrocketing at 15% per year, and I was living in my own tiny apartment working as a research technician. Buying a house was, for all practical purposes, totally out of reach and mortgage rates were whole number multiples of what today's rates are. (It also didn't help being the tail end of the Baby Boomers - born 1961) I didn't buy my first house until I was almost 50 years old, but we paid cash on the barrel head, because I didn't like the mortgage rate that we were being offered on a loan. We were buying what would qualify as a starter house, because I was living & working overseas in the oil business and our eldest needed some place to lay his head when the dorms closed during university vacation periods. My point? Yeah, it's tough nowadays, but it was no walk in park for me, either. Unless your last name is Vanderbilt or Rockefeller (i.e., you come from moneyed parentage), success in life requires strong character to make the hard choices."
- John Doe
Read more »

Social Security Spousal Benefits

"This is a great description of the rules involved with figuring social security benefits when coordinating with a spouse. I know it has been mentioned before, but I think the Open Social Security calculator is worth mentioning here again in helping to strategize when to claim benefits."
- Doug C
Read more »

Quinn’s super frugal experiment. Are you up for a challenge?

"Ed, yes, thank you for asking. Everything went through fine, I updated in my guardianship post from December. Spouse will have to do a report to the court every 2 years. We were also very relieved that the bond we thought we would have to post, was waived by the judge. The “big” things like the house and car sale have closed. We are sleeping better. C"
- baldscreen
Read more »

A Big Little Move (by Dana/DrLefty)

"Thanks for the good thoughts! I already have my husband designated for survivor benefits for my pension, but we set up a trust and a successor trustee for her to provide some stability and guidance when she’s older."
- DrLefty
Read more »

The Cardinal Sin

THERE’S A LITANY of investment sins. But one may top them all. I’m guessing it’s one you haven’t given much thought to. Until recently, neither did I. The cardinal investment sin: selling your winners too soon. From 1926 to 2016, more than half of all U.S. stocks—57.4% to be exact—returned less than one-month Treasury bills. In other words, you were better off putting your money into risk-free T-bills than owning these stocks. In fact, more than half of common stocks delivered negative total returns. These stats come from an academic paper by finance professor Hendrik Bessembinder. Now here’s the real kicker: Bessembinder found that the best-performing shares, a mere 4% of all stocks, were responsible for the stock market’s entire gain over and above T-bills. The remaining 96% of companies collectively generated returns that simply matched one-month T-bills. These findings have profound implications for investors. If just 4% of stocks—we'll call them the winners—account for the lion’s share of stock market returns, you had better own them or you’re doomed to underperform the market. If you invest in total market index funds, you will own these winners by default. On the other hand, if you’re picking individual stocks, your odds aren’t great. But let’s say you’re really smart (or lucky) and happen to pick a fair share of the winners. You face another big hurdle. You must hold on to your winners and not sell them prematurely. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. Most investors display a strong tendency to sell their winners and ride their losers. This has been termed the disposition effect, first described by behavioral economists Hersh Shefrin and Meir Statman. The disposition effect can be explained by mental accounting and loss aversion. When an investor buys a stock, a mental account is subconsciously created. The initial investment or cost basis is recorded in this account. If the position is subsequently sold for less than its cost basis, the mental account is closed at a loss. Since losses are painful—particularly to our egos—investors do everything in their power to avoid this from happening, hence the tendency for investors to cling to their losers and even double down on them. Mental accounting also explains why investors are so quick to sell their winners. Selling a position for a gain closes the mental account in the black. This feels good and strokes the investor’s ego. It also serves as a salve for the pain caused by the losers in the portfolio. Prospect theory says that investors weigh losses more heavily than equal-sized gains. That means the mental anguish from a $1,000 loss must be counterbalanced by gains far in excess of $1,000, thus serving as further impetus for selling winners. From a tax standpoint, the disposition effect is an anomaly that shouldn’t exist. After all, our tax code rewards us for taking capital losses and penalizes our capital gains. Despite these incentives, the disposition effect is alive and well. It appears that investors are willing to pay a heavy tax to preserve their self-esteem. [xyz-ihs snippet="Mobile-Subscribe"] Taxes aside, consider the enormous damage done to a portfolio by selling winners too early. As demonstrated in Bessembinder’s paper, strip out the big winners from a portfolio and you are left with middling returns that are on par with T-bills. Why are the winners so vital to a portfolio? Because of the inherent asymmetry between losers and winners. A losing stock has limited downside. At worst, it can go to zero. In fact, in Bessembinder’s study, a 100% loss was the single most frequent outcome for individual stocks over their lifetime. On the other hand, winners had virtually unlimited upside. If you talk to seasoned investors, most will confess they struggle far more with the sell decision than the buy one. A recent study of institutional investors confirms this striking discrepancy. While the authors found clear evidence of skill in buying, selling decisions underperformed badly. In fact, they were worse than random selling strategies. Given the data from Bessembinder’s paper and the behavioral biases plaguing the sell decision, perhaps the best strategy is the one espoused by Warren Buffett: "When we own portions of outstanding businesses with outstanding managements, our favorite holding period is forever. We are just the opposite of those who hurry to sell and book profits when companies perform well but who tenaciously hang on to businesses that disappoint. [Celebrated fund manager] Peter Lynch aptly likens such behavior to cutting the flowers and watering the weeds." The greatest investing sin may also explain why active managers find it so hard to beat mindless index funds. Notwithstanding lower fees, cap-weighted index funds have fundamental advantages over their actively managed brethren. As alluded to earlier, a total market index fund by definition will own all the winners. More important, it lets them ride. The manager of an index fund won’t be tempted to sell the winners, nor does he have an ego to preserve. What’s my advice to active managers and stock pickers? As much as possible, ignore your cost basis and focus on the fundamentals. Remember that the market is right most of the time, so let your losers go and enjoy the tax loss harvest. Most important, fight the urge to cash in on your winners with every fiber of your being. John Lim is a physician and author of "How to Raise Your Child's Financial IQ," which is available as both a free PDF and a Kindle edition. Follow John on Twitter @JohnTLim and check out his earlier articles. [xyz-ihs snippet="Donate"]
Read more »

Very Fast, Not Very Smart

"Your comment give me a glorious mental image of greedy gerbils stuffing their cheek pouches with money while the bankrupt lemmings hurl themselves off a cliff in despair. I know, Norm — my mind needs a serious talking to."
- Mark Crothers
Read more »

Free Newsletter

Get Educated

Manifesto

NO. 47: IF WE NEED a financial advisor, we should hire one who’s legally required to act as a fiduciary—meaning he or she should only make recommendations that are in our best interest.

think

SOCIAL PROOF. We take our cues from others, assuming what’s popular is also good. That’s a smart strategy with movies, cars, restaurants and electronic gadgets. It’s often a terrible strategy with investments, because we find ourselves buying into stocks and market sectors that have already been bid up—and will likely have modest future returns.

act

CONSIDER A TARGET-date fund. Financial advisors push the notion that every investor needs a customized portfolio—and, indeed, we all like the idea that we have an investment mix specially designed for us. Yet most of us, whether we’re investing on our own or through an advisor, would likely fare just as well by buying a single target-date retirement fund.

Truths

NO. 103: YOU CAN estimate stock market returns by adding the starting dividend yield to the expected percentage increase in earnings per share. But such estimates could prove badly wrong—depending on investor sentiment. When investors grow bullish, they put a higher value on corporate earnings, driving up the market’s price-earnings ratio.

Plan your estate

Manifesto

NO. 47: IF WE NEED a financial advisor, we should hire one who’s legally required to act as a fiduciary—meaning he or she should only make recommendations that are in our best interest.

Spotlight: Careers

A Crisis of Competence?

Do you think we are moving toward a competency crisis in this country? I told this story in a comment on an article a few months back:
“Seven years ago, I bought a 2005 Outback. Despite the pink slip being clearly written by the dealer, the title came back with ‘Culter’ as my last name. I went to AAA for advice and they filled out a correction form for me. The title was revised to read ‘Renneth Culter’.

Read more »

An Ordinary Life

MY GRANDFATHER FALLS into the category of folks who are “not long remembered.” He died more than 75 years ago. None of his children or their spouses is alive. The one grandchild alive at the time of his death was only a few months old. It’s safe to say his memory has been all but erased, and yet his story offers a glimpse into what working life was like in the first half of the 1900s.

Read more »

The Renegade Therapist

I was in Flapjacks with my friend Jerry on a Monday morning that looked  like it had the potential to be a much-needed good day. But the pancakes were warmer than the conversation.
“How could you have embarrassed me like that? “
“You mean what I said last night when we were having dinner at Café Bernardo with those insufferable  attorney friends of yours?” I knew darn well what he meant but I didn’t think it was such a big deal.

Read more »

Framed by his Side Hustle?

I bumped into a friend a few months ago. I knew he’d retired about two years prior, and since I was just on the cusp of doing so, I steered the conversation toward how he was enjoying himself.
As we talked, he revealed he was pretty stressed out and far too busy to enjoy himself. Surprised by this confession, I pressed him for the reason.
It turns out, being good with his hands, he had always fancied having a go at picture framing and purchased some equipment for this endeavor.

Read more »

The Jevons Paradox

IN A RECENT INTERVIEW, Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, a leader in artificial intelligence, grabbed headlines. Amodei argued that the next generation of AI systems could replace half of entry-level jobs and drive up the unemployment rate to 20%. All of this could occur in the next five years, he said.
Recent data seem to support these glum predictions. Mark Zuckerberg said AI will be as capable as a mid-level programmer by the end of this year.

Read more »

Direct Dealings

You can’t put 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag, but all my life  I gave it a good try, and had a lot of interesting life experiences. I thought of ideas for a small, part time business venture that might provide a new opportunity to explore my creativity, with a flexible work schedule.
I got my chance— a neighbor invited me to a home demonstration party she hosted for a Beauty Consultant who sold cosmetic products. 

Read more »

Spotlight: Rohleder

On the House

WANT A CONSERVATIVE strategy that can help you prepare for college costs? Consider prepaying your mortgage. In 1992, when my oldest was 10 years old, we moved to a new home. We opted for a 15-year mortgage at 7.625% with 33% down. With our son’s graduation set for 2000, we began to prepay the mortgage so the last payment would coincide with the month before he began his freshman year. Thereafter, the payments previously sent to the mortgage company were instead directed to the college. Our aggressive repayment plan was made possible by buying enough house for our needs but less than we could afford. On top of that, the large down payment ensured that the required monthly payments were relatively low. Financial planners might say a better strategy would be to take out a 30-year mortgage with, say, a 10% down payment and then pay only the minimum required. The notion: You could take the money that isn’t going to the mortgage company—the difference between the 30-year loan’s smaller down payment plus lower monthly payments and the 15-year mortgage’s larger down payment and higher monthly payments—and instead invest in the stock market. As it turns out, I was able to make a direct comparison of the two approaches. We had money provided by a grandparent for our son’s college, which was invested in a stock mutual fund. For most of the 1990s, it looked like a great strategy. Then the dot-com bubble burst and a big chunk of the fund gains were erased just as college was starting. Meanwhile, the money prepaid on the mortgage effectively earned 7.625% a year. What are the lessons here? With a long time horizon, mortgage prepayments aren’t that burdensome. Imagine a family buying a home with a 30-year mortgage when their first child…
Read more »

Helping Mom and Dad

LIKE MANY BABY boomers, my wife and I have watched our parents go from total independence to assisted living to death. We’ve been thankful that, at key moments, they made the difficult decisions themselves, without our prompting. These decisions included when to give up the family home in favor of moving to a continuing care retirement community, when to give up their car and driver’s license, and when to move to assisted living. Our parents were organized and realistic people who trusted us to act for them in increasingly significant ways as they moved from one stage to the next. Because of their recognition of what they could and couldn’t do, they were able to ease these transitions. Below are five categories of steps they took, sometimes with our help. These steps protected their assets while they were alive and ensured that their assets were all accounted for after they died. Also, their actions ensured that, after their death, complications and potential family squabbles were minimized. They each put in place key estate planning documents: a will, a revocable living trust with one of us as trustee, a financial durable power of attorney designating one of us to act on their behalf in business matters, and a living will and durable power of attorney for health care. With these as a foundation, they made sure that their accounts were titled properly, so they were held within the trust. A word about revocable trusts: For most people, the main purpose of these trusts is to avoid the need for assets to go through probate. I haven’t been through the probate process, but attorneys say to avoid it as much as possible. I’ve been through the process of closing three parents’ estates with a trust in place and it went very smoothly.…
Read more »

Once Burned, Twice Shy

Return with me now to the year 1990. George H. W. Bush was President. The Buffalo Bills had a heartbreaking loss to the NY Giants in the Super Bowl. The Cold War ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Gulf War started when Iraq invaded Kuwait. In the investment world, Peter Lynch, the long-time mutual fund manager of Fidelity’s Magellan Fund, retired to be replaced by Morris Smith. In my chapter of Jonanthan Clement’s book My Money Journey, I tell how my mother and I made a leap of faith in 1981 to make our first foray into stock investing by purchasing the Magellan Fund. By 1990, my mother’s retirement plans were much more secure, Peter Lynch was my hero and the Magellan Fund was Fidelity’s flagship. My logic in 1990 was “Surely Fidelity will not let its flagship fund founder… they will place it carefully in the hands of the next Peter Lynch.”  So, we continued to hold Magellan for what would become a disappointing decade. To refresh my memory, I asked CoPilot to summarize Magellan’s performance for ten years after Lynch’s retirement. Morris Smith had a two-year tenure with similarly strong results. According to AI, from 1992 to 1996 “Jeff Vinik produced strong absolute performance but made a famous defensive shift into bonds and cash in 1995, causing the fund to lag the S&P 500 during a major rally.”  Then came Robert Stansky in 1996. Magellan had over $100 million in assets by then. “The fund is specifically remembered for underperformance in his tenure.”  Further, “With that size, Magellan became more index‑like and diversified, making it very hard to keep up with a narrow, momentum‑driven tech rally. The S&P 500 concentrated gains in a few mega‑cap growth names; Magellan, by design and scale, couldn’t mirror that…
Read more »

Free Lunch?

On the Fidelity account page that displays my holdings online, I noticed banners saying I could make extra money by lending my securities. I ignored this on the premise of “too good to be true.”  Then I got an email from Fidelity advertising their Fully Paid Lending Program and read what they had to say. By following a link, I was able to get an assessment of each of my accounts telling me which holdings might be eligible and how much they might yield. The account assessments said I did have eligible securities, all of which were ETFs, and that I could earn interest by loaning them to others, apparently short sellers. The interest estimates ranged from 1% to 10% based on the loan market for each security. This interest rate is security specific and varies from time to time based on the market for each security. Interest accumulates during the month and is paid out after month end. Still skeptical, I did an online search independent of Fidelity and found that other brokerages have substantially identical programs, including Vanguard, Schwab and Interactive Brokers. The primary caution I picked up from my online search was that tax favored qualified dividends paid on a security while it is on loan will be passed on to you, but it will be in the form of ordinary income not as a qualified dividend. Of course, this only matters in taxable accounts. The security does not have SIPC insurance coverage while it is on loan. The program description explains that when a security is loaned out, Fidelity deposits an equivalent dollar amount into a bank account as collateral in the event the borrower fails to return the security. The collateral is adjusted periodically to account for changes in the market value of the loaned…
Read more »

Independent Investor

FRANK CAPPIELLO and Carter Randall were longtime panelists on the television show Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser. Panelists typically worked at investment firms, with their affiliations displayed on the screen. At some point, Cappiello and Randall retired. On the screen, each was simply identified as an “independent investor.” At least one regular guest, John Templeton, also achieved this listing after retiring from running the Templeton Funds. That “independent investor” label intrigued me then and does to this day. Do you need a career on Wall Street or in the financial services industry to achieve this designation? Does society benefit from having independent investors? Can you be an independent investor with $100,000 or do you need a million? I’m retired and primarily living off my investments. Does that make me an independent investor? Popular portrayals of wealthy individuals who make money from money are often negative. Think of Charles Dickens’s Ebenezer Scrooge or Mr. Potter from It’s a Wonderful Life. William Shakespeare coined a term with his infamous moneylender Shylock, who seeks a “pound of flesh” from a defaulted borrower. Marxists would say that in the eternal tension between capital and labor, investors are extracting their wealth from the sweat of workers. The old saw says that money does not grow on trees—it has to be earned here on earth. Savers who put their money into bank accounts and investors who buy stocks are funding the future. Even in Bedford Falls, Jimmy Stewart, playing George Bailey, explains that money deposited in a bank account is invested in a neighbor’s house. The mortgage pays the interest earned by the depositor. Without saving and investing, there would be no capital to expand the economy. Wall Street Week producers used the moniker “independent investor” to make clear the panelist had no employment affiliation.…
Read more »

Rebuilding My Ladder

I DID IT AGAIN. I correctly identified a trend but jumped too soon. When interest rates plummeted as the Federal Reserve reacted to COVID-19, I had a ladder of certificates of deposit. Some of these CDs are only now reaching maturity. Each step of the ladder yielded 2% to 3%. This looked good in comparison to the low rates available through most of the COVID period. As the short-term CDs in the ladder matured, I deposited most of the proceeds in a high-yield savings account. Its interest rate had dropped as low as 0.5%, but I accepted that low return because I didn’t want to lock in low CD rates for the long run. Not long ago, I wrote about using this money to partially rebuild my CD ladder. Rates were inching up and I thought a yield of just over 1% was worth locking in with a 13-month CD. After all, this was a better rate than what had been available during the past few years. My first indication that I could do better came in a comment from a HumbleDollar reader, who asked why I would buy a CD when I could build a ladder of one- to three-year Treasurys yielding far more. An added bonus: Interest on Treasurys isn’t subject to state or local income taxes, raising their effective return. The short answer is, I’d never before considered Treasurys as an investment option. I’d only just opened my first TreasuryDirect account a few months earlier to take advantage of Series I savings bonds, then paying an initial annualized rate of 9.62%. The other factor: I didn’t appreciate just how fast interest rates would rise this year—or that the rates paid on Treasurys would rise considerably faster than bank CD rates. Banks are still not hungry for CD…
Read more »