Category: Personal Finance

Student Loan Payments Resume

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

After nearly 3 years of reprieve, student loan payments are set to restart on October 1, 2023. However, the landscape looks much different thanks to sweeping changes made by the Biden administration. These alterations have made student debt more manageable and offered routes to accelerated payoff or even forgiveness that didn’t exist before.

The impact could extend beyond individual borrowers to provide a boost to the overall economy. With less income eaten up by student loan payments, borrowers will have more spending power. That additional discretionary income circulating through the economy acts as a stimulus.

Perhaps the most impactful change was the elimination of interest capitalization in most cases. This is the process where unpaid interest gets added to the loan balance, causing it to balloon. Now, interest no longer capitalizes when borrowers exit forbearance, leave income-driven repayment plans, or have other status changes. Only when exiting deferment on unsubsidized loans does interest get added to principal. This prevents balances from spiraling out of control.

Biden has also dramatically expanded access to forgiveness. Over 3 million borrowers have already had loans discharged through revamps of programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness and income-driven repayment. The former saw its complex rules simplified, while the latter had payment counts adjusted and forbearance periods now qualifying for credit. These tweaks pushed many over the line into immediate forgiveness.

Even borrowers who don’t qualify for these programs have an easier time discharging loans through bankruptcy. New guidelines tell government lawyers not to oppose bankruptcy discharge requests that meet certain criteria laid out in a 15-page form. This makes the previously rare “undue hardship” determination more accessible.

The administration also implemented a 1-year “on ramp” where missed payments don’t negatively impact credit or trigger default. This grace period offers struggling borrowers a clean slate before consequences kick in again.

Those able to resume payments may even benefit from today’s high interest rates. Federal student loans have fixed low rates, so borrowers can pay them down faster by investing in treasury notes earning far higher returns. Inflation likewise reduces the real burden of student debt over time.

While these changes have brought tangible individual relief, broadly reducing the student debt burden could also provide a macroeconomic boost. Money freed up in household budgets gets spent elsewhere, circulating through and stimulating the economy.

The Biden administration still wants to enact broad student debt cancellation for this very reason. After the Supreme Court blocked its forgiveness plan, the Department of Education launched “negotiated rulemaking” to find another path. This bureaucratic process involving public committees aims to deliver a new cancellation proposal in late 2024.

Until then, the reshaped student loan landscape gives borrowers breathing room. The structural changes determine whether student debt remains a crushing burden or becomes manageable.

With interest capitalization curbed and expanded opportunities for discharge, balances can actually shrink instead of endlessly growing. The credit safeguards offer wiggle room to get finances in order before consequences hit. And the door to forgiveness has been opened wider than ever before.

Of course, these alterations won’t instantly solve every borrower’s problems. But they provide avenues for relief that didn’t exist previously. And more importantly, they signal a philosophical shift that student debt shouldn’t ruin lives or constrain futures.

There’s still work to be done, like making income-driven repayment more accessible and adding guardrails to limit excessive debt. But the momentum is towards a system that helps borrowers succeed rather than burying them in interest and unpayable balances.

So while student loan repayment is resuming, borrowers can take heart that it’s restarting under a fairer set of rules. The old grind of watching debt balloon while relief remained elusive has thankfully been left behind. With a potential wider economic stimulus, these changes could benefit more than just student borrowers.

How to Use Small Caps to Diversify Your Portfolio

Posted on by slightbourne@noblecapitalmarkets.com

Small cap stocks are an often overlooked opportunity for regular investors. While most focus their attention on big household names like Apple and Microsoft, small caps can provide key benefits to your portfolio. In this article, we’ll look at what makes small cap stocks different, reasons to consider investing in them, and how best to include them in your overall investing strategy.

What are Small Cap Stocks?

Small cap simply refers to small capitalization companies. They have a total market value or capitalization that is relatively small. In the U.S. stock market, small caps are generally defined as companies with a market cap between $300 million to $2 billion. Meanwhile, large cap stocks are the big boys like Walmart with market caps over $10 billion.

The most obvious trait of small caps is that they are younger, newer companies. Think of spunky young upstarts versus mature bluechip firms. Many small caps are still working to find their footing and carve out their niche, whereas large caps dominate established sectors.

This gives small caps more room for rapid growth, but also higher risk. Their smaller size means limited resources, unproven track records, and uncertainty around whether they will achieve scale. Volatility comes with the territory.

But with greater risk can also come greater reward if you pick the right small caps. For investors, this asset class offers plenty of overlooked potential.

So why should investors even bother with small caps? A few good reasons:

Growth Potential

The biggest appeal of small caps is their high growth potential. While large established companies have already reached maturity, small caps are still in their early stages where rapid expansion is possible. Getting in early on promising small cap stocks can lead to massive returns over time.

For example, buying shares of a company like Etsy or Shopify in their early days as small caps could have generated 10x or even 100x returns for patient investors as those companies grew to multi-billion dollar valuations. The chance to identify and own the next Apple or Amazon while their market cap is just a few hundred million dollars is an enormous opportunity.

Of course, investing in any small cap is high risk and many will not succeed. But a diversified portfolio of thoughtfully selected small caps tilted towards sectors with strong tailwinds can unlock tremendous growth. Taking some calculated risks while sticking to sound fundamentals is key.

Diversification

Owning small caps is a great way to diversify a portfolio heavy on mature large cap stocks. Because small caps operate in different niches and have unique risk factors, their stock prices behave differently than large caps. This means including small caps can actually lower overall portfolio risk and volatility.

Small caps also shine at different points of the economic cycle than large caps. When growth is sluggish, investors tend to favor large caps for their stability. But in periods of economic expansion and bull markets, small caps tend to deliver stronger returns. This cyclicality means pairing both provides more balanced exposure across market environments.

And importantly, the returns of small caps have low correlation to large caps. This low correlation is a crucial benefit, since it smooths out portfolio performance over time. For example, when large cap stocks are declining, small caps may be stable or even rising. This illustrates why allocating 20-30% of a portfolio to high-quality small caps can improve overall diversification.

Innovation Appeal

Another major reason to invest in small caps is the innovation factor. Small companies are often pioneers in developing cutting-edge technologies, medicines, software platforms and other game-changing solutions. Unlike large caps, small caps have agility and risk tolerance to focus intensely on bringing new ideas to market.

For example, most breakthrough biotech and pharma firms start out as small caps, racing to get FDA approval for their patented drugs. Software firms disrupting industries also tend to be younger and more nimble. And emerging sectors like green energy and electric vehicles are being driven by upstart small cap companies.

Getting in early with innovative small caps developing disruptive technologies provides exposure to future trends that large caps simply don’t offer. It allows investors to tap into new niches before they become mainstream. And investing alongside visionary founders and entrepreneurs in new fields generates exciting upside.

Of course, betting on unproven technologies and markets comes with risk. But a basket approach of diversifying across several promising small caps in high-potential areas prudently taps into this appeal. Backing innovation via calculated small cap investments generates asymmetric reward versus risk.

Investing Strategies with Small Caps

The most popular approach is investing in small cap mutual funds or ETFs. This provides instant diversification across dozens or hundreds of small cap stocks. Low cost index funds like the Vanguard Small-Cap ETF are a great starting point because they track the overall small cap market at low cost. Actively managed small cap funds aim to outperform by utilizing research and stock picking. Either method offers a simple way to add small cap exposure.

For a more active approach, investors can hand pick individual small cap stocks. This requires rigorous research to identify quality companies within attractive niches that have strong leadership, a durable competitive advantage, and metrics pointing to high growth potential.

Since small caps carry more risk, it’s crucial to diversify and size positions appropriately when buying individual stocks. Use them to complement a core portfolio of sturdy large caps. Blending individual stock picks with a small cap index core allows concentrating assets in your highest conviction ideas. Overweighting small caps beyond 20-30% of your total portfolio exposure adds undue risk.

While small caps demand more research and carry greater risk, they can supercharge portfolio returns. Blending small caps strategically with large caps allows investors to capitalize on this untapped potential while minimizing the downside.

Newer Traders Have A Lot Going For Them; That Could Be a Problem

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Deciding if Buy and Hold or Trading is Best for You?

New investors today have powerful tools that may exceed what was available even at institutions just a decade ago. This provides a leg-up on those of us who had to cover high trading fees, buy and sell, before we made a dime. Then, there is today’s information availability. Stock prices were printed in the morning from the day before close; that is how investors were updated. Then there is all the other up-to-the-minute information from your broker and company data and research from platforms like Channelchek and others.  

This can be both helpful and overwhelming to a new investor deciding where to focus and what type of investment style suits them. 

The least expensive discount brokers, when I bought my very first hundred shares cost $100 in and $100 out ($200 round trip). So exceeding two dollars per share on each round lot (orders not in lots of 100 cost more) was necessary to break even. Between this and the non-current price information, a buy-and-hold position was the only position that made much sense.

Now, transacting is just point-and-shoot. Even bid versus ask spreads are minuscule. This makes it more practical for an investor to decide not to ride out a perceived slide even if they have confidence that it will reverse later. Instead, with the ability to unload before an expected trouble spot develops, an investor that waits instead, may become angry with themselves that they held and their account value has declined.  

Today’s set of circumstances has a lot more investors acting like traders and trying to time the market. The tolerance for seeing a holding is up, say 6% over a period of time, only to be down 2% over a longer period, then up 7% down the road is much more rare. Newer investors don’t have as much price swing tolerance, they want to take a profit before the market drops. Some then expect as much as a 20% dip that they can buy back into.

Of course, hitting the near tops and low points to maximize profit is unlikely. And trying to do it usually leads to frustration from missed opportunity when it doesn’t then move in the direction that would benefit the trader.

So is it prudent to try to time price moves up and down and trade the shares, to take advantage of so much information? Or, should they do research, find companies they expect will do well, and then look for a good entry point, not even thinking about an exit unless it begins to behave outside of expectations?

This is particularly relevant in a year where the market is up above average, which means if it gravitates back to its mean average annual return, the overall market will end the year lower than it is now.  

There is no one simple answer, but a practical approach is to have core holdings to take the long ride with, and then view other stocks separately that maybe move a little faster, up and down, that are for  timing moves. This leads to diversification in holding periods. But, in order to work, one has to not forget or give up on the individual strategies of the two investment styles that are to be thought of separately, perhaps even in two different accounts.

But when does one sell from the buy-and-hold portion, is there a trigger? And what is the trigger with the assets in the trading portion?

The same idea could apply to both sets of assets. Set the parameters for every trade and stick to them. Take a profit or a loss when the parameter is met, regardless of what you may feel at that time. Good decisions and “if-this, then-that” thinking is best when not in the heat of battle. Plan your trade and trade your plan regardless. In some cases it may have worked out better if you had acted differently than planned, but if it is based on realistic expectations or probabilities, then chances are, over the years it will reap greater rewards.

This ongoing reassessment, regardless of expected holding time,  has the investor set levels, both above and below a stock’s current price, that, when struck causes the investor to evaluate. That evaluation may simply be asking oneself has anything changed since I set this parameter? If not, act. It may also be asking oneself, is this the best use of my capital right now, or is there a better place that I believe has the potential to outperform the current holding?

Take Away

An investment portfolio plan with meaningful rules to follow helps reduce the anxiety of investing. Whether 90% is earmarked buy-and-hold, or 90% is to achieve short-term gains and avoid big drawdowns, the trades must be managed to a pre-thought-out sensible plan. The expectation then is that none of the positions will work out perfectly timed, but as a whole, over a long enough period, the investor will be better off than if they had no guidelines or fewer boundaries.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channechek

Do Regional Federal Reserve Branches Put Banks in Their Region at Risk?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

The Fed Is Losing Tens of Billions: How Are Individual Federal Reserve Banks Doing?

The Federal Reserve System as of the end of July 2023 has accumulated operating losses of $83 billion and, with proper, generally accepted accounting principles applied, its consolidated retained earnings are negative $76 billion, and its total capital negative $40 billion. But the System is made up of 12 individual Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs). Each is a separate corporation with its own shareholders, board of directors, management and financial statements. The commercial banks that are the shareholders of the Fed actually own shares in the particular FRB of which they are a member, and receive dividends from that FRB. As the System in total puts up shockingly bad numbers, the financial situations of the individual FRBs are seldom, if ever, mentioned. In this article we explore how the individual FRBs are doing.

All 12 FRBs have net accumulated operating losses, but the individual FRB losses range from huge in New York and really big in Richmond and Chicago to almost breakeven in Atlanta. Seven FRBs have accumulated losses of more than $1 billion. The accumulated losses of each FRB as of July 26, 2023 are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Accumulated Operating Losses of Individual Federal Reserve Banks

New York ($55.5 billion)

Richmond ($11.2 billion )

Chicago ( $6.6 billion )

San Francisco ( $2.6 billion )

Cleveland ( $2.5 billion )

Boston ( $1.6 billion )

Dallas ( $1.4 billion )

Philadelphia ($688 million)

Kansas City ($295 million )

Minneapolis ($151 million )

St. Louis ($109 million )

Atlanta ($ 13 million )

The FRBs are of very different sizes. The FRB of New York, for example, has total assets of about half of the entire Federal Reserve System. In other words, it is as big as the other 11 FRBs put together, by far first among equals. The smallest FRB, Minneapolis, has assets of less than 2% of New York. To adjust for the differences in size, Table 2 shows the accumulated losses as a percent of the total capital of each FRB, answering the question, “What percent of its capital has each FRB lost through July 2023?” There is wide variation among the FRBs. It can be seen that New York is also first, the booby prize, in this measure, while Chicago is a notable second, both having already lost more than three times their capital. Two additional FRBs have lost more than 100% of their capital, four others more than half their capital so far, and two nearly half. Two remain relatively untouched.

Table 2: Accumulated Losses as a Percent of Total Capital of Individual FRBs

New York 373%

Chicago 327%

Dallas 159%

Richmond 133%

Boston 87%

Kansas City 64%

Cleveland 56%

Minneapolis 56%

San Francisco 48%

Philadelphia 46%

St. Louis 11%

Atlanta 1%

Thanks to statutory formulas written by a Congress unable to imagine that the Federal Reserve could ever lose money, let alone lose massive amounts of money, the FRBs maintained only small amounts of retained earnings, only about 16% of their total capital. From the percentages in Table 2 compared to 16%, it may be readily observed that the losses have consumed far more than the retained earnings in all but two FRBs. The GAAP accounting principle to be applied is that operating losses are a subtraction from retained earnings. Unbelievably, the Federal Reserve claims that its losses are instead an intangible asset. But keeping books of the Federal Reserve properly, 10 of the FRBs now have negative retained earnings, so nothing left to pay out in dividends.

On orthodox principles, then, 10 of the 12 FRBs would not be paying dividends to their shareholders. But they continue to do so. Should they?

Much more striking than negative retained earnings is negative total capital. As stated above, properly accounted for, the Federal Reserve in the aggregate has negative capital of $40 billion as of July 2023. This capital deficit is growing at the rate of about $ 2 billion a week, or over $100 billion a year. The Fed urgently wants you to believe that its negative capital does not matter. Whether it does or what negative capital means to the credibility of a central bank can be debated, but the big negative number is there. It is unevenly divided among the individual FRBs, however.

With proper accounting, as is also apparent from Table 2, four of the FRBs already have negative total capital. Their negative capital in dollars shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Federal Reserve Banks with Negative Capital as of July 2023

New York ($40.7 billion)

Chicago ($ 4.6 billion )

Richmond ($ 2.8 billion )

Dallas ($514 million )

In these cases, we may even more pointedly ask: With negative capital, why are these banks paying dividends?

In six other FRBs, their already shrunken capital keeps on being depleted by continuing losses. At the current rate, they will have negative capital within a year, and in 2024 will face the same fundamental question.

What explains the notable differences among the various FRBs in the extent of their losses and the damage to their capital? The answer is the large difference in the advantage the various FRBs enjoy by issuing paper currency or dollar bills, formally called “Federal Reserve Notes.” Every dollar bill is issued by and is a liability of a particular FRB, and the FRBs differ widely in the proportion of their balance sheets funded by paper currency.

The zero-interest cost funding provided by Federal Reserve Notes reduces the need for interest-bearing funding. All FRBs are invested in billions of long-term fixed-rate bonds and mortgage securities yielding approximately 2%, while they all pay over 5% for their deposits and borrowed funds—a surefire formula for losing money. But they pay 5% on smaller amounts if they have more zero-cost paper money funding their bank. In general, more paper currency financing reduces an FRB’s operating loss, and a smaller proportion of Federal Reserve Notes in its balance sheet increases its loss. The wide range of Federal Reserve Notes as a percent of various FRBs’ total liabilities, a key factor in Atlanta’s small accumulated losses and New York’s huge ones, is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Federal Reserve Notes Outstanding as a Percent of Total Liabilities

Atlanta 64%

St. Louis 60%

Minneapolis 58%

Dallas 51%

Kansas City 50%

Boston 45%

Philadelphia 44%

San Francisco 39%

Cleveland 38%

Chicago 26%

Richmond 23%

New York 17%

The Federal Reserve System was originally conceived not as a unitary central bank, but as 12 regional reserve banks. It has evolved a long way toward being a unitary organization since then, but there are still 12 different banks, with different balance sheets, different shareholders, different losses, and different depletion or exhaustion of their capital. Should it make a difference to a member bank shareholder which particular FRB it owns stock in? The authors of the Federal Reserve Act thought so.

About the Author

Alex J. Pollock is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute, and is the co-author of Surprised Again! — The Covid Crisis and the New Market Bubble (2022). Previously he served as the Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Financial Research in the U.S. Treasury Department (2019-2021), Distinguished Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute (2015-2019 and 2021), Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (2004-2015), and President and CEO, Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (1991-2004). He is the author of Finance and Philosophy—Why We’re Always Surprised (2018).

Financial Firms are Taking More than People as they Leave California and New York

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Putting Numbers on the AUM Leaving the North

While it is no secret that there has been a migration of the finance and investment community out of New York and California, other than piecing together vehicle registrations to count people, there have been few hard numbers put on the firms and their AUM that have pulled out. This week, Bloomberg put hard numbers on the exodus, and it’s worse than most imagined. Looking at corporate filings back to the end of 2019, it found that more than 17,000 firms have moved. The two states have lost assets under management (AUM), within their borders, totaling more than $1 trillion.

This has also meant a lot of above average paying jobs, which saps tax revenue, and stresses state budgets. The commercial real estate markets in the two high-tax states have also taken a big hit as deep-pocketed tenants have packed up and left at a time when remote and hybrid work have already bled demand.

The Bloomberg piece makes clear that New York City remains the global center for asset management, but while New York is being slowly drained, it is “fueling a boom” down south. The article discusses the soaring Miami home prices and lifestyle improvements. In Dallas, the finance industry is expanding at a pace reminiscent of the 1980s oil bust. Charles Schwab moved to the area in 2020, and now Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo are working to create office space to accommodate thousands of employees.

The moves continue to be inspired by costs and weather, and now face-to-face meetings are easier as the Dallas or Boca Raton associate is no longer an “out-of-towner”. The migration has dramatically increased the growth of professionals in the industry, in areas that previously had very few financial firms.

“The Sun Belt is continuing to change – no longer just a place of traditional industries like oil and gas, no longer just focused on tourism, of focusing on the retirement community,” Bloomberg quotes Amy Liu, interim President of the Brookings Institute, as saying.

From the beginning of 2020 through the end of the first quarter 2023, more than 370 investment companies decided to make a move. The companies represent 2.5% of the US total, and manage $2.7 trillion in assets. A high percentage was from the Northeast and the West Coast to Florida and Texas. But, North Carolina and Tennessee together grew by $600 billion in assets now managed within their borders. This is primarily from Alliance Bernstein moving out of New York and to Nashville, and Allspring Global Investment out of San Franciso and to Charlotte.

The AUM Migration by Region (Q1 2020 – Q1 2023)

Washington State saw three firms leave during this period, but the assets under management in the state dropped 19% as a result, as Fisher Investments was one of the three. Connecticut, a long-time suburb of the Big Apple is known for the hedge funds that have been headquartered there and enjoying lower taxes than in “the city.” The proximity to New York and the rising Connecticut taxes were traded by enough firms that Florida now has more assets under management than Connecticut.

Florida acquired the most assets from the migration from New York, Ark Investment Management, run by Cathie Wood, and Carl Icahn’s Icahn Capital Management were prominent names. Ken Griffin’s Citadel from Chicago is altering the South Florida skyline as it builds out offices, and DoubleLine moved from Los Angeles to Florida’s West Coast.

Smaller firms are on the move too. Whether they are following the sun, or the wealthy baby boomers, Palm Beach saw 37 investment advisors relocate, and Miami experienced an influx of 63 advisors.

The AUM in these new states is being enhanced by wealthy individuals also picking up and moving from their higher-tax residences. Tiger 21, a worldwide network of more than 1200 high net-worth investors, with assets over $150 billion, has grown its Florida chapter.

Take Away

The only thing that stays the same is change, as the saying goes. The pandemic brought on a lot of changes that most did not see coming. The migration out of places widely viewed as more difficult to live in because of costs, or year-round temperatures includes powerful financial firms. These firms are bringing in professionals who are accustomed to a certain way of conducting business. Until recently, the ability to do business this way did not fully exist in the areas where their firms have relocated – now it does.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-asset-management-relocation-wall-street-south/

Blackrock Checked “No” on 93% of Environmental and Social Proxy Votes

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Blackrock’s Support for ESG May Have Been Unsustainable

Blackrock, a firm with a reputation for strongly supporting ESG resolutions, having voted yes on 47% of them in 2020, voted down 93% in the past year. The company provided the reasons for shunning 371 proposals out of 399 in its annual Stewardship Report released on August 23rd. With $9.4 trillion under management, investors pay attention to the investment manager. This gives it the power, whether it likes it or not, to create trends as others follow its lead. Should the company’s adjusted position on ESG be taken as something others want to mimic? The reasons given leave that in question.

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager. As such, the funds it manages own significant amounts of shares of a broad array of public companies. The Blackrock funds vote on important matters related to the underlying companies if a corporate resolution requires a shareholder vote. Think of the ETF or mutual fund as a trust, and the fund manager, Blackrock, gets to vote on behalf of the assets in the trust. Whereas if an investor owns individual shares of a company, they get to decide and vote themselves, either at a board meeting or more likely, through a proxy statement. Certainly, the amount of control over the decisions of corporations worldwide given to an asset manager of this size is immense.

Each year, the company files a report on its voting during the proxy season. It broke records by voting down 91% of all shareholder proposals and against 93% of those focused on environmental and social issues during the 2023 proxy year. The 7% of ESG proposals that BlackRock supported this year is down sharply from 2022, when BlackRock’s investment stewardship team supported 24% of such proposals, and from 2021, when it supported 47%.

BlackRock’s Investment Stewardship team, makes the voting decisions on both management and shareholder proposals on behalf of BlackRock’s clients. It said the large number of “NO” votes this year is partly related to a huge influx of shareholder proposals. These were described as “poor quality” by the BIS team, either because they were “lacking economic merit,” were “overly prescriptive” and “sought to micromanage a company’s strategy,” or were simply redundant, asking a company to do something it had already done, the Stewardship Report said.

BlackRock’s support for management proposals (not shareholder proposals), which accounted for more than 99% of the roughly 172,000 proposals voted on by BIS, remained high at 88%.

BlackRock’s trend of voting against shareholder proposals is largely in line with other fund managers. The median shareholder support for environmental and social proposals in the U.S. fell sharply from 25% in 2022 to just 15% in the 2023 proxy year.

The firm has backed away from ESG as a term if not a concept. The most recent CEO newsletter did not include the acronym at all, and during a June interview, CEO Larry Fink said he does not use the term, he gave this reason, “I’m not blaming one side or the other, but it has been totally weaponized,” Mr. Fink said. “In my last CEO letter, the phrase ESG was not uttered once, because it’s been unfortunately politicized and weaponized.” He now has a reluctance to have his firm associated with the term ESG after a wave of backlash from both sides of the political spectrum.

In December 2022, Florida’s chief financial officer announced that the state would pull $2 billion worth of assets managed by BlackRock, the largest such divestment by a state opposed to the asset manager’s environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) policies. BlackRock also lost some of its business of oil rich Texas from its government pension funds because of its ESG policies. Louisiana and Missouri, have also taken steps to divest from BlackRock.

Although not specifically stated in the report, Blackrock fund managers still support the idea that good corporate citizenship could in turn, benefit shareholders. But they will no longer be out front as though ESG factors are the most important criteria. Earlier this month S&P Global Ratings decided it would not provide ESG ratings separate from its credit ratings. Instead, S&P will factor in all of the obligors’ business practices as it relates to risk of non-payment, and assign only a credit rating.

The term has become polarizing as differing political philosophies tend to stand together in support of ESG issues being taken into investment consideration, and other political leanings stand opposed to the not fully developed concept. This has hurt Blackrock.

Republican politicians have been probing Blackrock’s business dealings and asking conservative-leaning state pension funds to divest from the company, which they say has unfairly excluded the traditional energy sector.

On the other hand, environmental activists have lambasted Mr. Fink and his company for not doing enough to stop climate change, protesting in front of BlackRock’s headquarters and heckling senior executives at public speaking engagements. In June Blackrock began providing high-level security to protect Mr. Fink and others in management.

Take Away

When you put your money into most mutual funds, you give away the power that comes with voting on important matters to the underlying shares held by the trust of which you are a part owner. As mutual funds and ETFs have grown, more of the power to guide companies has been handed to the elite running asset management companies.

The growth in popularity in “sustainability” investing caused a rush from investors to these funds, which then needed to place assets in the limited number of companies in the segment. This caused a rise in the share prices of the companies and a rise in the popularity of the funds. Many investors were indifferent to ESG, but not indifferent to making money, they also jumped in. Companies quickly caught on and adjusted their logos to include leaves and the color green, altering some business practices.

While the leadership that Blackrock provides may signal the eventual demise of the term ESG, there has always been, and will always be an interest in putting your money where your heart is. The concept will live, but with Blackrock’s lead, the acronym may transform to something that is less political and less likely to cause protests outside of his home.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/shareholder-resolution/

https://www.pionline.com/esg/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-says-he-no-longer-uses-term-esg

https://www.ft.com/content/06fb1b85-56ba-48cd-b6f6-75f8b8eee7e1

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/blackrock-continues-lowering-support-environmental-social-proposals-2023-08-23/

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/insights/investment-stewardship

The Three Causes Crushing Crypto

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Bitcoin’s Throttleback Thursday Explained

Bitcoin and Ethereum had a bad day. After gaining a lot of upward momentum from late June after Blackrock, Fidelity, and Invesco filed to create bitcoin-related exchange traded funds (ETFs), the volatile assets have shown cryptocurrency investors that the bumpy ride is not yet over. What’s causing it this time? Fortunately, it is not fraud or wrongdoing creating the turbulence. Instead, three factors external to the business of trading, mining, or exchanging digital assets are at work.

 Background

On Thursday, August 17, and accelerating on August 18, the largest cryptocurrencies dropped precipitously. Bitcoin even broke down and fell below the psychologically important $26,000 US dollar price level before bouncing. While some are pointing to CME options expiration on the third Friday of each month, most are pointing to a Wall Street Journal article, and blaming Elon Musk, as the reason the asset class was nudged off a small cliff. There are other less highlighted, but important, catalysts that added to the flash-crash; these, along with the WSJ story, will be explained below.

Smells like Musk

What could SpaceX, the company owned and run by Elon Musk, possibly have to do with a crypto selloff? On Thursday, the crypto market had a downward spike around 5 PM ET. It was just after the Wall Street Journal revealed a change in the accounting valuation of SpaceX’s crypto assets. Reportedly, SpaceX marked down the value of its bitcoin assets by a substantial $373 million over the past two years. Additionally, the company has executed on crypto asset divestitures as well. When the reduction took place is uncertain, but cryptocurrency holdings have been reduced both in terms of the amount of coins and the value each coin is held for on the books.

Elon Musk’s reputation is that of a forward thinker, and one that embraces, if not leads, technology. He has significant influence over cryptocurrency valuations, often instigating pronounced market fluctuations brought about by Musk’s influential posts on his social media company, X. The reduction coincides with a similar crypto reduction on the books of publicly held, Musk-led, Tesla (TSLA). The electric car manufacturer had previously disclosed in its annual earnings report that it had liquidated 75% of its bitcoin reserves.

While it should not be surprising that two companies stepped away from speculation on something unrelated to their business or lowered support for the still young blockchain technology, it gave a reason for a reaction to this and other festering dynamics.

Wary of Gary

The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Gary Gensler, is viewed as a “Whack-a Mole” to crypto stakeholders that prefer more autonomy than regulation. Every time the SEC gets knocked down as a potential regulator, it resurfaces, and crypto businesses have to deal with the agency again.  

Last month, Judge Analisa Torres made a pivotal decision in a case involving payment company Ripple Labs and the Commission. Her verdict declared that a substantial portion of sales of the token XRP did not fall under the category of securities transactions. The SEC claimed it was a security. This judgement was hailed as a triumph for the crypto sector and catalyzed an impressive 20% uptick in the exchange Coinbase’s stock in a single day.

On the same Thursday as the WSJ article, the SEC showed its face again with a strong response to the earlier ruling. Judge Torres allowed the SEC’s request for an “interlocutory” appeal on her ruling. This process will involve the SEC presenting its motion, followed by Ripple’s counterarguments. This is slated to continue until mid-September. Afterward, the Judge will determine whether the agency can effectively challenge her token classification ruling in an appellate court.

The still young asset class, its exchange methods, valuation, and usage techniques, once they are more clearly defined, will serve to add stability and reduce risk and shocks in crypto and the surrounding businesses. The longer the legal system and regulatory entities take, including Congress, the longer it will take for cryptocurrencies to find the more settled mainstream place in the markets they desire.

Rate Spate

The eighteen-month-long spate of rate hikes in the U.S. and across the globe is providing an alternative investment choice instead of what are viewed as riskier assets. Coincidentally, again on Thursday, August 17, the ten-year US Treasury Note hit a yield higher than the markets have experienced in 12 years. At 4.31%, investors can lock in a known annual return for ten years that exceeds the current and projected inflation rate.

Take Away

The volatility in the crypto asset class has been dramatic – not for the weak-stomached investor. On the same day in August, three unrelated events together helped cause the asset class to spike down. These include an article in a top business news publication indicating that one of the world’s most recognized cryptocurrency advocates has reduced bitcoin’s exposure to his companies. The SEC being granted a rematch in a landmark case that it had recently lost, where the earlier outcome gave no provision for the SEC to treat cryptocurrencies like a security. And rounding out the triad of events on crypto’s throttleback Thursday, yields are up across the curve to levels not seen in a dozen years. Investor’s seeking a place to reduce risk can now provide themselves with interest payments in excess of inflation.

But despite the ups and downs, bitcoin is up 56.7% year-to-date, 11.1% over the past 12 months, 110.5% over three years, 300% over five years, and astronomical amounts over longer periods. Related companies like bitcoin miners, crypto exchanges, and blockchain companies have also experienced growth similar to that found in few other industries over the past decade.   

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/bitcoin-sinks-below-28k-crypto-202201698.html

https://www.barrons.com/articles/sec-crypto-regulation-ripple-coinbase-d8143058?mod=hp_DAY_5

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2023/08/18/bitcoin-drops-to-lowest-level-since-june-amid-wider-crypto-sell-off/?sh=28df65ce55ff

https://app.koyfin.com/share/1d479a881a

The Other BlackRock, Citadel, Bitcoin Story

Unhyped Information to Improve Investment Success

The Ripple XRP Case Creates Many Questions

Is the 2024 Social Security COLA level a Foregone Conclusion?

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

It Seems Likely that Grandma and Grandpa are Getting a Much Smaller Raise Next Year

In 2023, Social Security recipients received the highest COLA in more than 40 years, 8.7%. At the same time, the entire U.S., including those retired, was impacted by the highest annual inflation in over 40 years. The result is the increased pay impacted recipients differently. Those with a higher percentage of variable costs or expenses, especially where inflation was worst, such as rent, travel, or fuel did not benefit as much, if at all. Those with a greater percentage of fixed costs may have found themselves with more money at the end of each month.

Consumers in the U.S., including Social Security recipients, have not had their purchasing power eroded as much during the first seven months of 2023, as they experienced in 2022. Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA) are based on a formula that will cause the increase paid next year to rise almost by a third of what it rose at the beginning of 2023.

While not yet official, the new forecast comes after the release of July’s Consumer Price Index (CPI), and is largely based on little change over the next 45 days.   

How is a COLA Calculated?

Ignore for a moment the inflation rate percentages you see in the news headlines. The 12-month CPI is calculated by using the set cost of a basket of goods during the month, divided into the cost of the same basket a year earlier. SSA COLA is calculated by the average price of the basket July, August, and September, and dividing it by the average of these months a year earlier. The CPI used in this case is not the CPI-U (all urban consumers) typically reported in the news, but instead, CPI-W (Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers). CPI-W is calculated on a monthly basis by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent release was August 10, 2023.

COLA increases are rounded to the nearest tenth. The adjusted benefit payments are effective as of the first month of the new year.

What to Expect

Social Security recipients could see a 3% bump up next year, based on July’s CPI data, and the current stagnation in the level of inflation. A 3% COLA would raise an average monthly benefit of $1,789 by $53.70 and the maximum benefit by $136.65 per month.

Retired Americans who find Social Security a nice addition to 401(k) or 403(B) investment returns or ample pensions may find themselves with a few extra dollars to take road trips or treat themselves to dining out, or gifts for grandchildren. But investors looking for industries that may benefit from the fatter checks older Americans will receive may find that there is little difference in spending for the majority.

In its recent survey of retirees, the Senior Citizens League found that more than 66% of those that completed its survey have postponed dental care, including major services such as bridges, dentures, and implants. Another 43% said they have delayed optical exams or getting prescription eyeglasses. Almost one-third of survey participants said they have postponed getting medical care or filling prescriptions due to deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, and unexpected bills.

Persistent high prices aren’t the only challenge. Findings from the survey suggest more than one in five Social Security beneficiaries (23%) report they paid tax on a portion of their benefits for the first time this past tax season.

Take Away

When economic numbers are released, they are of interest to a expansive variety of economic stakeholders. This includes investors determining how new statistics will impact corporate earnings, economists deciding how it could impact the Fed’s next move, equity analysts reviewing their industry and companies in the sector, the young couple looking to furnish a new home, and those past their working years that are in general more vulnerable.

The CPI number from July and those that will be reported for August and September will have a noticeable impact on the high percentage of elderly in the U.S. come January 2024.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/latestCOLA.html#:~:text=The%20Social%20Security%20Act%20specifies,the%20Bureau%20of%20Labor%20Statistics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-payment-increase-cola-2024-retirement-a3fce38e

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2022.pdf

https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-payment-increase-cola-2024-retirement-a3fce38e

https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts2022.pdf

Different Impacts of Gasoline Price Volatility on Industries

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Industries are Impacted in Multiple Ways by Rising Gas Prices

High gas prices have again become a consideration when planning a roadtrip. The rollercoaster ride of very highs, then lows, and back again to highs, since the beginning of the decade has been numbing.  The uncertainty of changing costs from one season to another has made it difficult for both businesses to plan, and for any individual driver, it all impacts decisions well beyond your weekend getaway.

Over the years, the price at the pump was driven up from factors such as geopolitical tensions, storms including hurricanes, a flood in Mississippi, and normal heightened demand during the summer driving season. On an individual level, increased gasoline costs translate to less disposable income for other necessities and luxuries. But, from an investor standpoint, the ramifications of soaring gas prices reach far beyond the service station, it deeply affect the broader economy and industry segments.

Conversely, plummeting gas prices mean lighter expenditures for households and businesses alike, relieving financial strains on transport-centric sectors such as airlines and trucking. However, these price drops also cast a shadow on some industries, especially the oil sector.

Below we highlight the direct and indirect adverse repercussions of high gas prices.

The Economic Ripples of Gas Prices

Employment

Job growth serves as a pivotal indicator of an economy’s recovery, and economists warn that surging gas prices could undermine hiring practices. Gas prices might prompt businesses to rethink their hiring plans, leading to a temporary hold as uncertainty about the economy’s well-being unfolds. Decreased discretionary spending and sales can influence a company’s hiring capacity.

Retailers

An indirect effect of soaring gas prices is a reduction in consumer discretionary spending due to a larger share of income being budgeted toward gasoline. Higher prices also induce consumers to drive less, even to places like malls and shopping centers. This is substantiated by both academic and industry studies, showing a direct correlation between driving miles and gas prices.

While shoppers might cut back on driving, they tend to increase online shopping when gas prices climb. Searches for online shopping surge in tandem with escalating gas prices.

Nonetheless, all retailers face added pressure to pass on the increased expenses they incur, particularly in shipping costs to consumers. Anything requiring transportation, from lumber to electronics, could incur higher costs due to surging gas prices. This holds true for products manufactured overseas or components sourced internationally. Moreover, products containing petroleum-derived materials or plastics also experience price hikes.

Auto Industry

Historically, the automobile industry responds to surging gas prices by producing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, such as hybrids and all-electric cars capable of traveling long distances on a single charge. Consumers have shown robust support for this shift, evident from the upward trajectory of hybrid and all-electric vehicle sales in the United States since 2010, while sales of gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs lag.

Airlines

Fuel expenses are the single largest operational costs for airlines, constituting a substantial proportion of their overhead. Hence, fluctuations in oil prices significantly impact their bottom line. With rising gas prices, airlines are compelled to hike ticket prices, potentially discouraging non-essential air travel and burdening consumers financially.

To hedge against volatile oil costs, airlines often engage in fuel hedging, buying or selling expected future oil prices through various investment products. This strategy safeguards airlines from surging prices and sometimes even capitalizes on them.

New Jobs and Freelancers

Prospective job candidates must factor in commuting costs when evaluating potential positions. Some workers have had to decline job offers due to the exorbitant costs of commuting, consuming a significant chunk of their salary. Freelancers, most directly Uber and Lyft drivers,  also feel the impact of higher gas prices, limiting their geographical scope of business as commuting expenses render some gigs unprofitable.

Take Away

Rising gas prices usually parallel a growing pessimism about the economy. While economists and analysts may debate the precise degree to which gas prices affect the economy, there undeniably exists a connection between consumer confidence, spending behaviors, and gas prices. This mood and actual level of sales have an impact on stock market activity, depending on how long fuel prices are expected to stay high (or low).

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Why the Fitch Downgrade is Better for Investors

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

With a Longer Time Horizon, The US Credit Downgrade Helps the Market

Providing third-party research and analysis that then ranks an entity’s debt or equity outlook, including companies and sovereign nations, requires extremely high integrity. The mostly negative news headlines responding to the Fitch Ratings downgrade of the United States Long-Term issuance to AA+ from AAA is an indication of how much pressure analysts must be under to avoid issuing a downgrade. This is true whether the rating impacts the entire free world, or the stakeholders and their families of a small public company through company-sponsored research.

Most high-caliber analysts have built a model that gives them little room for pressure from the outside, either from the ranked entity, the investors, or even the financial media. It is undoubtedly easier to do nothing and cross your fingers as an analyst, but that doesn’t actually serve anyone well, including investors or the entity.

Background

In late May, while investors and other market watchers were trying to determine on which day in June the US Treasury would run out of money, Fitch, a securities rating service, placed a ratings watch on US debt which they had held at triple-A, the highest rating, indicating the lowest default risk for the issuer.

On July 31, the US Treasury unveiled an overview of its third-quarter debt issuance needs. At $1.007 trillion, it would be the largest third quarter on record. I have experience as an issuer ranked by Fitch and Moody’s while CIO of two funds that held a rating in order to meet specific investor guidelines.  Rating agencies are the first to be made aware of any changes being considered. So I suspect that Fitch, Moody’s, and S&P analysts were all aware of the details of what the Treasury planned and projected going forward. Moody’s downgraded the US back in 2011 from its lowest default risk rating. Its treatment back then was also not one of appreciation from the markets, investors, or the issuer.

This clip from the movie The Big Short attempts to show the movie-goer all the relevant pressures an analyst may be under, and why integrity is critical.

Thoughts on Ratings Move

Cathie Wood had a conversation on (Twitter) Spaces this morning with Pension & Investments’ Jennifer Ablan in an exclusive mid-year interview. Ms. Ablan asked Ms. Wood’s thoughts on the US downgrade. The Ark Invest founder didn’t hesitate to say that there is “a side that is happy to see it.” She went on to explain that it helps those managing the organization, in this case Washington, to do a better job. She explained that it  says, “legislature, let’s get your act together.” Wood, added “government spending is taxation.”

While Cathie Wood was discussing the most powerful nation in the world, the same concept should be applied to a company she holds, or you own that experiences a downgrade. It serves to help management discover weak areas they could pay more attention to and gives the investor the understanding and confidence that a third party is looking on and even consulting with management before they make any moves that may alter the rating.

Michael Kupinski, the Director of Research at Noble Capital Markets, is a veteran analyst that has undoubtedly had to ignore pressure from the outside and follow models he’s created to the path they help provide. Mr. Kupinski says, “Ratings and earnings revisions are a function of the dynamics of new, and, likely extreme, inputs on the investing continuum.” He then explained how all could benefit,  “Such revisions then present management a roadmap for the new baseline in expectations or for a course correction. As such, ratings provide a valuable currency to determine investment merits, set investment expectations, and for investors to determine risk,” said Michael Kupinski.

Take Away

Don’t shoot the messenger – instead, thank them.

A negative change in ratings, whether it be on debt issuance, equity issuance, or frankly ones own credit rating could serve to preserve something before it goes further down a bad path, and can be used as a guide to adjust and do better. While there was a lot of criticism for Fitch placing the USA on credit watch for a downgrade back in May, if they had not issued a downgrade as US Treasury issuance climbed even higher, it would cause investors to think that no one is paying attention. The outcome of not having another trusted set of eyes, on any security issuance, is weaker pricing.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Meet the top management and hear the compelling stories of less talked about opportunities, while mingling with analysts and knowledgeable investors at this year’s NobleCon19

Sources

Fitch US Downgrade Press Release

Cathie Wood Jennifer Ablan

Michael Kupinski

How You Can Future-Proof Your Career in the Era of AI

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills Will Not Easily Be Replaced

Ever since the industrial revolution, people have feared that technology would take away their jobs. While some jobs and tasks have indeed been replaced by machines, others have emerged. The success of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) now has many people wondering about the future of work – and whether their jobs are safe.

A recent poll found that more than half of people aged 18-24 are worried about AI and their careers. The fear that jobs might disappear or be replaced through automation is understandable. Recent research found that a quarter of tasks that humans currently do in the US and Europe could be automated in the coming years.

The increased use of AI in white-collar workplaces means the changes will be different to previous workplace transformations. That’s because, the thinking goes, middle-class jobs are now under threat.

The future of work is a popular topic of discussion, with countless books published each year on the topic. These books speak to the human need to understand how the future might be shaped.

This article was republished with permission from The Conversation, a news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It represents the research-based findings and thoughts of, Elisabeth Kelan, Professor of Leadership and Organization, University of Essex.

I analyzed 10 books published between 2017 and 2020 that focused on the future of work and technology. From this research, I found that thinking about AI in the workplace generally falls into two camps. One is expressed as concern about the future of work and security of current roles – I call this sentiment “automation anxiety”. The other is the hope that humans and machines collaborate and thereby increase productivity – I call this “augmentation aspiration”.

Anxiety and Aspiration

I found a strong theme of concern in these books about technology enabling certain tasks to be automated, depriving many people of jobs. Specifically, the concern is that knowledge-based jobs – like those in accounting or law – that have long been regarded as the purview of well-educated professionals are now under threat of replacement by machines.

Automation undermines the idea that a good education will secure a good middle-class job. As economist Richard Baldwin points out in his 2019 book, The Globotics Upheaval, if you’ve invested a significant amount of money and time on a law degree – thinking it is a skill set that will keep you permanently employable – seeing AI complete tasks that a junior lawyer would normally be doing, at less cost, is going to be worrisome.

But there is another, more aspirational way to think about this. Some books stress the potential of humans collaborating with AI, to augment each other’s skills. This could mean working with robots in factories, but it could also mean using an AI chatbot when practicing law. Rather than being replaced, lawyers would then be augmented by technology.

In reality, automation and augmentation co-exist. For your future career, both will be relevant.

Future-Proofing Yourself

As you think about your own career, the first step is to realize that some automation of tasks is most likely going to be something you’ll have to contend with in the future.

In light of this, learning is one of the most important ways you can future-proof your career. But should you spend money on further education if the return on investment is uncertain?

It is true that specific skills risk becoming outdated as technology develops. However, more than learning specific abilities, education is about learning how to learn – that is, how to update your skills throughout your career. Research shows that having the ability to do so is highly valuable at work.

This learning can take place in educational settings, by going back to university or participating in an executive education course, but it can also happen on the job. In any discussion about your career, such as with your manager, you might want to raise which additional training you could do.

Critical thinking and analytical skills are going to be particularly central for how humans and machines can augment one another. When working with a machine, you need to be able to question the output that is produced. Humans are probably always going to be central to this – you might have a chatbot that automates parts of legal work, but a human will still be needed to make sense of it all.

Finally, remember that when people previously feared jobs would disappear and tasks would be replaced by machines, this was not necessarily the case. For instance, the introduction of automated teller machines (ATMs) did not eliminate bank tellers, but it did change their tasks.

Above all, choose a job that you enjoy and keep learning – so that if you do need to change course in the future, you know how to.

Gensler’s Appeal for Much More Oversight Over Cryptocurrencies

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com
Image: Gary Gensler on Bloomberg TV, July 27, 2023

SEC Chairman Pushes for More Crypto Cops on the Beat

Gary Gensler, the SEC chair, was asked on Bloomberg TV whether the efforts to protect the consumer related to cryptocurrency are complicated by non-compliance and lack of growth in the agency’s staff. Gensler discussed the need for more enforcement of current laws and lively debate with Congress to create new rules, “the capital markets really wouldn’t work without cops on the beat and rules of the road,” replied the SEC chair.

During his discussion on July 27, the head of the SEC demonstrated the Commission is still taking aim at the crypto markets despite what is seen as legal setbacks related to its authority. Gensler said that the cryptocurrency sector remains underhanded and unregulated. “The securities laws are there to protect you, and this is a field rife with fraud, rife with hucksters. There are good-faith actors as well, but there are far too many that aren’t.”

The overall theme of the conversation is that the crypto asset class lacks adequate protections for investors.

Gensler calmly appealed to investors not to assume that they are getting full protection despite the securities laws applied to many tokens in the crypto space. “A lot of investors should be aware that it’s not only a highly speculative asset class, it’s also one that they currently should not assume they are getting the protections of the securities law,” he said. He alleged that some crypto platforms were “co-mingling and trading against” investors.

As it relates to crypto exchanges and how they operate, the SEC chair said crypto violates laws that other exchanges abide by. “You as investors are not getting the full, fair, and truthful disclosure, and the platforms and intermediaries are doing things that we would never in a day allow or think the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ would do,” declared Gensler.

Earlier this month, a U.S. judge ruled that Ripple did not break securities law by selling its XRP token on public exchanges. The decision sent positive ripples through the entire crypto market and sent the value of XRP soaring. If tokens can not be deemed securities, transactions within the asset class may not fall under the SEC at all. This leaves open the question of who will regulate and oversee crypto and its exchanges.

Take Away

SEC chair Gary Gensler warned investors in late July about the lack of regulation for cryptocurrencies. He told Bloomberg TV the sector was rife with “fraud” and “hucksters,” leaving investors at risk. Gensler made listeners aware that some crypto platforms were “co-mingling and trading against” investors.

It is likely that there will ultimately be regulation handed down from Congress and enforced by an agency, which may include self-regulation, but after the Ripple decision, the oversight will not automatically be from the SEC. It appears Gary Gensler has taken to the interview circuit in order to sway opinion in favor of the SEC.

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek

Sources

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-07-27/sec-chair-says-crypto-rife-with-fraud-hucksters-video

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-07-27/sec-s-gensler-on-ai-stock-market-plans-and-crypto-video

Why, When, and How to Rebalance Your Portfolio 

Posted on by phoffman@channelchek.com

There are More Reasons to Balance Your Investments than to Let Them Ride

Performance differences of varied allocations in an investment portfolio over time will disrupt the original balance. It doesn’t take long for the portfolio to be overweighted in some sectors and underweighted in others. This can add unintended risk not included in the original plan. One tried and true method of resetting the risk to its original setting, is regular portfolio rebalancing. Below, we’ll highlight why investors rebalance their portfolios, how to know how often is prudent, and the importance of reviewing and maybe revising allocations during the rebalancing process.

Why Do Investors Rebalance Their Portfolios?

Rebalancing helps to retain the characteristics of a decided upon asset allocation. This enforces the mix in sot not veering too far from an allocation that takes into consideration the expected risk adjusted return characteristics of the portfolio, and supports the individuals investment policy statement (IPS)

Asset allocation refers to the distribution of investments across different asset classes, such as stocks, bonds, crypto, real estate and cash. A well thought out portfolio may also consider market capitalization of the securities in the stock portion of their investments as these too have different performance characteristics.

Over time, market movements cause the value of the portfolio assets to fluctuate, as one segment grows faster, or loses value faster than other assets. This unbalances the original asset allocation. Because this is portfolios lose their balance, investors will mark their calendars to, at set intervals, rebalance their portfolios to bring it back in line with the intended allocation.

Bringing a portfolio back to the original decided upon helps with two main important goals.

Risk Management: Different asset classes carry varying levels of risk. By rebalancing, investors can ensure that their portfolios remain aligned with their risk tolerance. For instance, if stocks have performed exceptionally well, their increased value could lead to a higher proportion in the portfolio. Rebalancing allows investors to sell some stocks and allocate the proceeds to other assets to manage risk effectively. Over time this can have the effect of selling off securities as they become overvalued, and buying others when they are undervalued.

Long-Term Strategy: Regular rebalancing forces investors to maintain their long-term investment strategy. It prevents the portfolio from becoming overly skewed towards one asset class, which could result in excessive exposure to specific market conditions. Regularly rebalancing ensures that the investment strategy remains intact, even during periods of market volatility.

How Often Should Investors Rebalance Their Portfolios

The frequency of portfolio rebalancing depends on individual preferences, investment goals, and market conditions. While there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, common rebalancing strategies include:

Time-Based: Investors can rebalance their portfolios on a predetermined schedule, such as quarterly, semi-annually, or annually. This approach ensures regular monitoring and adjustment of the portfolio.

Threshold-Based: Investors can set predetermined thresholds for asset allocation. When the allocation deviates beyond these thresholds, rebalancing is triggered. For example, if the target allocation for large-cap stocks is 30% and it exceed 35%, the entire portfolio would be rebalanced to the original desired mix.

.

Reviewing Allocation Changes when Rebalancing

Isn’t selling your winners and increasing your losers a bad strategy? When rebalancing a portfolio, investors should review and carefully consider allocation changes. This is risky because the purpose of rebalancing and doing it at set trigger points is to make sure emotion doesn’t prevent the investor from thinking that a particular allocation will rise, fall, or move sideways forever. If one is reviewing changes to the allocation, they should start with their stated investment objectives and assess the performance and expectations of each asset class against the objectives.

Key points to consider include:

Diversification: Rebalancing presents an opportunity to reassess the diversification of the portfolio. Ensure that investments are spread across multiple sectors, regions, or asset types to mitigate risks associated with concentration.

Investment Objectives: Investors should review whether their investment objectives have changed over time. If so, they may need to adjust their target asset allocation accordingly. If the portfolio is retirement money, as one approaches retirement, conventional wisdom suggests they should reduce assets that expose them to the most uncertain returns.

Market Conditions: Assess the performance and outlook of different market-caps, industries, and overall asset classes. For example, if rates are expected to rise, reducing the weighting in dividend stocks could be a historically-supported wise decision. Allocate resources to areas that demonstrate growth potential while considering expected risk factors.

Take Away

Time-tested wisdom says investors should, at regular intervals or triggers, rebalance their investment portfolio. This helps them take some profits and invest in securities that haven’t yet risen, or perhaps have gotten cheaper.

By rebalancing, investors can manage risk, align their portfolios with their investment goals, and prevent overexposure to assets that have already had their big run and may be ready to retrace their rise. The frequency of rebalancing should be based on individual circumstances and preferences, while careful review and consideration of allocation changes are crucial for optimal portfolio management. Regularly monitoring and adjusting portfolios through rebalancing can help

Paul Hoffman

Managing Editor, Channelchek