Taxing Times for Europe
The European Union may have come up with a number of annoyingly pernickety directives to counteract tax avoidance, and in so doing limit personal choice when it comes to where to invest overseas and offshore, but it’s not just the likes of the average expatriate who has been targeted by the EU – oh no, there are taxing times in Europe for the likes of Spain and Portugal too!
The European Commission, which oversees the smooth running of all things fair and just across the 27 EU member states, has taken direct and decisive action against Portugal already over its property taxes, and now it’s targeting Spain, Romania, Bulgaria and Portugal over the taxation of dividends.
If you owned a property in Portugal but were not Portuguese, it used to be a fact that you were treated disadvantageously and differently to Portuguese citizens when you sold your property. What’s more, you used to be treated unfairly if you attempted to reinvest your capital gains in real estate elsewhere in Europe. Then along came the European Commission and they decided that Portugal needed to play fairly.
No longer do you have to reinvest gains made from the sale of your property in Portugal to benefit from a particular tax break that the nation offers – now you can reinvest in real estate in any other EU member state and still receive the same benefit. Portugal may now remove the tax break altogether, but at least we’ll all be treated the same way!
Additionally, the European Commission determined that the way Portugal treated non-resident property owners when it came to capital gains was unfair. Residents enjoyed a tax break, non-residents did not. The European Court of Justice handed down a ruling that effectively told Portugal to stop being so unfair and also breaching EU rules and the basic code of conduct of fairness that all EU member states really need to have at their core.
Portugal is back in the firing line again though – they really don’t seem to have a good handle on this whole fairness and equality thing. But hey, they are not alone. Joining them in a case that relates to the taxation of dividends are Spain, Romania and Bulgaria. We can forgive the latter two as they are new members and they need time to adjust perhaps but Spain and Portugal really should know better by now. So, they have been given some ‘reasoned opinion,’ which is basically the second stage in infringement proceedings by the EC.
The problem relates to the fact that in Spain and Portugal, dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed more heavily than dividends paid to domestic pension funds – ah, that old ‘one rule for us and another for them’ chestnut.
Bulgaria is under fire because inbound dividends paid to companies may be taxed more heavily than domestic dividends for example, and Romania is being chastised because outbound dividends paid to companies may be taxed more heavily than domestic dividends.
It’s nice to see that it’s not just the lowly individual expatriate whose life is made more difficult on a daily basis by the inner workings of the European Union as well as the European Commission’s bid for balance and fairness in all things European.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Housing Bubble
The Housing Bubble
It seems that many would-be real estate investors across the country are on the sidelines waiting to hear the words, “the housing bubble has bottomed out” and “now is the time to get back into real estate investment.”
Forbes just published an article titled, “Surprise! Home Sales Spark Hope” citing recent data issued by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) which has sparked a bit of optimism from investors. The funny thing is that the data wasn’t good news at all. The report showed that single-family home and condo sales dropped by .4 percent in January and sales are now at the slowest pace on record since 1999. Coupled with the looming increases in the conforming loan limits, this news has sparked hope that the bubble has officially bottomed out.
I’m not ready to agree, but I will say that there is still money to be made in real estate right now. While the real estate market is generally reported in national terms, it is still a local market. Nationally, real estate has been declining, but that doesn’t mean that it is declining everywhere. Portland real estate and Charlotte real estate have been performing fairly well overall.
There is another important point to remember: Good investors make their money when they buy the property. I know that phrase might seem overused, but it is true. Anytime you buy a piece of real estate, you should know in advance what your plan for the property is (exit strategies), and how much you can afford to pay for it and still make the profit you expect. No investor should ever add appreciation into their expectations, especially if it isn’t going to be a long term investment. In my opinion, the best exit strategy—though it isn’t really even an exit strategy—is to keep the property for the rest of your life, and then let your kids worry about what they are going to do with it when you pass on.
Investors should remember that cash flow is king (another cliché...sorry). In a tough market, properties that have built-in cash flow are sure to better retain their values than properties that don’t. Investors who own cash flow properties don’t have to worry about how they are going to make their next mortgage payment; the property takes care of itself. Cash flow property isn’t going to make you an overnight millionaire, like people who were buying up Las Vegas real estate a few years back, but neither will it cost you. Buying cash flow property and holding it for the long haul is a tried and true way to build wealth. It has been, and always will be so.
It seems that many would-be real estate investors across the country are on the sidelines waiting to hear the words, “the housing bubble has bottomed out” and “now is the time to get back into real estate investment.”
Forbes just published an article titled, “Surprise! Home Sales Spark Hope” citing recent data issued by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) which has sparked a bit of optimism from investors. The funny thing is that the data wasn’t good news at all. The report showed that single-family home and condo sales dropped by .4 percent in January and sales are now at the slowest pace on record since 1999. Coupled with the looming increases in the conforming loan limits, this news has sparked hope that the bubble has officially bottomed out.
I’m not ready to agree, but I will say that there is still money to be made in real estate right now. While the real estate market is generally reported in national terms, it is still a local market. Nationally, real estate has been declining, but that doesn’t mean that it is declining everywhere. Portland real estate and Charlotte real estate have been performing fairly well overall.
There is another important point to remember: Good investors make their money when they buy the property. I know that phrase might seem overused, but it is true. Anytime you buy a piece of real estate, you should know in advance what your plan for the property is (exit strategies), and how much you can afford to pay for it and still make the profit you expect. No investor should ever add appreciation into their expectations, especially if it isn’t going to be a long term investment. In my opinion, the best exit strategy—though it isn’t really even an exit strategy—is to keep the property for the rest of your life, and then let your kids worry about what they are going to do with it when you pass on.
Investors should remember that cash flow is king (another cliché...sorry). In a tough market, properties that have built-in cash flow are sure to better retain their values than properties that don’t. Investors who own cash flow properties don’t have to worry about how they are going to make their next mortgage payment; the property takes care of itself. Cash flow property isn’t going to make you an overnight millionaire, like people who were buying up Las Vegas real estate a few years back, but neither will it cost you. Buying cash flow property and holding it for the long haul is a tried and true way to build wealth. It has been, and always will be so.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Homebuilders Next In Line To Beg For Bailout Funds
Homebuilders Next In Line To Beg For Bailout Funds
Detroit automakers recently received the cold shoulder from Congress on their quest for a piece of the $700 billion bailout pie; next in line are the homebuilders. Hopefully they will learn from the automakers and won’t fly to Washington in private jets to beg for these funds, although at this point it appears doubtful that their wishes will be answered anyway. The homebuilders are prepared to request an aid package estimated at $250 billion and aptly called “Fix Housing First”, according to the Wall Street Journal. The homebuilders are trying to convince Congress that the rest of the financial system will continue to deteriorate until home prices stabilize.
The “Fix Housing First” plan calls for two parts, a large tax credit for homebuyers and a government subsidy of mortgage rates. The tax credit that the homebuilders are proposing would equal 10 percent of the home’s purchase or $22,000, whichever is less according to the Wall Street Journal. The mortgage subsidy requested by the homebuilders would aim to bring interest rates on government backed 30 year fix loans down to 3 percent for loans made in the first half of 2009, and 4 percent for loans made in the second half of the year, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal also notes that Realtors are pushing a 4.5 percent interest rate buy down for new mortgage loans. It is their estimation that for each 1 percent that rates fall, 500,000 to 800,000 additional homes could be sold.
It seems very unlikely that any variation of the “Fix Housing First” plan will get passed before Obama takes office, but once he does all bets are off. I seriously doubt that the plan would remain intact as is, but some variation of the proposal could be possible. There is a lot of support for the idea that the housing crisis is the underlying cause of the greater financial crisis, and most Americans are more likely to approve of measures that will aid the housing and mortgage markets before aiding banks and other financial institutions. We have been trying to prop up the financial industry for a long time, without much avail. Why not give housing a try?
Of course the problem is that this will simply artificially inflate housing prices yet again. We did that before and look where that has left us. If we are able to inflate housing prices, that will alleviate many of the problems plaguing the financial industry and homeowners alike, but it is not sustainable. Housing simply became too expensive, and it will become too expensive again if we inflate it, and the next time it will cost us even more to fix the fallout. Housing prices need to rise in correlation with a rise in income, which is the only sustainable way. I hope that Congress and the next administration know better than to rely on biased research when looking to spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer money.
Detroit automakers recently received the cold shoulder from Congress on their quest for a piece of the $700 billion bailout pie; next in line are the homebuilders. Hopefully they will learn from the automakers and won’t fly to Washington in private jets to beg for these funds, although at this point it appears doubtful that their wishes will be answered anyway. The homebuilders are prepared to request an aid package estimated at $250 billion and aptly called “Fix Housing First”, according to the Wall Street Journal. The homebuilders are trying to convince Congress that the rest of the financial system will continue to deteriorate until home prices stabilize.
The “Fix Housing First” plan calls for two parts, a large tax credit for homebuyers and a government subsidy of mortgage rates. The tax credit that the homebuilders are proposing would equal 10 percent of the home’s purchase or $22,000, whichever is less according to the Wall Street Journal. The mortgage subsidy requested by the homebuilders would aim to bring interest rates on government backed 30 year fix loans down to 3 percent for loans made in the first half of 2009, and 4 percent for loans made in the second half of the year, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal also notes that Realtors are pushing a 4.5 percent interest rate buy down for new mortgage loans. It is their estimation that for each 1 percent that rates fall, 500,000 to 800,000 additional homes could be sold.
It seems very unlikely that any variation of the “Fix Housing First” plan will get passed before Obama takes office, but once he does all bets are off. I seriously doubt that the plan would remain intact as is, but some variation of the proposal could be possible. There is a lot of support for the idea that the housing crisis is the underlying cause of the greater financial crisis, and most Americans are more likely to approve of measures that will aid the housing and mortgage markets before aiding banks and other financial institutions. We have been trying to prop up the financial industry for a long time, without much avail. Why not give housing a try?
Of course the problem is that this will simply artificially inflate housing prices yet again. We did that before and look where that has left us. If we are able to inflate housing prices, that will alleviate many of the problems plaguing the financial industry and homeowners alike, but it is not sustainable. Housing simply became too expensive, and it will become too expensive again if we inflate it, and the next time it will cost us even more to fix the fallout. Housing prices need to rise in correlation with a rise in income, which is the only sustainable way. I hope that Congress and the next administration know better than to rely on biased research when looking to spend hundreds of billions in taxpayer money.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Carefully When Trading Online
Carefully When Trading Online
When opening a share-dealing account with a broker, the main thing on most investors' minds is deciding what shares they will be buying and how much it will cost. The administration of their account is probably the last thing they consider. But this is a mistake – the way a broker chooses to record your shares can affect your subsequent benefits and could cost you money should things go wrong.
How shares are recorded
Prior to the mid-1990s the way to prove that you owned UK shares was to produce a share certificate with your name on it. But with the expansion of the internet and online trading, paper share certificates are a rarity. Now, under UK law, anyone who wants to prove categorically that they own a "registered asset" such as shares (and also UK property) has to be named on the relevant share register. There is one for every UK company with changes managed electronically by registrars such as Capita or Equinit.
What does this have to do with your broker? Well, unless you request otherwise, most brokers save themselves time and administrative hassle by recording any shares bought for you in a "nominee" account. The cheapest and most common is the "pooled" account where your share holdings are lumped together with those of numerous other clients and the name that appears on the company's share register is your broker's, not yours.
Most investors lose no sleep over the use of nominees because although they are not technically the "legal" owner of the shares held in the nominee account, they still enjoy what are known as "beneficial" rights – receiving dividends and being able to instruct their broker to sell shares held on their behalf at a later date, hopefully for a profit. Wealthy individuals sometimes also like the anonymity that nominee holdings bring. But be warned – words matter, and sometimes a little detail, like not being named the "legal" owner on a share register, can cause trouble.
Legal ownership – boring, but important
The first problem with the nominee system is that by agreeing to it – you may not realise you have until you scour your broker's terms and conditions – you give up the automatic right to certain shareholder perks like attending, and voting at, company meetings and even the little extras offered by some companies like discounts on their products and services. Also any communication regarding your shareholding from the company, or anyone else, will go direct to your broker, rather than you, unless you decide to "opt in" to receive these. The risk under the nominee system is that you may miss out on valuable commentary, perhaps even warnings, from third parties about the management of the company in which you are a shareholder.
More importantly, if your broker gets into trouble, it may take some time to prove that you own your shares at all, especially with a "pooled nominee" holding. Ask frustrated investors who bought shares through broker Pacific Continental Securities (PCS), a firm that specialised in promoting Aim-listed stocks and is now in liquidation. Many shareholders had their holdings frozen while the liquidator reconciles individual customer claims to large pooled holdings on countless Aim-listed company share registers. Meanwhile, anxious investors who bought shares via PCS were unable to do anything with them.
As a rule, as long as shares are quickly and accurately recorded in a nominee account by your broker you will always eventually receive your shares, even in the event of the broker going bankrupt. But while the liquidation is being sorted out, the stock market may be heading down while you are powerless to sell up. Were your shares to go missing entirely, due perhaps to fraud or incompetence on the part of a broker, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme would pay out up to £48,000 of any losses, although as you can imagine the claims process could involve considerable time and hassle. Also it only works if the broker was FSA authorised to start with. Luckily there is a better alternative.
Solving the problem
The best way to eliminate these headaches is to ensure that any shares you buy are registered in your name, not your broker's. There are two ways of doing this. You can request share certificates – however, these cause extra paperwork and add unnecessary time and expense to your share trades. A better option is to ask for "personal Crest membership" when setting up your account. This gets your name onto the register with full shareholder entitlements but without the need for costly certificates. This option is now offered by an increasing number of brokers for no extra cost. There is one hitch – government regulations specify that shares held within an Isa or PEP wrapper still have to be held within a pooled nominee account. However, for all other UK shares, personal membership of Crest is a good option.
When opening a share-dealing account with a broker, the main thing on most investors' minds is deciding what shares they will be buying and how much it will cost. The administration of their account is probably the last thing they consider. But this is a mistake – the way a broker chooses to record your shares can affect your subsequent benefits and could cost you money should things go wrong.
How shares are recorded
Prior to the mid-1990s the way to prove that you owned UK shares was to produce a share certificate with your name on it. But with the expansion of the internet and online trading, paper share certificates are a rarity. Now, under UK law, anyone who wants to prove categorically that they own a "registered asset" such as shares (and also UK property) has to be named on the relevant share register. There is one for every UK company with changes managed electronically by registrars such as Capita or Equinit.
What does this have to do with your broker? Well, unless you request otherwise, most brokers save themselves time and administrative hassle by recording any shares bought for you in a "nominee" account. The cheapest and most common is the "pooled" account where your share holdings are lumped together with those of numerous other clients and the name that appears on the company's share register is your broker's, not yours.
Most investors lose no sleep over the use of nominees because although they are not technically the "legal" owner of the shares held in the nominee account, they still enjoy what are known as "beneficial" rights – receiving dividends and being able to instruct their broker to sell shares held on their behalf at a later date, hopefully for a profit. Wealthy individuals sometimes also like the anonymity that nominee holdings bring. But be warned – words matter, and sometimes a little detail, like not being named the "legal" owner on a share register, can cause trouble.
Legal ownership – boring, but important
The first problem with the nominee system is that by agreeing to it – you may not realise you have until you scour your broker's terms and conditions – you give up the automatic right to certain shareholder perks like attending, and voting at, company meetings and even the little extras offered by some companies like discounts on their products and services. Also any communication regarding your shareholding from the company, or anyone else, will go direct to your broker, rather than you, unless you decide to "opt in" to receive these. The risk under the nominee system is that you may miss out on valuable commentary, perhaps even warnings, from third parties about the management of the company in which you are a shareholder.
More importantly, if your broker gets into trouble, it may take some time to prove that you own your shares at all, especially with a "pooled nominee" holding. Ask frustrated investors who bought shares through broker Pacific Continental Securities (PCS), a firm that specialised in promoting Aim-listed stocks and is now in liquidation. Many shareholders had their holdings frozen while the liquidator reconciles individual customer claims to large pooled holdings on countless Aim-listed company share registers. Meanwhile, anxious investors who bought shares via PCS were unable to do anything with them.
As a rule, as long as shares are quickly and accurately recorded in a nominee account by your broker you will always eventually receive your shares, even in the event of the broker going bankrupt. But while the liquidation is being sorted out, the stock market may be heading down while you are powerless to sell up. Were your shares to go missing entirely, due perhaps to fraud or incompetence on the part of a broker, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme would pay out up to £48,000 of any losses, although as you can imagine the claims process could involve considerable time and hassle. Also it only works if the broker was FSA authorised to start with. Luckily there is a better alternative.
Solving the problem
The best way to eliminate these headaches is to ensure that any shares you buy are registered in your name, not your broker's. There are two ways of doing this. You can request share certificates – however, these cause extra paperwork and add unnecessary time and expense to your share trades. A better option is to ask for "personal Crest membership" when setting up your account. This gets your name onto the register with full shareholder entitlements but without the need for costly certificates. This option is now offered by an increasing number of brokers for no extra cost. There is one hitch – government regulations specify that shares held within an Isa or PEP wrapper still have to be held within a pooled nominee account. However, for all other UK shares, personal membership of Crest is a good option.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thailand is Cheap – But it's Not Time to Buy
Thailand is Cheap – But it's Not Time to Buy
Thailand is probably the cheapest market in emerging Asia. The SET index trades on a p/e ratio of just 12.8 times this year's expected earnings, even after a near 60% rally this year. So does that make it a buy? No.
The political situation there remains appalling. The coalition took over last December after a democratically elected government was forced out by politicised courts, and the army refused to act against protestors that were paralysing the country. That administration is still in power.
But it says everything that many of the crucial figures involved in this weekend's discussions about fixing the country's disastrous constitution are technically banned from politics.
Thailand is not a functioning democracy. It's a motley crew of different interests – the royals, the army, businessmen, key provincial politicians, the judiciary - conniving behind the scenes. That wouldn't be a problem - democracy isn't necessary for development – if most of them were pulling in the same directions. But they're not.
To take just one example, last week, a court ordered Bt400bn ($12bn) of oil and petrochemicals projects to be halted on environmental grounds, even though the plans follow government guidelines. The projects are big enough to have an impact on growth by themselves - but the real problem is that if this ruling is upheld, it risks scaring off future investment plans by Thai and foreign firms. Who wants to invest in a country where even those who make the rules don't seem to have a grip on what they are?
Until Thailand has a functioning government that makes decisions and pushes through policies, the market is likely to remain a value trap. It's the kind of situation that tempts you to keep adding to your position because it looks so much cheaper compared with anywhere else. One fund has done just that: Templeton's Asian Growth Fund has 25% of its assets in Thailand, a market that accounts for just 2.5% of emerging Asia's GDP in purchasing power parity terms.
If Thailand starts to fix its problems, overweighting could look a very smart call. But that might be years away. In the meantime, both the economy and the market risk being left behind by better-run neighbours.
Thailand is probably the cheapest market in emerging Asia. The SET index trades on a p/e ratio of just 12.8 times this year's expected earnings, even after a near 60% rally this year. So does that make it a buy? No.
The political situation there remains appalling. The coalition took over last December after a democratically elected government was forced out by politicised courts, and the army refused to act against protestors that were paralysing the country. That administration is still in power.
But it says everything that many of the crucial figures involved in this weekend's discussions about fixing the country's disastrous constitution are technically banned from politics.
Thailand is not a functioning democracy. It's a motley crew of different interests – the royals, the army, businessmen, key provincial politicians, the judiciary - conniving behind the scenes. That wouldn't be a problem - democracy isn't necessary for development – if most of them were pulling in the same directions. But they're not.
To take just one example, last week, a court ordered Bt400bn ($12bn) of oil and petrochemicals projects to be halted on environmental grounds, even though the plans follow government guidelines. The projects are big enough to have an impact on growth by themselves - but the real problem is that if this ruling is upheld, it risks scaring off future investment plans by Thai and foreign firms. Who wants to invest in a country where even those who make the rules don't seem to have a grip on what they are?
Until Thailand has a functioning government that makes decisions and pushes through policies, the market is likely to remain a value trap. It's the kind of situation that tempts you to keep adding to your position because it looks so much cheaper compared with anywhere else. One fund has done just that: Templeton's Asian Growth Fund has 25% of its assets in Thailand, a market that accounts for just 2.5% of emerging Asia's GDP in purchasing power parity terms.
If Thailand starts to fix its problems, overweighting could look a very smart call. But that might be years away. In the meantime, both the economy and the market risk being left behind by better-run neighbours.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Asian Consumers Will Save Themselves
Asian Consumers Will Save Themselves NOT The West
Could free-spending Asian consumers bail out the West? Many optimists seem to think so. At an event for fund manager Ashburton yesterday, I even heard the ever-upbeat Anatole Kaletsky, of The Times and GaveKal fame, argue that the US and UK could be running a trade surplus within a few years, as demand for Western exports from Asia picks up.
This seems unlikely. It's based on the idea that Chinese consumers amassed a huge pile of unspent savings during the export boom, which the government can now persuade them to run down by promoting consumption. The problem is that this simply isn't true.
China's household savings rate has been pretty much flat as a percentage of GDP over the last two decades (it's currently around 12%). The huge run up in savings (from 2% to 10%) took place in the corporate sector as exporters made profits from selling goods to the West. Instead of passing all these profits on as wage hikes, they kept most of the money to invest in new capacity and gamble in the stock market and on property.
The truth is that there's no huge pool of money in China that can be painlessly run down to rebalance the global economy. The savings rate will come down over time as the government builds up the social welfare network. That in turn will reduce people's need and desire to save for hard times. But it will be a lengthy process, and probably not a smooth one. What's more, when it happens, those savings are more likely to be spent on goods made in China and the rest of Asia than the West.
So the West is going to have to bring its trade surplus back into balance by consuming and importing less, as it's already doing, not by exporting more. Asian savers are going to save Asia. But they can't save the world.
Could free-spending Asian consumers bail out the West? Many optimists seem to think so. At an event for fund manager Ashburton yesterday, I even heard the ever-upbeat Anatole Kaletsky, of The Times and GaveKal fame, argue that the US and UK could be running a trade surplus within a few years, as demand for Western exports from Asia picks up.
This seems unlikely. It's based on the idea that Chinese consumers amassed a huge pile of unspent savings during the export boom, which the government can now persuade them to run down by promoting consumption. The problem is that this simply isn't true.
China's household savings rate has been pretty much flat as a percentage of GDP over the last two decades (it's currently around 12%). The huge run up in savings (from 2% to 10%) took place in the corporate sector as exporters made profits from selling goods to the West. Instead of passing all these profits on as wage hikes, they kept most of the money to invest in new capacity and gamble in the stock market and on property.
The truth is that there's no huge pool of money in China that can be painlessly run down to rebalance the global economy. The savings rate will come down over time as the government builds up the social welfare network. That in turn will reduce people's need and desire to save for hard times. But it will be a lengthy process, and probably not a smooth one. What's more, when it happens, those savings are more likely to be spent on goods made in China and the rest of Asia than the West.
So the West is going to have to bring its trade surplus back into balance by consuming and importing less, as it's already doing, not by exporting more. Asian savers are going to save Asia. But they can't save the world.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Expatriates and Those Thinking of Living Abroad
Expatriates and Those Thinking of Living Abroad
According to the likes of AXA, more Britons than ever could be planning a new life abroad, and according to our own findings at Shelter Offshore it does indeed appear as though there is increased interest globally speaking in finding a better life overseas. It seems that greater numbers of people are becoming disillusioned with their nations’ governments, and at the same time aware that it is now easier than ever to travel, relocate and begin again somewhere else.
Therefore, it is in a very timely move ahead of the new year when we may very well see an upsurge in the numbers of people expatriating, that New Life Media Group have announced the publication of a free expatriate guide to money matters. Entitled the ‘Expat Money Guide,’ the title has been dubbed the ‘expat money bible’ by those who have read it already - and for a limited time only, this excellent financial publication is available as a free download.
The publishers are asking expats and would-be expats to review the content and supply their feedback in exchange for receiving the guide free of charge. It seems a fair swap as the data contained throughout the 19 comprehensive chapters is truly invaluable for anyone thinking about a new life overseas and who wants to get all of their taxation, banking, saving and investing affairs in order.
The guide has been written by expert financial author R.L. Davies, under the guidance of leading financial, taxation and legal experts, and it endeavours to answer all of the financially related questions that expats and would-be expats have. The guide covers everything from taxation and losing your tax residency in the UK, to how to bank when you move abroad. It looks at tax havens where expats can make more of their money totally legitimately, it examines how one can beat the credit crunch, prevent banks and financial institutions from becoming rich off the back of the reader, and even save for a rainy day or retirement.
As expatriates often have a fiscal and taxation advantage over their peers back home, the ‘Expat Money Guide’ also explores these advantages and how best to utilise them. It is broken down into manageable chapter sections, it is not at all overwhelming or ‘heavy,’ it is written in plain English and yet it really is comprehensive.
If you’re an expatriate or you’re thinking of moving abroad to retire, live or work, this guide could prove incredibly useful to you. You can get your hands on it now for free – but this really is for a limited time only. The author and publishers would like you to review the content in your own time, and if you feel you would like to you can then comment on the information you read, its relevancy to you and whether it goes sufficiently in depth for you.
Visit Expat Money Guide.com today to get a review copy absolutely free of charge, and to find out how you can leave your own feedback about the guide, or even receive personalised and professional financial advice based on your own expatriate status.
According to the likes of AXA, more Britons than ever could be planning a new life abroad, and according to our own findings at Shelter Offshore it does indeed appear as though there is increased interest globally speaking in finding a better life overseas. It seems that greater numbers of people are becoming disillusioned with their nations’ governments, and at the same time aware that it is now easier than ever to travel, relocate and begin again somewhere else.
Therefore, it is in a very timely move ahead of the new year when we may very well see an upsurge in the numbers of people expatriating, that New Life Media Group have announced the publication of a free expatriate guide to money matters. Entitled the ‘Expat Money Guide,’ the title has been dubbed the ‘expat money bible’ by those who have read it already - and for a limited time only, this excellent financial publication is available as a free download.
The publishers are asking expats and would-be expats to review the content and supply their feedback in exchange for receiving the guide free of charge. It seems a fair swap as the data contained throughout the 19 comprehensive chapters is truly invaluable for anyone thinking about a new life overseas and who wants to get all of their taxation, banking, saving and investing affairs in order.
The guide has been written by expert financial author R.L. Davies, under the guidance of leading financial, taxation and legal experts, and it endeavours to answer all of the financially related questions that expats and would-be expats have. The guide covers everything from taxation and losing your tax residency in the UK, to how to bank when you move abroad. It looks at tax havens where expats can make more of their money totally legitimately, it examines how one can beat the credit crunch, prevent banks and financial institutions from becoming rich off the back of the reader, and even save for a rainy day or retirement.
As expatriates often have a fiscal and taxation advantage over their peers back home, the ‘Expat Money Guide’ also explores these advantages and how best to utilise them. It is broken down into manageable chapter sections, it is not at all overwhelming or ‘heavy,’ it is written in plain English and yet it really is comprehensive.
If you’re an expatriate or you’re thinking of moving abroad to retire, live or work, this guide could prove incredibly useful to you. You can get your hands on it now for free – but this really is for a limited time only. The author and publishers would like you to review the content in your own time, and if you feel you would like to you can then comment on the information you read, its relevancy to you and whether it goes sufficiently in depth for you.
Visit Expat Money Guide.com today to get a review copy absolutely free of charge, and to find out how you can leave your own feedback about the guide, or even receive personalised and professional financial advice based on your own expatriate status.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Why China's Currency Is Not a One-Way Bet
Why China's Currency Is Not a One-Way Bet
It's looking like it might turn out to be quite an interesting week. China kicked things off yesterday with the news that it is going to reform its RMB exchange-rate regime to allow a little more flexibility.
The markets were pleased – globally, pretty much everything moved up for a bit. Most other Asian currencies had a good day too – which is nice, given that we've been suggesting that you diversify into them for a while now.
But there is something interesting going on here. One of the things that has been bothering us over the last few months has been the utter lack of consensus in the markets. Investors and analysts appear to be neatly divided into inflationists and deflationists, double-dippers and V men, deficit "slash and burners" and "monetise the debt" men.
But on the RMB there is no such division: everyone thinks that removing the peg that linked the Chinese currency to the dollar means that the RMB will rise. That's supposed to be good because it raises the price of Chinese exports to the rest of the world and cuts the price of its imports. That in turn should help out the ailing West (by encouraging the Chinese to buy more of our stuff) and rebalance the Chinese economy too (easing inflation to keep interest rates low and forcing it to find an economic driver beyond exporting toys and buttons).
But what if it doesn't work like this? What if the RMB is not massively undervalued – Credit Suisse says it needs to rise 50% against the dollar to hit fair value – but massively over valued? Let's not forget that while it has been pegged to the dollar it has nonetheless already appreciated massively against the euro and the pound this year. And in trade-weighted terms it has risen 13% or so since the peg was first loosened back in 2005.
It's also worth noting that, according GMO's Edward Chancellor, China currently displays pretty much every single characteristic of a massive bubble. It started with a compelling growth story; it comes with a "blind faith in the competence of the authorities" (how many times have you heard people say that Chinese growth won't fall because "the government won't let it"?); there is a general increase in often misallocated investment: the money supply is growing far too fast; interest rates are too low; credit growth is rampant; and there is strong evidence of rising corruption, spurred on by the real estate boom.
Real estate investment currently makes up around 12% of total GDP. The Chinese economy has been compared to the film Speed in which a bus is planted with a bomb set to detonate if it slows below 50 miles an hour. This seems apt, says Chancellor. "Were China's economy to slow below Beijing's 8% growth target, bad things are liable to happen. Much of the new infrastructure would turn out to be otiose; excess capacity would linger in many industries; the real estate bubble would burst and the banking system would face a rash of non-performing loans. Investors who are immersed in the China Dream ignore this scenario. When the China juggernaut eventually stalls, they face a rude awakening."
The timing of this potential rude awakening is of course impossible to see. But nonetheless, look at China through Chancellor's eyes and it is hard to keep arguing that the RMB is 50% undervalued: there may be more risk in it than the consensus opinion likes to think.
It's looking like it might turn out to be quite an interesting week. China kicked things off yesterday with the news that it is going to reform its RMB exchange-rate regime to allow a little more flexibility.
The markets were pleased – globally, pretty much everything moved up for a bit. Most other Asian currencies had a good day too – which is nice, given that we've been suggesting that you diversify into them for a while now.
But there is something interesting going on here. One of the things that has been bothering us over the last few months has been the utter lack of consensus in the markets. Investors and analysts appear to be neatly divided into inflationists and deflationists, double-dippers and V men, deficit "slash and burners" and "monetise the debt" men.
But on the RMB there is no such division: everyone thinks that removing the peg that linked the Chinese currency to the dollar means that the RMB will rise. That's supposed to be good because it raises the price of Chinese exports to the rest of the world and cuts the price of its imports. That in turn should help out the ailing West (by encouraging the Chinese to buy more of our stuff) and rebalance the Chinese economy too (easing inflation to keep interest rates low and forcing it to find an economic driver beyond exporting toys and buttons).
But what if it doesn't work like this? What if the RMB is not massively undervalued – Credit Suisse says it needs to rise 50% against the dollar to hit fair value – but massively over valued? Let's not forget that while it has been pegged to the dollar it has nonetheless already appreciated massively against the euro and the pound this year. And in trade-weighted terms it has risen 13% or so since the peg was first loosened back in 2005.
It's also worth noting that, according GMO's Edward Chancellor, China currently displays pretty much every single characteristic of a massive bubble. It started with a compelling growth story; it comes with a "blind faith in the competence of the authorities" (how many times have you heard people say that Chinese growth won't fall because "the government won't let it"?); there is a general increase in often misallocated investment: the money supply is growing far too fast; interest rates are too low; credit growth is rampant; and there is strong evidence of rising corruption, spurred on by the real estate boom.
Real estate investment currently makes up around 12% of total GDP. The Chinese economy has been compared to the film Speed in which a bus is planted with a bomb set to detonate if it slows below 50 miles an hour. This seems apt, says Chancellor. "Were China's economy to slow below Beijing's 8% growth target, bad things are liable to happen. Much of the new infrastructure would turn out to be otiose; excess capacity would linger in many industries; the real estate bubble would burst and the banking system would face a rash of non-performing loans. Investors who are immersed in the China Dream ignore this scenario. When the China juggernaut eventually stalls, they face a rude awakening."
The timing of this potential rude awakening is of course impossible to see. But nonetheless, look at China through Chancellor's eyes and it is hard to keep arguing that the RMB is 50% undervalued: there may be more risk in it than the consensus opinion likes to think.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Cut 15% Off Your Energy Bills
Cut 15% Off Your Energy Bills
An energy price war could be heating up as winter draws near. First:Utility has just released a new online tariff iSave which, at an annual cost of £967 to standard consumers, is the cheapest deal on the market.
This is good news for consumers. So far, the big six energy suppliers have resisted making any big cuts to their prices, despite the fact that wholesale gas costs have fallen by 56% over the past year. With any luck, this move from First:Utility might force them to act.
But don't just wait around in the hope that your energy company will drop its prices. You have to chase the savings yourself. If you haven't switched suppliers in the past couple of years, you can probably get a better deal. Head to Uswitch.com or Confused.com to quickly compare all the deals. And if you've never changed supplier you should definitely switch, as you could save yourself hundreds of pounds.
Even if you've switched recently, you can still trim up to 15% off your annual bill just by paying by monthly direct debit rather than paying the bills as and when they appear. This will save the average Scottish Power consumer £206 a year, for example, according to Confused.com. That's a nice easy bonus to make in your lunch hour.
An energy price war could be heating up as winter draws near. First:Utility has just released a new online tariff iSave which, at an annual cost of £967 to standard consumers, is the cheapest deal on the market.
This is good news for consumers. So far, the big six energy suppliers have resisted making any big cuts to their prices, despite the fact that wholesale gas costs have fallen by 56% over the past year. With any luck, this move from First:Utility might force them to act.
But don't just wait around in the hope that your energy company will drop its prices. You have to chase the savings yourself. If you haven't switched suppliers in the past couple of years, you can probably get a better deal. Head to Uswitch.com or Confused.com to quickly compare all the deals. And if you've never changed supplier you should definitely switch, as you could save yourself hundreds of pounds.
Even if you've switched recently, you can still trim up to 15% off your annual bill just by paying by monthly direct debit rather than paying the bills as and when they appear. This will save the average Scottish Power consumer £206 a year, for example, according to Confused.com. That's a nice easy bonus to make in your lunch hour.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
US banks Will Hold The Economy Back For Years
US banks Will Hold The Economy Back For Years
Nearly 100 US banks have failed this year. As of this morning, the tally was standing at 98. So what?
Banks have been going bust in the States all year. It certainly doesn't seem to be bothering the markets. After all, everyone knows the banks are in trouble. As of 30 June, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) – similar to our Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in that it bails out depositors when banks go bust – had 416 lenders on its "problem" bank watch list. That's a 15-year high. Sure, it's not a nice position to be in, but at least we have a rough idea of the worst-case scenario.
Or do we? Investors shouldn't get too complacent. Because just last week, the FDIC lost a bank that wasn't on the list. And it wasn't a little one either. Georgian Bank was the second biggest bank in Atlanta – a "stunning omission" by the FDIC, according to Jonathan Weil on Bloomberg.
The book value of the bank's assets was $2bn, but the FDIC reckons its failure will cost nearly $900m. That's around 45% of the bank's assets. In other words, the stuff on the bank's books wasn't worth half of what it was on the balance sheet at. That suggests that those assets were "radioactive toxic", according to David Galland of Casey Research.
This suggests a couple of things to worry about. For one, we can't be sure which banks are really in the clear, and which are just papering over the cracks. That's a big worry when, even as it stands just now, "hundreds more banks are expected to fail nationwide in the next few years largely because of souring loans for commercial real estate," reports Marcy Gordon of the Associated Press.
Secondly, where's the money going to come from to bail out depositors in all these banks? The FDIC's fund is now down to roughly $10bn, from around $45bn at the start of the year – and that's all borrowed money anyway. The fund (not unlike our own FSCS) is meant to be paid for by the banking industry.
The trouble with that of course, is that if healthy banks are going to have to pay much higher insurance premiums in the future, that will put yet another strain on their balance sheets, something which the authorities will be very reluctant to allow. So in the end, as Galland puts it: "all further bills will be forwarded straight on to US taxpayers." Along with all the other burdens they have to bear, that suggests that US consumers won't be in the mood to snap out of savings mode any time soon.
Nearly 100 US banks have failed this year. As of this morning, the tally was standing at 98. So what?
Banks have been going bust in the States all year. It certainly doesn't seem to be bothering the markets. After all, everyone knows the banks are in trouble. As of 30 June, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) – similar to our Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) in that it bails out depositors when banks go bust – had 416 lenders on its "problem" bank watch list. That's a 15-year high. Sure, it's not a nice position to be in, but at least we have a rough idea of the worst-case scenario.
Or do we? Investors shouldn't get too complacent. Because just last week, the FDIC lost a bank that wasn't on the list. And it wasn't a little one either. Georgian Bank was the second biggest bank in Atlanta – a "stunning omission" by the FDIC, according to Jonathan Weil on Bloomberg.
The book value of the bank's assets was $2bn, but the FDIC reckons its failure will cost nearly $900m. That's around 45% of the bank's assets. In other words, the stuff on the bank's books wasn't worth half of what it was on the balance sheet at. That suggests that those assets were "radioactive toxic", according to David Galland of Casey Research.
This suggests a couple of things to worry about. For one, we can't be sure which banks are really in the clear, and which are just papering over the cracks. That's a big worry when, even as it stands just now, "hundreds more banks are expected to fail nationwide in the next few years largely because of souring loans for commercial real estate," reports Marcy Gordon of the Associated Press.
Secondly, where's the money going to come from to bail out depositors in all these banks? The FDIC's fund is now down to roughly $10bn, from around $45bn at the start of the year – and that's all borrowed money anyway. The fund (not unlike our own FSCS) is meant to be paid for by the banking industry.
The trouble with that of course, is that if healthy banks are going to have to pay much higher insurance premiums in the future, that will put yet another strain on their balance sheets, something which the authorities will be very reluctant to allow. So in the end, as Galland puts it: "all further bills will be forwarded straight on to US taxpayers." Along with all the other burdens they have to bear, that suggests that US consumers won't be in the mood to snap out of savings mode any time soon.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Money From Old Mobile Phone
Money From Old Mobile Phone
Every year in Britain, we throw away 5.25 million mobile phones. This is utter madness. I realise that recycling can seem a bit of a chore at times – but unlike your cans and newspapers, you can make a handy bit of extra cash from your old handset.
For example, if I sold my Nokia 5800 to one of the mobile phone recycling firms, I could earn £100. Even a very old handset such as a Nokia 6230 could still sell for £11 – not bad considering that you are getting paid to get rid of something you don't want anyway, in an environmentally responsible manner.
To find out how much you could sell your old handsets for – and to whom – use MoneySavingExpert.com's comparison tool.
Every year in Britain, we throw away 5.25 million mobile phones. This is utter madness. I realise that recycling can seem a bit of a chore at times – but unlike your cans and newspapers, you can make a handy bit of extra cash from your old handset.
For example, if I sold my Nokia 5800 to one of the mobile phone recycling firms, I could earn £100. Even a very old handset such as a Nokia 6230 could still sell for £11 – not bad considering that you are getting paid to get rid of something you don't want anyway, in an environmentally responsible manner.
To find out how much you could sell your old handsets for – and to whom – use MoneySavingExpert.com's comparison tool.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Avoid Inheritance Tax
Avoid Inheritance Tax
An increasingly large number of British domiciled individuals are positioned to become liable for inheritance tax on their estates upon death. This is largely because of an increase in personal wealth fuelled in part by higher valuation of principal properties. In Britain alone 41% of households have an estate that will be liable to the 40% inheritance tax, and this figure doesn’t take into account all of the British non-residents living abroad who are still domiciled in the UK and whose estates are still within reach of the Great British tax man.
So the question ‘how to (legally) avoid inheritance tax’ has to be asked. Well there are a number of approaches that individuals are already taking and in this article we detail and examine whether they are appropriate for you.
One of the main ways Britons are counteracting their impending inheritance tax bill is through the use of gifting allowances. According to a YouGov study around one hundred and three billion pounds will be given away by individuals facing an inheritance tax liability to their friends and family.
You can consider annually gifting money to children to help them get on the property ladder or giving a lifetime gift of cash to other family members with debts for example. By giving money away while you’re still alive you get to see how it can benefit others and you can also legally avoid having the tax man get his sticky IHT fingers on it.
Around 1.2 million Britons are considering using this method to mitigate their liability with the vast majority gifting money to allow family members to buy their first home…but if you don’t think any of your friends and family are deserving enough of a financial gift or you’ve already gifted the full amount that you’re allowed to then there are other alternatives available!
One of the best alternatives but least understood options is the use of a trust – not necessarily an offshore trust but a discretionary will trust. Since the government changed the way they tax trusts many people have become wary of even asking their financial adviser about whether such a vehicle can be used to legally avoid inheritance tax – but often they can.
Of course one of the most important things that you can do to get your affairs in order when considering inheritance tax is actually making a will, but assuming you’ve done than, gifted money and at least thought about setting up a trust what about changing joint ownership of your home to tenants in common?
All of the options discussed in this article can be legal ways to offset, reduce or negate inheritance tax liability – however, not all options will be suitable for you or necessarily applicable to you, so get your personal financial affairs in order with the aid of your own IFA.
An increasingly large number of British domiciled individuals are positioned to become liable for inheritance tax on their estates upon death. This is largely because of an increase in personal wealth fuelled in part by higher valuation of principal properties. In Britain alone 41% of households have an estate that will be liable to the 40% inheritance tax, and this figure doesn’t take into account all of the British non-residents living abroad who are still domiciled in the UK and whose estates are still within reach of the Great British tax man.
So the question ‘how to (legally) avoid inheritance tax’ has to be asked. Well there are a number of approaches that individuals are already taking and in this article we detail and examine whether they are appropriate for you.
One of the main ways Britons are counteracting their impending inheritance tax bill is through the use of gifting allowances. According to a YouGov study around one hundred and three billion pounds will be given away by individuals facing an inheritance tax liability to their friends and family.
You can consider annually gifting money to children to help them get on the property ladder or giving a lifetime gift of cash to other family members with debts for example. By giving money away while you’re still alive you get to see how it can benefit others and you can also legally avoid having the tax man get his sticky IHT fingers on it.
Around 1.2 million Britons are considering using this method to mitigate their liability with the vast majority gifting money to allow family members to buy their first home…but if you don’t think any of your friends and family are deserving enough of a financial gift or you’ve already gifted the full amount that you’re allowed to then there are other alternatives available!
One of the best alternatives but least understood options is the use of a trust – not necessarily an offshore trust but a discretionary will trust. Since the government changed the way they tax trusts many people have become wary of even asking their financial adviser about whether such a vehicle can be used to legally avoid inheritance tax – but often they can.
Of course one of the most important things that you can do to get your affairs in order when considering inheritance tax is actually making a will, but assuming you’ve done than, gifted money and at least thought about setting up a trust what about changing joint ownership of your home to tenants in common?
All of the options discussed in this article can be legal ways to offset, reduce or negate inheritance tax liability – however, not all options will be suitable for you or necessarily applicable to you, so get your personal financial affairs in order with the aid of your own IFA.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Modern Art - Investment or Confidence Trick
Modern Art - Investment or Confidence Trick?
At the centre of Damien Hirst’s Beautiful Inside My Head Forever exhibition this week in Mayfair stood a 680kg bull encased in a tank of formaldehyde. With golden hooves, horns and head-dress, the bull has been christened the Golden Calf, and was expected to fetch between £8m and £12m at auction last Monday night.
In the end, it went to an anonymous bidder for £10.3m, a record for a Hirst. A reproduction of his famous pickled shark also sold well, going for £9.6m. Despite it being among the worst weeks for Wall Street since the 1929 crash, all but five of the 223 lots were sold, raising a record £111m. Sotheby’s was quick to declare the auction a royal success, while the art world breathed a huge collective sigh of relief – maybe there is still puff left in the contemporary art market.
But aren’t they missing the joke here? The point of the original golden calf is that it was a false idol. Surely Hirst is having fun at the buyers’ expense. So how long can he get away with it? Well, we’ll have to wait to see whether it was genuine collectors or Hirst dealers who were on the other end of those phone lines before we get carried away with this bumper sale. There was certainly enough concern before the auction for dealers to ring around to remind Hirst collectors that it was in their interest to make a splash at Sotheby’s, says Ben Lewis in the Evening Standard, if only to prop up the value of their collection. And it was also Hirst and a consortium of his peers who bought his For the Love of God, a platinum skull sporting 8,600 diamonds, which was put up for sale at £50m in August 2007. Meanwhile, there are rumoured to be 200 unsold works worth in the region of £100m sitting in the artist’s London gallery, the White Cube.
Investors aren’t convinced the art boom can last, says Lewis – they have helped wipe 39% off Sotheby’s share price this year already. Despite this week’s fanfare, other sectors of the market are already in the doldrums. Between June 2006 and June 2007, the value of a typical old master rose just 7.6%. And although Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich broke the record for the highest price paid for a work by a living artist, when he bought Lucien Freud’s Benefits Supervisor Sleeping for $33.6m in May this year, British 17th- to 19th-century portraits and watercolours actually declined 7.5% and 25% in value respectively last year. So when you read about the ‘boom’ in the art market, it’s really only in modern and contemporary works that this holds true.
And this can’t last either – because regardless of who was buying at Sotheby’s, the contemporary art market is so nakedly rigged it would make a diamond skull blush.
Art market: The Great Swindle
The trouble, according to veteran New York art dealer Richard Feigen, is that the value of modern art is too much dictated by the “mafia of the art world” – the dealers and curators who have cowed credulous rich collectors into paying absurd prices. They’ve done this by keeping such a tight rein on the art produced and how much art is seen that they’ve been able to maintain an illusion that these works are scarce, stage-managing a boom in post-war art.
It is very important for private galleries to know that a buyer is someone who is serious about collecting, says Julian Stallabrass in High Art Lite: The Rise and Fall of Young British Art. That’s because they have to be sure that the buyer will continue to swallow inflated prices. Hirst himself knows the importance of this. Sotheby’s auction room would have been teeming with heavily invested Hirst collectors, with an interest in maintaining the value of his holdings. “The price of the art itself is a delicate matter – it is highly subject to the vagaries of opinion.” And in the private viewings, dealers (who get a 50% cut of the final sale price) have been able to dictate that opinion.
When pieces fail to achieve their reserve price at auction, they are quietly sold afterwards for a discount to private collectors. Last year, Christie’s raised $542m and Sotheby’s $30m in private deals after auctions. With dealers buying up work of artists they’re already heavily invested in, there are murmurings that these activities are propping up a collapsing market. “I salute those who have created the merry-go-round – the gallery owners, the critics, the auctioneers, the publicists and the artists,” says Luke Johnson in the FT. “It has been a wonderful scheme to make lots of money out of almost nothing.”
Of course, there have been plenty of oligarchs and petrokings who have been only too delighted to join that merry-go-ground in recent years. In 2006, there were 9.5 million people globally with assets of more than $1m, according to the Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report. Those with $30m or more who were surveyed said they were willing to invest 10%-20% of their combined wealth of $32.7trn in alternative assets – half of which are allocated to art. And so the number of wealthy collectors has multiplied 20 times over the past 25 years. The number of museums picking up art has also exploded in that time. Over the past 25 years, more than 100 major new museums have been built around the world, each with the intention of acquiring 2,000 pieces a year, notes Don Thomson in The $12m Stuffed Shark. But with few Old Masters or Impressionist paintings coming to market, the museums have had to focus their energies on getting hold of dramatic contemporary pieces to make their mark. China’s nascent modern art market is a case in point – between 2005 and 2006, the value of contemporary sales in China increased by 983%.
Why the art market will crumble
But this can’t continue. For a start, if Hirst’s show does anything at all, it demonstrates that the scarcity propping up the market is an illusion. A full 223 pieces of work were produced by Hirst and his assistants over the last two years. As David Fuller of Fullermoney puts it, there’s “not much supply inelasticity in that”. Dealers might be able to cajole buyers into bidding up an auction, but their power is slipping away. As Richard Lacayo points out in Time magazine, it’s hard to see how the mass-produced items, such as the spin drawings and “middling merchandise”, can continue to maintain the prices they command.
But it’s the sinking of the global economy that is the real death knell for contemporary art. Modern and contemporary art has been bought mainly by those who have made their money in the bull market. After the events of the past week, the hedge-fund managers and investment bankers won’t be as keen to splash around what little cash they have left. And what about the idea that the new 21st-century rich – the Russians and Middle Eastern monarchs – are immune to a downturn and will continue to snap up art? It’s a nice thought, but then the same argument was made by estate agents about high-end London properties, yet even the top end of the housing market is suffering these days. These people are not stupid – or not more so than the rest of us anyway. If they see the price of art falling, then the auctions rooms will rapidly empty.
Other art market fads
It’s not as if we haven’t seen boom and bust in the art world before. The same process was at work in the late 1980s, when Japanese collectors, their wallets swollen with the profits from property speculation, started snapping up Impressionist paintings. Buyers were notoriously undiscriminating. When asked why he had spent more than $300m on late-19th-century French paintings, Yasumichi Morishita (a moneylender known as “the pit viper”) replied that “Impressionist paintings go better with modern decor”.
AMR’s index of French Impressionists rose sixfold in the second half of the 1980s, but gave up all those gains after Japanese property prices collapsed at the end of the decade. In 1994 Morishita’s collection of paintings, once valued at ¥30bn, was taken by creditors. Between 1987 and 1991, Japan imported around $9bn worth of art from around the world. Just as now, the speculation was fuelled by the flow of easy money as buyers were able to borrow huge amounts to invest in art. But as Robert Hughes pointed out at the time in an article for Time magazine, which pinpointed the top of the market, when you can’t borrow, you can’t buy.
The closest parallel to the boom that has swept through the contemporary market in recent years came in the last half of the 19th century, according to Ian Jack in The Guardian. Exhibitions at the time were so frenzied that fences had to be built around the pictures to hold back the crowds. But what happened next will be a sobering thought for buyers of contemporary art. Take Alma-Tadema’s The Finding of Moses. The picture sold for £5,240 in 1904, then went for a miserly £252 in 1960 – more than 50 years later. And Burne-Jones’ Chant d’amour sold for £3,307 in 1886 and £620 in 1930.
Art market: A decaying bull
It takes usually about 18 months after a market downturn before the art market follows, says Jack. For all the support dealers seem prepared to give the artists they patronise, the ruse that has sustained modern art could be close to failing. And the fallout could send a tremor right through the market. According to ArtTactic, a research group, the $500,000-$1m market is already softening. After the 1990 art market crash, even paintings by 20th-century masters, such as Picasso, halved in value over five years – and arguably they have lasting value.
As Luke Johnson, chairman of Channel 4, put it in the FT: “No part of the market is more vulnerable than contemporary art”, much of which “will end up in skips, worthless emblems of a period with too much liquidity and not enough cultural judgement.”
At the centre of Damien Hirst’s Beautiful Inside My Head Forever exhibition this week in Mayfair stood a 680kg bull encased in a tank of formaldehyde. With golden hooves, horns and head-dress, the bull has been christened the Golden Calf, and was expected to fetch between £8m and £12m at auction last Monday night.
In the end, it went to an anonymous bidder for £10.3m, a record for a Hirst. A reproduction of his famous pickled shark also sold well, going for £9.6m. Despite it being among the worst weeks for Wall Street since the 1929 crash, all but five of the 223 lots were sold, raising a record £111m. Sotheby’s was quick to declare the auction a royal success, while the art world breathed a huge collective sigh of relief – maybe there is still puff left in the contemporary art market.
But aren’t they missing the joke here? The point of the original golden calf is that it was a false idol. Surely Hirst is having fun at the buyers’ expense. So how long can he get away with it? Well, we’ll have to wait to see whether it was genuine collectors or Hirst dealers who were on the other end of those phone lines before we get carried away with this bumper sale. There was certainly enough concern before the auction for dealers to ring around to remind Hirst collectors that it was in their interest to make a splash at Sotheby’s, says Ben Lewis in the Evening Standard, if only to prop up the value of their collection. And it was also Hirst and a consortium of his peers who bought his For the Love of God, a platinum skull sporting 8,600 diamonds, which was put up for sale at £50m in August 2007. Meanwhile, there are rumoured to be 200 unsold works worth in the region of £100m sitting in the artist’s London gallery, the White Cube.
Investors aren’t convinced the art boom can last, says Lewis – they have helped wipe 39% off Sotheby’s share price this year already. Despite this week’s fanfare, other sectors of the market are already in the doldrums. Between June 2006 and June 2007, the value of a typical old master rose just 7.6%. And although Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich broke the record for the highest price paid for a work by a living artist, when he bought Lucien Freud’s Benefits Supervisor Sleeping for $33.6m in May this year, British 17th- to 19th-century portraits and watercolours actually declined 7.5% and 25% in value respectively last year. So when you read about the ‘boom’ in the art market, it’s really only in modern and contemporary works that this holds true.
And this can’t last either – because regardless of who was buying at Sotheby’s, the contemporary art market is so nakedly rigged it would make a diamond skull blush.
Art market: The Great Swindle
The trouble, according to veteran New York art dealer Richard Feigen, is that the value of modern art is too much dictated by the “mafia of the art world” – the dealers and curators who have cowed credulous rich collectors into paying absurd prices. They’ve done this by keeping such a tight rein on the art produced and how much art is seen that they’ve been able to maintain an illusion that these works are scarce, stage-managing a boom in post-war art.
It is very important for private galleries to know that a buyer is someone who is serious about collecting, says Julian Stallabrass in High Art Lite: The Rise and Fall of Young British Art. That’s because they have to be sure that the buyer will continue to swallow inflated prices. Hirst himself knows the importance of this. Sotheby’s auction room would have been teeming with heavily invested Hirst collectors, with an interest in maintaining the value of his holdings. “The price of the art itself is a delicate matter – it is highly subject to the vagaries of opinion.” And in the private viewings, dealers (who get a 50% cut of the final sale price) have been able to dictate that opinion.
When pieces fail to achieve their reserve price at auction, they are quietly sold afterwards for a discount to private collectors. Last year, Christie’s raised $542m and Sotheby’s $30m in private deals after auctions. With dealers buying up work of artists they’re already heavily invested in, there are murmurings that these activities are propping up a collapsing market. “I salute those who have created the merry-go-round – the gallery owners, the critics, the auctioneers, the publicists and the artists,” says Luke Johnson in the FT. “It has been a wonderful scheme to make lots of money out of almost nothing.”
Of course, there have been plenty of oligarchs and petrokings who have been only too delighted to join that merry-go-ground in recent years. In 2006, there were 9.5 million people globally with assets of more than $1m, according to the Merrill Lynch World Wealth Report. Those with $30m or more who were surveyed said they were willing to invest 10%-20% of their combined wealth of $32.7trn in alternative assets – half of which are allocated to art. And so the number of wealthy collectors has multiplied 20 times over the past 25 years. The number of museums picking up art has also exploded in that time. Over the past 25 years, more than 100 major new museums have been built around the world, each with the intention of acquiring 2,000 pieces a year, notes Don Thomson in The $12m Stuffed Shark. But with few Old Masters or Impressionist paintings coming to market, the museums have had to focus their energies on getting hold of dramatic contemporary pieces to make their mark. China’s nascent modern art market is a case in point – between 2005 and 2006, the value of contemporary sales in China increased by 983%.
Why the art market will crumble
But this can’t continue. For a start, if Hirst’s show does anything at all, it demonstrates that the scarcity propping up the market is an illusion. A full 223 pieces of work were produced by Hirst and his assistants over the last two years. As David Fuller of Fullermoney puts it, there’s “not much supply inelasticity in that”. Dealers might be able to cajole buyers into bidding up an auction, but their power is slipping away. As Richard Lacayo points out in Time magazine, it’s hard to see how the mass-produced items, such as the spin drawings and “middling merchandise”, can continue to maintain the prices they command.
But it’s the sinking of the global economy that is the real death knell for contemporary art. Modern and contemporary art has been bought mainly by those who have made their money in the bull market. After the events of the past week, the hedge-fund managers and investment bankers won’t be as keen to splash around what little cash they have left. And what about the idea that the new 21st-century rich – the Russians and Middle Eastern monarchs – are immune to a downturn and will continue to snap up art? It’s a nice thought, but then the same argument was made by estate agents about high-end London properties, yet even the top end of the housing market is suffering these days. These people are not stupid – or not more so than the rest of us anyway. If they see the price of art falling, then the auctions rooms will rapidly empty.
Other art market fads
It’s not as if we haven’t seen boom and bust in the art world before. The same process was at work in the late 1980s, when Japanese collectors, their wallets swollen with the profits from property speculation, started snapping up Impressionist paintings. Buyers were notoriously undiscriminating. When asked why he had spent more than $300m on late-19th-century French paintings, Yasumichi Morishita (a moneylender known as “the pit viper”) replied that “Impressionist paintings go better with modern decor”.
AMR’s index of French Impressionists rose sixfold in the second half of the 1980s, but gave up all those gains after Japanese property prices collapsed at the end of the decade. In 1994 Morishita’s collection of paintings, once valued at ¥30bn, was taken by creditors. Between 1987 and 1991, Japan imported around $9bn worth of art from around the world. Just as now, the speculation was fuelled by the flow of easy money as buyers were able to borrow huge amounts to invest in art. But as Robert Hughes pointed out at the time in an article for Time magazine, which pinpointed the top of the market, when you can’t borrow, you can’t buy.
The closest parallel to the boom that has swept through the contemporary market in recent years came in the last half of the 19th century, according to Ian Jack in The Guardian. Exhibitions at the time were so frenzied that fences had to be built around the pictures to hold back the crowds. But what happened next will be a sobering thought for buyers of contemporary art. Take Alma-Tadema’s The Finding of Moses. The picture sold for £5,240 in 1904, then went for a miserly £252 in 1960 – more than 50 years later. And Burne-Jones’ Chant d’amour sold for £3,307 in 1886 and £620 in 1930.
Art market: A decaying bull
It takes usually about 18 months after a market downturn before the art market follows, says Jack. For all the support dealers seem prepared to give the artists they patronise, the ruse that has sustained modern art could be close to failing. And the fallout could send a tremor right through the market. According to ArtTactic, a research group, the $500,000-$1m market is already softening. After the 1990 art market crash, even paintings by 20th-century masters, such as Picasso, halved in value over five years – and arguably they have lasting value.
As Luke Johnson, chairman of Channel 4, put it in the FT: “No part of the market is more vulnerable than contemporary art”, much of which “will end up in skips, worthless emblems of a period with too much liquidity and not enough cultural judgement.”
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Managing Your Expat Money Worries
Managing Your Expat Money Worries
Whether you’re back home or away from home and working on assignment overseas, money worries can be some of the most crippling concerns that any of us face. Money worries can cause relationship issues, sleepless nights and ill health. As an expat you can sometimes feel isolated too – and this can compound the whole problem.
Managing your expat money worries becomes a priority if you want to enjoy your time overseas and get to grips with your financial status. In this article we’ll take you through sorting out any financial problems and worries so that you can enjoy your time abroad fully.
We will touch on why you should be honest about your financial situation with your spouse for example, and how you can get a plan in place to get on top of any money issues that you may have.
Be Honest About Your Financial Situation
If you try to deny the seriousness of any financial issues you have you are fooling not only your partner but yourself. To be able to sort out any fiscal issues you have you need to face the situation you are in. What’s more, if you’re married and/or have any joint credit with your partner such as a mortgage or credit card in both names, you could be adversely affecting not only your financial standing but that of your partner’s if you fail to take decisive action if you’re in financial trouble.
Therefore, it is not only of help to you to face up to money worries, but really it is your ‘duty’ to tell your partner as well – especially if they are in someway implicated as a result of any money issues you have.
Even if you are not ‘obligated’ to tell your partner about any financial concerns you have, by not telling them you retain the burden of worry alone, and you create a stressful situation between you and your partner. They are carrying on oblivious to the worry you have to carry – and that is not fair on them or you. By sharing your worries you never know, you may just halve them.
Getting to Grips with Expat Money Worries
You may not be able to speak to the likes of the Citizens Advice Bureau because you’re living in a place where there is no such organisation – however there are groups out there that you can contact via the internet. So even as an expat living abroad in the most remote place, you are not alone when it comes to getting a financial action plan in place or getting support to face your money woes.
What’s more, if you enlist the help of an expat financial adviser you may find that your financial affairs are not as dire as you first thought and you can get everything sorted out properly.
You need to get an action plan in place to sort out your financial concerns. Firstly you need to look at the level of income you have each month after tax. Then you need to look at the outgoings you incur each month. Which outgoings are essential and cannot be avoided – for example your mortgage payments, credit card minimum payments, utility bills and so forth. Next you need to look at how much you spend on living day-to-day. Can you cut down on the money you spend on travel, shopping or eating out for example. Look at where you can cut back. If you cannot cut back far enough to ease your financial issues you need to think about contacting your creditors and renegotiating any debt.
You should be immediately up front, open and honest about your situation and offer your lenders a solution. You could suggest increasing your credit term, reducing the amount you pay back each month or having a period whereby you pay interest only. You of course need to bear in mind that any of these suggestions will have long term fiscal implications in terms of the amount of interest you perhaps pay and the duration you pay back debt over. By being open, up front and honest with people, you stand the best chance of negotiating a situation that you can live with.
If your money worries are more to do with the fact that you are not saving enough or making the most of the financial plans you have in place, it is definitely time to draw on the services of an independent financial adviser. You need to advise them of your situation, go through a fact find with them, be honest about your current situation and long-term plans and aims, and work with them to find the best path for you to take.
Ultimately it is imperative that you face up to your financial situation if you are to make the most and best of it. Good luck.
Whether you’re back home or away from home and working on assignment overseas, money worries can be some of the most crippling concerns that any of us face. Money worries can cause relationship issues, sleepless nights and ill health. As an expat you can sometimes feel isolated too – and this can compound the whole problem.
Managing your expat money worries becomes a priority if you want to enjoy your time overseas and get to grips with your financial status. In this article we’ll take you through sorting out any financial problems and worries so that you can enjoy your time abroad fully.
We will touch on why you should be honest about your financial situation with your spouse for example, and how you can get a plan in place to get on top of any money issues that you may have.
Be Honest About Your Financial Situation
If you try to deny the seriousness of any financial issues you have you are fooling not only your partner but yourself. To be able to sort out any fiscal issues you have you need to face the situation you are in. What’s more, if you’re married and/or have any joint credit with your partner such as a mortgage or credit card in both names, you could be adversely affecting not only your financial standing but that of your partner’s if you fail to take decisive action if you’re in financial trouble.
Therefore, it is not only of help to you to face up to money worries, but really it is your ‘duty’ to tell your partner as well – especially if they are in someway implicated as a result of any money issues you have.
Even if you are not ‘obligated’ to tell your partner about any financial concerns you have, by not telling them you retain the burden of worry alone, and you create a stressful situation between you and your partner. They are carrying on oblivious to the worry you have to carry – and that is not fair on them or you. By sharing your worries you never know, you may just halve them.
Getting to Grips with Expat Money Worries
You may not be able to speak to the likes of the Citizens Advice Bureau because you’re living in a place where there is no such organisation – however there are groups out there that you can contact via the internet. So even as an expat living abroad in the most remote place, you are not alone when it comes to getting a financial action plan in place or getting support to face your money woes.
What’s more, if you enlist the help of an expat financial adviser you may find that your financial affairs are not as dire as you first thought and you can get everything sorted out properly.
You need to get an action plan in place to sort out your financial concerns. Firstly you need to look at the level of income you have each month after tax. Then you need to look at the outgoings you incur each month. Which outgoings are essential and cannot be avoided – for example your mortgage payments, credit card minimum payments, utility bills and so forth. Next you need to look at how much you spend on living day-to-day. Can you cut down on the money you spend on travel, shopping or eating out for example. Look at where you can cut back. If you cannot cut back far enough to ease your financial issues you need to think about contacting your creditors and renegotiating any debt.
You should be immediately up front, open and honest about your situation and offer your lenders a solution. You could suggest increasing your credit term, reducing the amount you pay back each month or having a period whereby you pay interest only. You of course need to bear in mind that any of these suggestions will have long term fiscal implications in terms of the amount of interest you perhaps pay and the duration you pay back debt over. By being open, up front and honest with people, you stand the best chance of negotiating a situation that you can live with.
If your money worries are more to do with the fact that you are not saving enough or making the most of the financial plans you have in place, it is definitely time to draw on the services of an independent financial adviser. You need to advise them of your situation, go through a fact find with them, be honest about your current situation and long-term plans and aims, and work with them to find the best path for you to take.
Ultimately it is imperative that you face up to your financial situation if you are to make the most and best of it. Good luck.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Nicaragua Featured In Sports
Nicaragua Featured In Sports
Illustrated Swimsuit Photo Shoot
In another step towards Nicaragua’s world wide recognition as a travel destination, Nicaragua was one of the sites used for this year’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. I believe two models had their shoots in San Juan Del Sur Nicaragua, one of main tourism destinations in the country. San Juan Del Sur is known for its great beach, fishing, and surfing. It also happens to be a growing destination for expatriates and real estate investors alike.
I’ve been to Nicaragua a few times and absolutely loved my time there. The people are extremely friendly, and the scenery is absolutely to die for. The people at Sports Illustrated obviously saw the beauty, and the rest of the world is slowly catching on to this as well. Seeing as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is by far the largest selling issue for the company every year, millions more people are being introduced to not only beautiful models but a beautiful country.
Just out of curiosity, I looked around on some forums and blogs and it already appears that many people have taken notice and are asking about real estate opportunities in the country. Whether they follow through on that curiosity is another story, but any buzz is good for business in Nicaragua.
Those who are new to Nicaragua should check out the article we wrote about investing in Nicaragua real estate. Nicaragua also came in number 5 on our list of the top Latin American real estate markets. Any potential investors though should be warned that investing in Nicaragua is risky, and should be looked at as a long-term investment.
Those who have visited Nicaragua know that the country is beautiful, but needs a lot of work, especially in terms of infrastructure. There is a lot of development underway, but it is moving slowly. Most investors in Nicaragua are Americans, so investment in the country has slowed recently due to the problems in the U.S. Many investors are either choosing to wait, or were planning to use equity from their homes in the U.S. and have lost that investment capital altogether. The fact Daniel Ortega is now leading the country also isn’t helping things. However, tourism should continue doing well: It is one of the most affordable, beautiful and exotic locations that Americans can reach with relative ease (around 2 hours flying from Houston or Miami). If the U.S. does in fact go into a recession, people will be looking for lower cost places to travel, and that’s great news for Nicaraguan tourism and bad news for European tourism.
Over the long haul, Nicaragua should progress nicely. It offers great investment potential, but investors should use caution. Buying property in Nicaragua is not like buying property here in the states. You must understand the risks you are taking and not invest more capital than you can afford to lose. If you are careful, and invest with a long-term focus, then you will probably be happy with your investment when all is said and done. Beyond that, Nicaragua is an incredible place to visit (at least I’ve found it to be), so even if you find your self stuck with an investment property that you can’t sell, you should have a great time (and excuse for) visiting there.
Illustrated Swimsuit Photo Shoot
In another step towards Nicaragua’s world wide recognition as a travel destination, Nicaragua was one of the sites used for this year’s Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. I believe two models had their shoots in San Juan Del Sur Nicaragua, one of main tourism destinations in the country. San Juan Del Sur is known for its great beach, fishing, and surfing. It also happens to be a growing destination for expatriates and real estate investors alike.
I’ve been to Nicaragua a few times and absolutely loved my time there. The people are extremely friendly, and the scenery is absolutely to die for. The people at Sports Illustrated obviously saw the beauty, and the rest of the world is slowly catching on to this as well. Seeing as the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition is by far the largest selling issue for the company every year, millions more people are being introduced to not only beautiful models but a beautiful country.
Just out of curiosity, I looked around on some forums and blogs and it already appears that many people have taken notice and are asking about real estate opportunities in the country. Whether they follow through on that curiosity is another story, but any buzz is good for business in Nicaragua.
Those who are new to Nicaragua should check out the article we wrote about investing in Nicaragua real estate. Nicaragua also came in number 5 on our list of the top Latin American real estate markets. Any potential investors though should be warned that investing in Nicaragua is risky, and should be looked at as a long-term investment.
Those who have visited Nicaragua know that the country is beautiful, but needs a lot of work, especially in terms of infrastructure. There is a lot of development underway, but it is moving slowly. Most investors in Nicaragua are Americans, so investment in the country has slowed recently due to the problems in the U.S. Many investors are either choosing to wait, or were planning to use equity from their homes in the U.S. and have lost that investment capital altogether. The fact Daniel Ortega is now leading the country also isn’t helping things. However, tourism should continue doing well: It is one of the most affordable, beautiful and exotic locations that Americans can reach with relative ease (around 2 hours flying from Houston or Miami). If the U.S. does in fact go into a recession, people will be looking for lower cost places to travel, and that’s great news for Nicaraguan tourism and bad news for European tourism.
Over the long haul, Nicaragua should progress nicely. It offers great investment potential, but investors should use caution. Buying property in Nicaragua is not like buying property here in the states. You must understand the risks you are taking and not invest more capital than you can afford to lose. If you are careful, and invest with a long-term focus, then you will probably be happy with your investment when all is said and done. Beyond that, Nicaragua is an incredible place to visit (at least I’ve found it to be), so even if you find your self stuck with an investment property that you can’t sell, you should have a great time (and excuse for) visiting there.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Fidel Castro Resigns
Fidel Castro Resigns: What’s Next For Cuba?
Finally, the news that everyone has been waiting for: Fidel Castro officially resigned this morning (I know many people were, and still are, hoping for his death, but I’m not going to go there). Castro has been in power for the past 49 years in Cuba, and has by most measurements destroyed the country. Cuba is a land full of potential and promise, but it needs access to U.S. investors, tourists, and trade to fully realize it. Unfortunately, that relationship has not been able to materialize due to various political issues.
With Cuba’s proximity to the U.S. and natural appeal, it should have been an investor’s dream location. It might someday become just that, but some big questions remain: How will Fidel Castro’s brother, Raul Castro, run the country? Will Raul refuse to make any major changes while Fidel is still alive? Even after Fidel is dead will Raul (or Raul’s successor) continue on with Fidel’s policies?
Unfortunately for U.S. investors, many prime opportunities have already been taken by foreign investors, especially Europeans, but even the Europeans have had a tough go with all the regulations imposed by Castro. If Cuba decides to open up the country to foreign investment it can be certain that there will be countless opportunities for investors. The U.S. should be Cuba’s number one source for trade and tourism, and once trade and travel are allowed between the two countries, Cuba’s economy and property values will jump by leaps and bounds.
Investing in a newly opened Cuba would not be without risk though. Cuba has been a dictatorship for the last 49 years, and its government has not respected investors’ rights. There is a precedent and a possibility that another dictator along the lines of Fidel Castro could come along and seize property, or impose unfair regulations. Until Cuba’s government shows stability for an extended period of time, that concern will be at the front of every investor’s mind. Whether the potential reward possibilities are worth the risk is a decision every investor will need to make for themselves.
Cuba has always been intriguing to me: Great food, a vibrant culture, great location and climate, but off-limits. I hope that this new administration takes Cuba in a new direction, and that I’ll be visiting sooner rather than later.
Finally, the news that everyone has been waiting for: Fidel Castro officially resigned this morning (I know many people were, and still are, hoping for his death, but I’m not going to go there). Castro has been in power for the past 49 years in Cuba, and has by most measurements destroyed the country. Cuba is a land full of potential and promise, but it needs access to U.S. investors, tourists, and trade to fully realize it. Unfortunately, that relationship has not been able to materialize due to various political issues.
With Cuba’s proximity to the U.S. and natural appeal, it should have been an investor’s dream location. It might someday become just that, but some big questions remain: How will Fidel Castro’s brother, Raul Castro, run the country? Will Raul refuse to make any major changes while Fidel is still alive? Even after Fidel is dead will Raul (or Raul’s successor) continue on with Fidel’s policies?
Unfortunately for U.S. investors, many prime opportunities have already been taken by foreign investors, especially Europeans, but even the Europeans have had a tough go with all the regulations imposed by Castro. If Cuba decides to open up the country to foreign investment it can be certain that there will be countless opportunities for investors. The U.S. should be Cuba’s number one source for trade and tourism, and once trade and travel are allowed between the two countries, Cuba’s economy and property values will jump by leaps and bounds.
Investing in a newly opened Cuba would not be without risk though. Cuba has been a dictatorship for the last 49 years, and its government has not respected investors’ rights. There is a precedent and a possibility that another dictator along the lines of Fidel Castro could come along and seize property, or impose unfair regulations. Until Cuba’s government shows stability for an extended period of time, that concern will be at the front of every investor’s mind. Whether the potential reward possibilities are worth the risk is a decision every investor will need to make for themselves.
Cuba has always been intriguing to me: Great food, a vibrant culture, great location and climate, but off-limits. I hope that this new administration takes Cuba in a new direction, and that I’ll be visiting sooner rather than later.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Gold Stocks Are A Buy
Gold Stocks Are A Buy
Over the past couple of months, gold has slowly retreated from all-time high prices, losing mainstream media coverage in the process. As veterans of the gold market know, gold makes its major moves when no one is paying attention. I don't know whether gold will explode higher today or 6 months from now, but I believe it is time to accumulate.
U.S. Dollar
Weakness in gold has, not surprisingly, coincided with dollar strength. The dollar is solidly above its 50-day moving average and has just broken through its 200-day moving average. If the dollar can hold above 78.5 on the dollar index, expect to see further strength.
Gold is firming up a bit here at the same time the dollar is showing strength. Gold is sitting in the lower range of a multi-week consolidation pattern, which suggests gold is a buy right now. Until we bust out of this range in either direction, I will use all pullbacks in gold to add to positions.
Gold Stocks
If I were looking to enter the gold space right now, I would turn to gold stocks. Gold stocks have taken a beating along with the general market. Most people are concerned about the effect of potential crash conditions in the stock market on gold stocks.
While these concerns are valid, I believe one should buy when value presents itself. Relative to the value of gold, gold stocks are very cheap. The rising gold:xau ratio demonstrates the relative undervaluation of gold stocks.
In valuing gold stocks, keep in mind that energy costs are likely to remain depressed relative to gold as the global economy weakens. Although gold and oil are lumped together in the general category of commodities, they are driven by different fundamental factors. While both commodities are subject to the rules of supply and demand, only gold shines in an atmosphere of fear. After all, people don't store barrels of crude oil when they mistrust governments or currencies.
Once fear reenters the system, gold stocks will explode.
We are currently at an interesting juncture where both the dollar and gold are showing strength. Perhaps gold and the dollar are close to decoupling for good, which I believe will be the signal that confirms we are now entering the most powerful phase of the gold bull market.
I understand that it is hard for investors right now to pull the trigger on gold stocks, especially given the obvious weakness in the general stock market. However, gold shares will likely decouple from the general market in the same way they did during the Great Depression, and more recently, in the first half of 2009. I will continue to buy on weakness, and hopefully, ride this bull market to its conclusion.
Over the past couple of months, gold has slowly retreated from all-time high prices, losing mainstream media coverage in the process. As veterans of the gold market know, gold makes its major moves when no one is paying attention. I don't know whether gold will explode higher today or 6 months from now, but I believe it is time to accumulate.
U.S. Dollar
Weakness in gold has, not surprisingly, coincided with dollar strength. The dollar is solidly above its 50-day moving average and has just broken through its 200-day moving average. If the dollar can hold above 78.5 on the dollar index, expect to see further strength.
Gold is firming up a bit here at the same time the dollar is showing strength. Gold is sitting in the lower range of a multi-week consolidation pattern, which suggests gold is a buy right now. Until we bust out of this range in either direction, I will use all pullbacks in gold to add to positions.
Gold Stocks
If I were looking to enter the gold space right now, I would turn to gold stocks. Gold stocks have taken a beating along with the general market. Most people are concerned about the effect of potential crash conditions in the stock market on gold stocks.
While these concerns are valid, I believe one should buy when value presents itself. Relative to the value of gold, gold stocks are very cheap. The rising gold:xau ratio demonstrates the relative undervaluation of gold stocks.
In valuing gold stocks, keep in mind that energy costs are likely to remain depressed relative to gold as the global economy weakens. Although gold and oil are lumped together in the general category of commodities, they are driven by different fundamental factors. While both commodities are subject to the rules of supply and demand, only gold shines in an atmosphere of fear. After all, people don't store barrels of crude oil when they mistrust governments or currencies.
Once fear reenters the system, gold stocks will explode.
We are currently at an interesting juncture where both the dollar and gold are showing strength. Perhaps gold and the dollar are close to decoupling for good, which I believe will be the signal that confirms we are now entering the most powerful phase of the gold bull market.
I understand that it is hard for investors right now to pull the trigger on gold stocks, especially given the obvious weakness in the general stock market. However, gold shares will likely decouple from the general market in the same way they did during the Great Depression, and more recently, in the first half of 2009. I will continue to buy on weakness, and hopefully, ride this bull market to its conclusion.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Michael Jackson Facing Foreclosure
Michael Jackson Facing Foreclosure: What’s Next For Neverland Ranch?
That’s right, not even Michael Jackson, “The King of Pop,” can distance himself from the foreclosure problems facing the country. According to the Associated Press, Michael Jackson will need to come up with $24.5 million by March 19 in order to save his famed Neverland Ranch from being auctioned off.
The starting bid amount will likely exceed $24.5 million, but considering the fame of Neverland ranch and the location outside Santa Barbara California, it might not be a bad investment. I imagine that this ranch could be turned into quite the tourist draw. Michael Jackson is still probably the biggest single name in music worldwide, and people will want to see his famed ranch. Just think of the tourist draw that Graceland has become. Not only is Michael Jackson a bigger name than Elvis, but the property is much more interesting than Graceland. People will pay money to see Neverland. Of that I’m sure. Even people who aren’t Michael Jackson fans would probably still pay to see the ranch just out of curiosity.
The main buildings could be turned into a museum, and much of the rest of the ranch subdivided and sold off, turned into a vineyard (Neverland winery could be an interesting novelty...), or any number of things depending on the investor’s preferences. Seeing as homes in that region, on just a couple acres, are going for $1-5 million a piece, and Neverland ranch is on somewhere between 2,500-2,900 acres (depending on which source you believe), there is substantial value in the land for sure.
That being said I’m not sure if the property will even make it to auction. It is likely that Jackson will figure some way out of this problem, but it is interesting to consider. Who knows? Maybe the next time that I’m in Santa Barbara, I’ll be able to take a full access tour of Neverland ranch, and maybe even a ride on Michael Jackson’s Ferris Wheel.
That’s right, not even Michael Jackson, “The King of Pop,” can distance himself from the foreclosure problems facing the country. According to the Associated Press, Michael Jackson will need to come up with $24.5 million by March 19 in order to save his famed Neverland Ranch from being auctioned off.
The starting bid amount will likely exceed $24.5 million, but considering the fame of Neverland ranch and the location outside Santa Barbara California, it might not be a bad investment. I imagine that this ranch could be turned into quite the tourist draw. Michael Jackson is still probably the biggest single name in music worldwide, and people will want to see his famed ranch. Just think of the tourist draw that Graceland has become. Not only is Michael Jackson a bigger name than Elvis, but the property is much more interesting than Graceland. People will pay money to see Neverland. Of that I’m sure. Even people who aren’t Michael Jackson fans would probably still pay to see the ranch just out of curiosity.
The main buildings could be turned into a museum, and much of the rest of the ranch subdivided and sold off, turned into a vineyard (Neverland winery could be an interesting novelty...), or any number of things depending on the investor’s preferences. Seeing as homes in that region, on just a couple acres, are going for $1-5 million a piece, and Neverland ranch is on somewhere between 2,500-2,900 acres (depending on which source you believe), there is substantial value in the land for sure.
That being said I’m not sure if the property will even make it to auction. It is likely that Jackson will figure some way out of this problem, but it is interesting to consider. Who knows? Maybe the next time that I’m in Santa Barbara, I’ll be able to take a full access tour of Neverland ranch, and maybe even a ride on Michael Jackson’s Ferris Wheel.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
OECD Employment Very Optimistic
OECD Employment Very Optimistic
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) released updated economic projections on several countries late last week, and while some are calling the projections grim, they look extremely optimistic to me. The report projects different economic variables through 2010, but the one I want to specifically focus on is employment. In their report they see the U.S. capping out with an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. Considering that we are already at 6.5 percent, and news of mass layoffs keep coming with no end in sight, it is hard to believe that we won’t easily surpass 7.6 percent next year.
The big headline in the papers this morning is the 50,000+ people that are getting laid off by Citigroup, on top of previous layoffs the company has already announced this year. Things certainly are not getting better in the financial industry, and really the outlook is not the great anywhere else, either. If the automakers don’t get a big bailout we will soon see tens--if not hundreds--of thousands more people laid off there, not to mention all the vendors and suppliers who would also be forced to lay off workers. Nearly every industry you can think off, short of medical and a few others, is in belt tightening mode right now, and more layoffs are all but imminent.
The OECD projected the unemployment rate to be 6.5 in Quarter 4 of this year; considering that we are already at 6.5 after October’s announcement, we are sure to beat that number. In addition, we must also remember that the Labor Department has been drastically underreporting jobless claims in initial reports. I blogged about this recently, but if they keep the underreporting ratio intact from the past couple months, we could see up to 200,000 more jobs lost than was originally announced for October. That would be scary, considering that the numbers for November look like they are going to be bad, too. We could very well end up with an unemployment rate over 7 percent by the end of the year, a number the OECD is not projecting us to top until Quarter 2 of 2009. By then we might be over 7.6 percent--who knows?
Really, I don’t see how we won’t top 7.6 percent unemployment before 2010, short of an amazing government intervention orchestrated by President-elect Obama. However, that of course would have its own set of ramifications for us to deal with. This problem isn’t going to get better any time soon, and this recession will be deep and hard felt. We can hope for the best, but just make sure to prepare for the worst. The way people have been talking about this OECD report as being overly grim, I just don’t think enough people truly see the big picture.
The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) released updated economic projections on several countries late last week, and while some are calling the projections grim, they look extremely optimistic to me. The report projects different economic variables through 2010, but the one I want to specifically focus on is employment. In their report they see the U.S. capping out with an unemployment rate of 7.6 percent in the first quarter of 2010. Considering that we are already at 6.5 percent, and news of mass layoffs keep coming with no end in sight, it is hard to believe that we won’t easily surpass 7.6 percent next year.
The big headline in the papers this morning is the 50,000+ people that are getting laid off by Citigroup, on top of previous layoffs the company has already announced this year. Things certainly are not getting better in the financial industry, and really the outlook is not the great anywhere else, either. If the automakers don’t get a big bailout we will soon see tens--if not hundreds--of thousands more people laid off there, not to mention all the vendors and suppliers who would also be forced to lay off workers. Nearly every industry you can think off, short of medical and a few others, is in belt tightening mode right now, and more layoffs are all but imminent.
The OECD projected the unemployment rate to be 6.5 in Quarter 4 of this year; considering that we are already at 6.5 after October’s announcement, we are sure to beat that number. In addition, we must also remember that the Labor Department has been drastically underreporting jobless claims in initial reports. I blogged about this recently, but if they keep the underreporting ratio intact from the past couple months, we could see up to 200,000 more jobs lost than was originally announced for October. That would be scary, considering that the numbers for November look like they are going to be bad, too. We could very well end up with an unemployment rate over 7 percent by the end of the year, a number the OECD is not projecting us to top until Quarter 2 of 2009. By then we might be over 7.6 percent--who knows?
Really, I don’t see how we won’t top 7.6 percent unemployment before 2010, short of an amazing government intervention orchestrated by President-elect Obama. However, that of course would have its own set of ramifications for us to deal with. This problem isn’t going to get better any time soon, and this recession will be deep and hard felt. We can hope for the best, but just make sure to prepare for the worst. The way people have been talking about this OECD report as being overly grim, I just don’t think enough people truly see the big picture.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Washing Machines and The US Economy
What washing machines tell us about the US economy
Many analysts cheered the latest results from Electrolux, the world's second largest manufacturer of electrical appliances. Adjusted operating profits beat targets. But hidden behind that good news was a warning.
Hopeful eyes have been turning east recently as China continues to post strong figures – the latest GDP growth rate clocked in at an impressive 8.9%. As China creates new tiers of wealthy consumers, say the bulls, the global economy will continue to strengthen.
But meanwhile, the primary engine of the boom years – the US consumer – continues to pull back. Electrolux confirmed as much by announcing the closure of two washing machine factories, employing 950 staff, in Iowa. And that's in spite of the chief executive, Hans Straberg, declaring "almost everything went our way this quarter".
And it's US consumers that ultimately matter. The US contributes over 20% of global GDP (source IMF), and generates well over three times the wealth of China in US dollar terms. If they suffer, we all suffer. Sure, one day that balance will change as China continues to power on. But for now, firms like Electrolux remind us that the world's biggest spenders are still in their bunker. And that spells bad news for the raft of highly cyclical consumer stocks that have surged since March.
So, anyone who is cheered by the latest US figures (third quarter GDP rose by an annualised 3.5%) into thinking we are past the worst, should think again. And stick with quality defensive shares.
Many analysts cheered the latest results from Electrolux, the world's second largest manufacturer of electrical appliances. Adjusted operating profits beat targets. But hidden behind that good news was a warning.
Hopeful eyes have been turning east recently as China continues to post strong figures – the latest GDP growth rate clocked in at an impressive 8.9%. As China creates new tiers of wealthy consumers, say the bulls, the global economy will continue to strengthen.
But meanwhile, the primary engine of the boom years – the US consumer – continues to pull back. Electrolux confirmed as much by announcing the closure of two washing machine factories, employing 950 staff, in Iowa. And that's in spite of the chief executive, Hans Straberg, declaring "almost everything went our way this quarter".
And it's US consumers that ultimately matter. The US contributes over 20% of global GDP (source IMF), and generates well over three times the wealth of China in US dollar terms. If they suffer, we all suffer. Sure, one day that balance will change as China continues to power on. But for now, firms like Electrolux remind us that the world's biggest spenders are still in their bunker. And that spells bad news for the raft of highly cyclical consumer stocks that have surged since March.
So, anyone who is cheered by the latest US figures (third quarter GDP rose by an annualised 3.5%) into thinking we are past the worst, should think again. And stick with quality defensive shares.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Investment Tips For Every Age
Investment Tips For Every Age
The Twenties
These are the early years when many people are relatively new to the workforce and are still renters. While some have formed a permanent relationship, many don't have children. Home ownership and family are still in the future.
For this group the main financial focus is usually on saving a deposit for a home, an investment that has particular appeal due to its lifestyle benefits and capital gains tax-free status.
The first step for many will be to get their credit card debt under control and then eliminate it. Only then will they be in a position to start building wealth rather than simply paying for past consumption.
With interest rates having stabilised at relatively low levels and property prices still slipping, this age group stands to gain by saving for a deposit for a home so as to be able to buy when the market is weak.
Their main challenge will be to decide whether or not to try to supercharge their savings growth by diverting funds into a regular savings plan that invests in equity funds.
Callinan says building a deposit through investing in equity funds is a good strategy, but only if you can accept the risk that there could be a few years of flat returns.
"You also have to have a time horizon of at least five years, to give the investments time to perform," she adds.
The Thirties
By their 30s, most people are in a permanent relationship, many have children and most have bought a home. The focus is usually on reducing their mortgage, possibly renovating and, where possible, attempting to upgrade to a better property.
Nash of Tynan Mackenzie says people in this situation should consider taking out income insurance, especially given the increased tendency of companies to respond to setbacks by downsizing.
At the very least they should be careful not to over-extend themselves financially, instead keeping money available for emergencies.
This may well involve delaying renovations. Alternatively, they should ensure their mortgage facility allows them to draw down more money quickly if they need funds in a hurry.
Of course, some people in their 30s will still be both mortgage and family free. This group may decide to try to catch up for lost time by aggressive investing, such as using geared share funds or by taking out a margin loan to finance a portfolio of direct share investments.
A small group will go so far as to use even more aggressive investments such as futures contracts, trading warrants and contracts for difference.
Nash stresses, however, that these should be approached with a great deal of care since, if handled badly, they can generate heavy losses.
The Forties
Your financial comfort in your 40s largely depends on how much spending restraint you showed during the previous decade. If you were reasonably disciplined, there is a good chance you will be able to upgrade to a bigger home or, alternatively, carry out the renovations you deferred in order to finance investments.
However, the 40s is sometimes a financially difficult time for people who have children since they are now costing more than ever, especially if they are at private schools. This group needs to budget carefully. In contrast, those with relatively high incomes, or with few or no family responsibilities, should have the capacity to continue to use gearing to expand their investment portfolio.
The alternative will be to divert more money into superannuation. Unfortunately, while very tax-effective, money invested in super is locked up until you satisfy the various preservation rules.
These mean you can't get your super before you are at least 55 and also retired. Super savings really only equate to financial freedom for people who are already in their early 50s.
The Fifties
This is a time for more sustained wealth creation due to higher salaries and fewer family costs (many children by now will be financially independent). Nash argues that the tax breaks offered by superannuation, plus the fact super savings will be more accessible, make this the preferred investment vehicle.
The other opportunity that often arises in your 50s is the chance to take more control over your life by establishing your own business, perhaps by getting a significant redundancy payment.
Even if the redundancy wasn't voluntary, it can provide a valuable chance to build a new, financially viable life outside the 9 to 5 standard working day. But Nash warns it is particularly important to think very carefully before you use your family home as security for a business loan. "A debt-free home is usually crucial for any sort of financial freedom and should not be put at risk without a lot of thought," he says.
The Sixties and later
For many people in their 60s the main financial challenge is to invest their savings to generate a retirement income, and maximise their age pension. In most cases investments are built around some form of allocated or complying pension, in the process maximising tax and social security efficiency.
James of Investec says that, while there is a tendency for older investors to be extremely conservative, especially when the economic outlook is uncertain, higher life expectancy means a very defensive approach probably will result in your money running out.
This means investors should usually opt for an allocated pension that includes a reasonable exposure to both local and offshore shares, rather than a pension with a very high level of capital security.
While a conservative allocated pension carries less risk of suffering a sudden setback, it can also result in a low annual income and so increasing dependence on the aged pension.
Rules for us all
But whether you are in this, the fifth age of investing, or any of the other ages, all of us have to deal with the same economic and investment climate. We have to make the same range of crucial financial decisions, based on our assessment of the risks and opportunities that exist.
James says all investors need to guard against assuming the next five years will generate the same sort of returns as the last. "Expecting the second half of the decade to be just as good as the first half would be naive," she says. "It may be, but there are plenty of reasons to think overall returns won't be as strong."
Among these facts are:
As noted, the main implications of the shift to an era of lower investment returns is the way that making quick gains from the sharemarket or property is likely to be more difficult than in the previous five years.
One thing that won't change, however, is the need for most people to adopt a suitable investment strategy and then resist the temptation to chop and change when a particular investment sector generates disappointing returns.
As already stressed, it is also crucial to avoid thinking you will be able to make big gains quickly. "Everyone wants to be rich tomorrow, but the risks aren't worth it," says Thornhill of Motivated Money. Impatience is our biggest barrier to serous and sustainable wealth creation."
Stick with a strategy
Callinan of Tandem stresses that, while a few investors make a lot of money by timing markets, they are the exception. She points out that even the professional managers who handle the investments for Australia's huge superannuation funds often struggle to add value through timing.
Instead, they develop strict investment strategies and stick with them. "If you give yourself plenty of time and patiently stick with a well-designed investment strategy, you will almost certainly be a lot better off in 10 years time than those who don't," she says.
The Twenties
These are the early years when many people are relatively new to the workforce and are still renters. While some have formed a permanent relationship, many don't have children. Home ownership and family are still in the future.
For this group the main financial focus is usually on saving a deposit for a home, an investment that has particular appeal due to its lifestyle benefits and capital gains tax-free status.
The first step for many will be to get their credit card debt under control and then eliminate it. Only then will they be in a position to start building wealth rather than simply paying for past consumption.
With interest rates having stabilised at relatively low levels and property prices still slipping, this age group stands to gain by saving for a deposit for a home so as to be able to buy when the market is weak.
Their main challenge will be to decide whether or not to try to supercharge their savings growth by diverting funds into a regular savings plan that invests in equity funds.
Callinan says building a deposit through investing in equity funds is a good strategy, but only if you can accept the risk that there could be a few years of flat returns.
"You also have to have a time horizon of at least five years, to give the investments time to perform," she adds.
The Thirties
By their 30s, most people are in a permanent relationship, many have children and most have bought a home. The focus is usually on reducing their mortgage, possibly renovating and, where possible, attempting to upgrade to a better property.
Nash of Tynan Mackenzie says people in this situation should consider taking out income insurance, especially given the increased tendency of companies to respond to setbacks by downsizing.
At the very least they should be careful not to over-extend themselves financially, instead keeping money available for emergencies.
This may well involve delaying renovations. Alternatively, they should ensure their mortgage facility allows them to draw down more money quickly if they need funds in a hurry.
Of course, some people in their 30s will still be both mortgage and family free. This group may decide to try to catch up for lost time by aggressive investing, such as using geared share funds or by taking out a margin loan to finance a portfolio of direct share investments.
A small group will go so far as to use even more aggressive investments such as futures contracts, trading warrants and contracts for difference.
Nash stresses, however, that these should be approached with a great deal of care since, if handled badly, they can generate heavy losses.
The Forties
Your financial comfort in your 40s largely depends on how much spending restraint you showed during the previous decade. If you were reasonably disciplined, there is a good chance you will be able to upgrade to a bigger home or, alternatively, carry out the renovations you deferred in order to finance investments.
However, the 40s is sometimes a financially difficult time for people who have children since they are now costing more than ever, especially if they are at private schools. This group needs to budget carefully. In contrast, those with relatively high incomes, or with few or no family responsibilities, should have the capacity to continue to use gearing to expand their investment portfolio.
The alternative will be to divert more money into superannuation. Unfortunately, while very tax-effective, money invested in super is locked up until you satisfy the various preservation rules.
These mean you can't get your super before you are at least 55 and also retired. Super savings really only equate to financial freedom for people who are already in their early 50s.
The Fifties
This is a time for more sustained wealth creation due to higher salaries and fewer family costs (many children by now will be financially independent). Nash argues that the tax breaks offered by superannuation, plus the fact super savings will be more accessible, make this the preferred investment vehicle.
The other opportunity that often arises in your 50s is the chance to take more control over your life by establishing your own business, perhaps by getting a significant redundancy payment.
Even if the redundancy wasn't voluntary, it can provide a valuable chance to build a new, financially viable life outside the 9 to 5 standard working day. But Nash warns it is particularly important to think very carefully before you use your family home as security for a business loan. "A debt-free home is usually crucial for any sort of financial freedom and should not be put at risk without a lot of thought," he says.
The Sixties and later
For many people in their 60s the main financial challenge is to invest their savings to generate a retirement income, and maximise their age pension. In most cases investments are built around some form of allocated or complying pension, in the process maximising tax and social security efficiency.
James of Investec says that, while there is a tendency for older investors to be extremely conservative, especially when the economic outlook is uncertain, higher life expectancy means a very defensive approach probably will result in your money running out.
This means investors should usually opt for an allocated pension that includes a reasonable exposure to both local and offshore shares, rather than a pension with a very high level of capital security.
While a conservative allocated pension carries less risk of suffering a sudden setback, it can also result in a low annual income and so increasing dependence on the aged pension.
Rules for us all
But whether you are in this, the fifth age of investing, or any of the other ages, all of us have to deal with the same economic and investment climate. We have to make the same range of crucial financial decisions, based on our assessment of the risks and opportunities that exist.
James says all investors need to guard against assuming the next five years will generate the same sort of returns as the last. "Expecting the second half of the decade to be just as good as the first half would be naive," she says. "It may be, but there are plenty of reasons to think overall returns won't be as strong."
Among these facts are:
- Returns over the previous five years or so from Australian shares have been so strong that, as has already happened with real estate, some correction at some stage is virtually inevitable.
- There is no guarantee that one of the main drivers of local sharemarket confidence — the strong Chinese economy — won't hit some adjustment problems, in the process dragging down local stocks.
- The surge in oil prices could continue, squeezing consumers and slowing economic growth.
- The $A could well remain at around current levels, rather than the much lower exchange rate that applied at the start of the decade, in the process maintaining the pressure on exporters.
As noted, the main implications of the shift to an era of lower investment returns is the way that making quick gains from the sharemarket or property is likely to be more difficult than in the previous five years.
One thing that won't change, however, is the need for most people to adopt a suitable investment strategy and then resist the temptation to chop and change when a particular investment sector generates disappointing returns.
As already stressed, it is also crucial to avoid thinking you will be able to make big gains quickly. "Everyone wants to be rich tomorrow, but the risks aren't worth it," says Thornhill of Motivated Money. Impatience is our biggest barrier to serous and sustainable wealth creation."
Stick with a strategy
Callinan of Tandem stresses that, while a few investors make a lot of money by timing markets, they are the exception. She points out that even the professional managers who handle the investments for Australia's huge superannuation funds often struggle to add value through timing.
Instead, they develop strict investment strategies and stick with them. "If you give yourself plenty of time and patiently stick with a well-designed investment strategy, you will almost certainly be a lot better off in 10 years time than those who don't," she says.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Expatriate Tax Saving Advice
Expatriate Tax Saving Advice
The idea of moving abroad and expanding your physical and spiritual horizons is one that appeals to many people but it takes a special kind of individual to actually make the move a reality. These special people fall into the category of ‘expatriate’ and it’s a pretty exclusive club to be a member of!
If you’ve already expatriated – congratulations - and welcome to a world of opportunity and adventure. If on the other hand you’re toying with the idea of international relocation, chances are the experience will be hugely rewarding for you on many levels. At Shelter Offshore we impart advice that we have learned ourselves – and one of the most important pieces of advice that we can give is expatriate tax saving advice. As an expat it’s the first thing you should know about but usually one of the last things you think about!
Ask any expatriate to their face if they find their time abroad to be fun, fascinating, challenging and of value - or read expat forums around the subject and you’re bound to find that the vast majority of those who have chosen to relocate find that having done so, they get so many more rewards and so much more fun from life. There’s simply something amazing about setting yourself such a huge and fascinating challenge and then rising to, and meeting that challenge. After all, if you can change your whole way of life, adapt to another culture, learn another language and make a house away from home really feel like home, then you have to be a special person and chances are, you will personally be rewarded and fulfilled by meeting the goals and challenges that come along with being an expat.
Not everything about being an expat is such challenging hard work though – after all, if it were, why would so many of us stick it?! The reality is that the expatriate world is often one of working hard and playing harder, of meeting new friends, having domestic staff take the strain, of being able to afford an international school education for your children and possibly earning a more impressive salary with greater benefits than if you’d remained ‘back home.’ So, is being an expatriate all about building great memories, amassing fabulous photos of new friends and new horizons and of realising long held dreams of exploration and mind expanding travel?
For some of us it is – but for others who choose only to focus on the fun side of life and who fail to plan properly for the future or who fail to seize their expatriate tax saving advantage, it can be about accruing a financial hangover and wasting an opportunity.
When you leave your country of birth behind and move to live abroad you ‘expatriate’. When you expatriate you gain a certain fiscal advantage that is, to a lesser or greater extent, of benefit to you in the form of legitimate taxation savings presenting themselves and/or of greater and more interesting financial opportunities presenting themselves to you. However, most expats are so focused on the relocation and the experience of living abroad that they fail to embrace the opportunities presented to them and they waste a chance to get ahead financially speaking.
If you want to be in the elite minority and ensure that you embrace all financial and taxation opportunities available to you and you proceed with best advice towards achieving your financial goals and possibilities, our advice to you is that you take time out, explore your new status from a fiscal point of view. To do this you should consider drawing on the services and advice of an international independent financial adviser who can help you discover how you can maximise your expatriate tax saving advantage through the utilisation of offshore services and solutions.
The idea of moving abroad and expanding your physical and spiritual horizons is one that appeals to many people but it takes a special kind of individual to actually make the move a reality. These special people fall into the category of ‘expatriate’ and it’s a pretty exclusive club to be a member of!
If you’ve already expatriated – congratulations - and welcome to a world of opportunity and adventure. If on the other hand you’re toying with the idea of international relocation, chances are the experience will be hugely rewarding for you on many levels. At Shelter Offshore we impart advice that we have learned ourselves – and one of the most important pieces of advice that we can give is expatriate tax saving advice. As an expat it’s the first thing you should know about but usually one of the last things you think about!
Ask any expatriate to their face if they find their time abroad to be fun, fascinating, challenging and of value - or read expat forums around the subject and you’re bound to find that the vast majority of those who have chosen to relocate find that having done so, they get so many more rewards and so much more fun from life. There’s simply something amazing about setting yourself such a huge and fascinating challenge and then rising to, and meeting that challenge. After all, if you can change your whole way of life, adapt to another culture, learn another language and make a house away from home really feel like home, then you have to be a special person and chances are, you will personally be rewarded and fulfilled by meeting the goals and challenges that come along with being an expat.
Not everything about being an expat is such challenging hard work though – after all, if it were, why would so many of us stick it?! The reality is that the expatriate world is often one of working hard and playing harder, of meeting new friends, having domestic staff take the strain, of being able to afford an international school education for your children and possibly earning a more impressive salary with greater benefits than if you’d remained ‘back home.’ So, is being an expatriate all about building great memories, amassing fabulous photos of new friends and new horizons and of realising long held dreams of exploration and mind expanding travel?
For some of us it is – but for others who choose only to focus on the fun side of life and who fail to plan properly for the future or who fail to seize their expatriate tax saving advantage, it can be about accruing a financial hangover and wasting an opportunity.
When you leave your country of birth behind and move to live abroad you ‘expatriate’. When you expatriate you gain a certain fiscal advantage that is, to a lesser or greater extent, of benefit to you in the form of legitimate taxation savings presenting themselves and/or of greater and more interesting financial opportunities presenting themselves to you. However, most expats are so focused on the relocation and the experience of living abroad that they fail to embrace the opportunities presented to them and they waste a chance to get ahead financially speaking.
If you want to be in the elite minority and ensure that you embrace all financial and taxation opportunities available to you and you proceed with best advice towards achieving your financial goals and possibilities, our advice to you is that you take time out, explore your new status from a fiscal point of view. To do this you should consider drawing on the services and advice of an international independent financial adviser who can help you discover how you can maximise your expatriate tax saving advantage through the utilisation of offshore services and solutions.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Barack Obama Asks Americans For Patience
President-elect Barack Obama Asks Americans For Patience
During his presidential campaign Barack Obama made many promises to the American people, and there will be a lot of pressure to deliver when he takes office. Americans are losing their jobs, and to say that the economy is struggling is an understatement. The voters who showed up in record numbers to select Obama as our next president expect results, and fast. Knowing that he is going to be on the hot seat, Obama has done the smart thing by reminding people that fixing these problems isn’t going to happen overnight. "The economy's likely to get worse before it gets better. Full recovery will not happen immediately," Obama said Monday, according to CNN.
In a society that wants and demands immediate results, this is a hard pill to swallow, but Obama is right. If we want to fix the economy—and by fix I don’t mean slap a band aid on—it is going to take time and things will get worse before they get better. Americans need to understand this and give Obama a little slack. We need to look at the big picture, not at what will just get us through the next year.
However, though Obama is saying the right things right now, whether he will actually do the right things is an entirely different matter. I don’t agree with many of Obama’s plans to correct the financial crisis, but no one on this planet knows for certain how to fix this thing. There are various and potentially valid opinions on the best course of action, and I don’t intend to sit here and say that I have the perfect plan. I also don’t envy the position Obama is in. He will listen to plan after plan from top economic experts, and then choose the one that will either save us or sink us, and forever bear the weight of that decision on his legacy. Not a pleasant task. I think Obama is a very smart man, and I think that it is important that we give him a chance. This is the man that America selected to get us out of the current crisis and we need to accept that. It is scary to think that one man will have such a huge role in deciding our future, but Obama is the man chosen for the job.
So, President-elect Obama: Even though I might not agree with all of your decisions, this blogger promises to give you the time that you’ve requested. Just do your best to make the right decisions, because my daughter’s future is in your hands.
During his presidential campaign Barack Obama made many promises to the American people, and there will be a lot of pressure to deliver when he takes office. Americans are losing their jobs, and to say that the economy is struggling is an understatement. The voters who showed up in record numbers to select Obama as our next president expect results, and fast. Knowing that he is going to be on the hot seat, Obama has done the smart thing by reminding people that fixing these problems isn’t going to happen overnight. "The economy's likely to get worse before it gets better. Full recovery will not happen immediately," Obama said Monday, according to CNN.
In a society that wants and demands immediate results, this is a hard pill to swallow, but Obama is right. If we want to fix the economy—and by fix I don’t mean slap a band aid on—it is going to take time and things will get worse before they get better. Americans need to understand this and give Obama a little slack. We need to look at the big picture, not at what will just get us through the next year.
However, though Obama is saying the right things right now, whether he will actually do the right things is an entirely different matter. I don’t agree with many of Obama’s plans to correct the financial crisis, but no one on this planet knows for certain how to fix this thing. There are various and potentially valid opinions on the best course of action, and I don’t intend to sit here and say that I have the perfect plan. I also don’t envy the position Obama is in. He will listen to plan after plan from top economic experts, and then choose the one that will either save us or sink us, and forever bear the weight of that decision on his legacy. Not a pleasant task. I think Obama is a very smart man, and I think that it is important that we give him a chance. This is the man that America selected to get us out of the current crisis and we need to accept that. It is scary to think that one man will have such a huge role in deciding our future, but Obama is the man chosen for the job.
So, President-elect Obama: Even though I might not agree with all of your decisions, this blogger promises to give you the time that you’ve requested. Just do your best to make the right decisions, because my daughter’s future is in your hands.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Old Banknotes
What Happens to Old Banknotes?
From 1 July, £20 notes featuring the composer Sir Edward Elgar will no longer be valid currency. Until 30 June, you can take these notes to banks or building societies to be exchanged for legal tender - new £20 notes featuring economist Adam Smith. But what will happen to the old notes?
830 million bank notes worth around £11.4bn are destroyed in the UK every year. Notes are usually destroyed because they are of poor quality, or because they are no longer legal tender.
They are pulped, compressed into bricks and sent to an official government incinerator where they are burned alongside any illegal tobacco that has been seized by HM Revenue & Customs.
Typically, £5 notes have the shortest life expectancy – they are usually removed from circulation due to damage after just one year. But £50 notes can survive for over five years.
But if you have some old currency, don't worry - it isn't worthless. "Genuine Bank of England notes that have been withdrawn from circulation retain their face value for all time," says the Bank of England website.
In practice, this means that you can take any old Bank of England note to the Bank in Threadneedle Street, London and staff there will exchange it for the equivalent value in legal currency. Last year, 3,526 people did just that. You can also post your notes - but obviously, you do that at your own risk.
So whether it's a £20 note featuring Elgar or a £1 note from 1694, you can exchange it – although the latter might be worth more at the auction houses.
From 1 July, £20 notes featuring the composer Sir Edward Elgar will no longer be valid currency. Until 30 June, you can take these notes to banks or building societies to be exchanged for legal tender - new £20 notes featuring economist Adam Smith. But what will happen to the old notes?
830 million bank notes worth around £11.4bn are destroyed in the UK every year. Notes are usually destroyed because they are of poor quality, or because they are no longer legal tender.
They are pulped, compressed into bricks and sent to an official government incinerator where they are burned alongside any illegal tobacco that has been seized by HM Revenue & Customs.
Typically, £5 notes have the shortest life expectancy – they are usually removed from circulation due to damage after just one year. But £50 notes can survive for over five years.
But if you have some old currency, don't worry - it isn't worthless. "Genuine Bank of England notes that have been withdrawn from circulation retain their face value for all time," says the Bank of England website.
In practice, this means that you can take any old Bank of England note to the Bank in Threadneedle Street, London and staff there will exchange it for the equivalent value in legal currency. Last year, 3,526 people did just that. You can also post your notes - but obviously, you do that at your own risk.
So whether it's a £20 note featuring Elgar or a £1 note from 1694, you can exchange it – although the latter might be worth more at the auction houses.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Fed Preparing For Another Interest Rate Cut
Fed Preparing For Another Interest Rate Cut
US consumer prices dropped 1 percent last month, taking the annualized pace of growth to 3.7 percent, which is the lowest level since October 2007. Falling oil prices takes the credit for lower inflationary pressures with gasoline prices tracking the 50 percent decline in crude. Gas station receipts fell a whopping 14 percent and commodity prices have fallen in general, which has helped to push down transportation costs.
Although the core PPI numbers accelerated, core CPI dropped 0.1 percent and we expect it to head even lower. Less price pressure will give the Federal Reserve more room to cut interest rates. We expect the Fed to cut by another 50bp in December, but it is important to note that Fed Fund futures are pricing in a tiny chance of a 75bp rate cut next month.
The housing market continues to be one of the weakest links in the US economy. Housing starts fell to a record low while building permits dropped to the lowest level in close to 50 years. When you have an environment where foreclosures are rising at a very rapid pace, there is no desire by builders to break new ground.
This afternoon, we have the minutes from the latest FOMC meeting at which the Fed cut interest rates by 50bp to 1 percent. Given the continued concern reflected in Bernanke’s testimony to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, the Fed is likely to support further easing. All of the major currency pairs have been consolidating since the middle of last week and the FOMC minutes could be the trigger for a major breakout.
US consumer prices dropped 1 percent last month, taking the annualized pace of growth to 3.7 percent, which is the lowest level since October 2007. Falling oil prices takes the credit for lower inflationary pressures with gasoline prices tracking the 50 percent decline in crude. Gas station receipts fell a whopping 14 percent and commodity prices have fallen in general, which has helped to push down transportation costs.
Although the core PPI numbers accelerated, core CPI dropped 0.1 percent and we expect it to head even lower. Less price pressure will give the Federal Reserve more room to cut interest rates. We expect the Fed to cut by another 50bp in December, but it is important to note that Fed Fund futures are pricing in a tiny chance of a 75bp rate cut next month.
The housing market continues to be one of the weakest links in the US economy. Housing starts fell to a record low while building permits dropped to the lowest level in close to 50 years. When you have an environment where foreclosures are rising at a very rapid pace, there is no desire by builders to break new ground.
This afternoon, we have the minutes from the latest FOMC meeting at which the Fed cut interest rates by 50bp to 1 percent. Given the continued concern reflected in Bernanke’s testimony to the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, the Fed is likely to support further easing. All of the major currency pairs have been consolidating since the middle of last week and the FOMC minutes could be the trigger for a major breakout.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Funding Down But Still Flowing
Venture capital survey: Funding Down But Still Flowing
For the first time ever, clean-tech investments nationwide cracked the $1 billion mark in a single quarter, and biotech investments were also up.
But overall, venture capital investments slipped 7 percent in the third quarter of 2008, with $7.1 billion going into 907 deals compared with $7.7 billion into 1,033 deals in the previous quarter. Investments in Silicon Valley were similarly down, with $2.77 billion going into 297 deals compared with $3.1 billion going into 318 deals in the previous quarter.
Those were the highlights of the latest MoneyTree Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, based on data from Thomson Reuters.
Tracy T. Lefteroff, who oversees the venture industry for PricewaterhouseCoopers, predicted "a dip in investing over the next several quarters" as the full effects of the global financial crisis take hold. "We also do not see venture funding drying up, " he added. "Venture capitalists have slugged through difficult times before."
In Silicon Valley, biotechnology firms received most of the larger investments during the third quarter. More than $600 million went into 27 deals, pushing the year's tally to $1.16 billion — just shy of the $1.17 billion invested in valley biotech in all of 2007.
Nationwide, the life sciences industry, combining biotech and medical devices, had a 10 percent increase with $2.2 billion going into 207 deals. Life sciences
Advertisement
represented 31 percent of dollars and 23 percent of deals in the third quarter. Software was also a bustling sector, with $1.34 billion invested in 214 companies.
One closely watched statistic is first-time deals. In the third quarter, $1.5 billion went into 259 first-time deals, a decline of 12 percent in dollars and 20 percent in deals from the previous quarter.
"We will be watching the mix of first-time vs. follow-on rounds closely in the coming months for any notable decline," said National Venture Capital Association President Mark Heesen. If venture-backed companies can't cash out their investors through mergers and acquisitions or public stock offerings, Heesen said, VC firms may channel more money away from early-stage deals.
For the first time ever, clean-tech investments nationwide cracked the $1 billion mark in a single quarter, and biotech investments were also up.
But overall, venture capital investments slipped 7 percent in the third quarter of 2008, with $7.1 billion going into 907 deals compared with $7.7 billion into 1,033 deals in the previous quarter. Investments in Silicon Valley were similarly down, with $2.77 billion going into 297 deals compared with $3.1 billion going into 318 deals in the previous quarter.
Those were the highlights of the latest MoneyTree Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, based on data from Thomson Reuters.
Tracy T. Lefteroff, who oversees the venture industry for PricewaterhouseCoopers, predicted "a dip in investing over the next several quarters" as the full effects of the global financial crisis take hold. "We also do not see venture funding drying up, " he added. "Venture capitalists have slugged through difficult times before."
In Silicon Valley, biotechnology firms received most of the larger investments during the third quarter. More than $600 million went into 27 deals, pushing the year's tally to $1.16 billion — just shy of the $1.17 billion invested in valley biotech in all of 2007.
Nationwide, the life sciences industry, combining biotech and medical devices, had a 10 percent increase with $2.2 billion going into 207 deals. Life sciences
Advertisement
represented 31 percent of dollars and 23 percent of deals in the third quarter. Software was also a bustling sector, with $1.34 billion invested in 214 companies.
One closely watched statistic is first-time deals. In the third quarter, $1.5 billion went into 259 first-time deals, a decline of 12 percent in dollars and 20 percent in deals from the previous quarter.
"We will be watching the mix of first-time vs. follow-on rounds closely in the coming months for any notable decline," said National Venture Capital Association President Mark Heesen. If venture-backed companies can't cash out their investors through mergers and acquisitions or public stock offerings, Heesen said, VC firms may channel more money away from early-stage deals.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Yamana - Thinking Trades in Gold
Yamana - Thinking Trades in Gold
Investing is not only about finding the right stock or asset class, but also finding good entry points. This is especially true of a volatile asset such as gold. Knowing what timeframe you want to invest in is also critical, as gold often shakes out weak hands in the short-term right before huge upside moves.
For Yamana Gold Inc. (AUY), notice how MACD has been a good indicator of both uptrends and downtrends. Currently, MACD is approaching the signal line and is suggesting a potential trend change. Wait for confirmation of a cross between MACD and the signal line before entering this trade.
Ultimately, AUY will track the price of gold. Looking at the chart of gold, in addition to a bullish inverse head and shoulders pattern, a cup and handle pattern is forming. The convergence of these two indicators adds to the bullish case for gold. Furthermore, gold has found good support in the 30 day moving average. The short-term outlook for gold will change if this is breached.
As a slight bearish factor, declining open interest in gold implies we may be in for some whipshaw before gold really takes off. Also, stocks are showing weakness, which recently has precipitated a "safe haven" trade to the dollar. My firm belief is that money will start flowing to gold instead of the dollar in the next downturn, but only time will tell. Nonetheless, by keeping an eye on key indicators and waiting for confirmation to enter trades, you can be assured of being on the right side of the trade more times than not.
Investing is not only about finding the right stock or asset class, but also finding good entry points. This is especially true of a volatile asset such as gold. Knowing what timeframe you want to invest in is also critical, as gold often shakes out weak hands in the short-term right before huge upside moves.
For Yamana Gold Inc. (AUY), notice how MACD has been a good indicator of both uptrends and downtrends. Currently, MACD is approaching the signal line and is suggesting a potential trend change. Wait for confirmation of a cross between MACD and the signal line before entering this trade.
Ultimately, AUY will track the price of gold. Looking at the chart of gold, in addition to a bullish inverse head and shoulders pattern, a cup and handle pattern is forming. The convergence of these two indicators adds to the bullish case for gold. Furthermore, gold has found good support in the 30 day moving average. The short-term outlook for gold will change if this is breached.
As a slight bearish factor, declining open interest in gold implies we may be in for some whipshaw before gold really takes off. Also, stocks are showing weakness, which recently has precipitated a "safe haven" trade to the dollar. My firm belief is that money will start flowing to gold instead of the dollar in the next downturn, but only time will tell. Nonetheless, by keeping an eye on key indicators and waiting for confirmation to enter trades, you can be assured of being on the right side of the trade more times than not.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Buy Firms With Big Moats
Investment Strategy: Buy Firms With Big Moats
Moats are there to make castles difficult to attack. The same goes for companies, according to Warren Buffett. In 1999 he said "the key to investing is… determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage". So one of the keys to picking winners is to find firms with strong defences - a wide 'economic moat'. But what does that mean?
Why moats matter
Advantages don't last. That's especially true in the corporate world. As soon as a business looks to be gaining a lead, making decent margins and expanding, other firms will try and break into their market. What stops them is the size of the economic moat enjoyed by an incumbent. Fair or not, long-lasting firms have an edge - something that makes them difficult to imitate quickly. Here are four traits to watch out for, as identified by Harvard professor Michael Porter.
1. Low-cost production
Given enough time, I could probably make a car and sell it. But could I do it on a large scale and at a low price? Firms with wide moats can. How? They can use their size to cut deals with suppliers and workers to keep production costs down. And their scale gives them the distribution clout to keep delivery costs to the end customer low, too. Getting to this sort of scale and negotiating these deals takes time and money - so new entrants have their work cut out trying to compete.
2. High switching costs
A firm with a wide economic moat often has a 'sticky' product. In short, it's not easy for a customer to find an alternative. For example a large drug-making firm may be the only producer of a particular drug. Even if it isn't, patients or doctors may not trust cheaper imitation products.
Equally, many IT firms are able to lock clients into multi-year contracts. Certainly a client - perhaps in the public sector - can pull out of a contract, and with the government planning to cut spending we're likely to see this happen in the near future. But doing so may cost a fortune. As Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson has pointed out, the NHS has wasted billions on IT thanks to being held hostage by several large consultants on long-term contracts. This is bad news for the taxpayer - but it certainly provides such consultants with a strong competitive advantage.
3. Intangible assets
Many firms hold patents or licences that make it tough for a rival to break in. For example, drug firms have exclusive rights to make their products for a number of years before competitors are allowed to produce copies. And getting through the regulatory process also requires scale and expertise. This makes it very hard for smaller rivals to grow and get new drugs approved without finding larger partners to work with. Equally an oil firm such as BP with a licence to drill in, say, Russia has a natural competitive advantage (assuming they have chosen their target country correctly).
Strong brands also create a moat. You might have invented a drink that tastes as good as Coca Cola. But challenging a brand which has been built over years of advertising spending and consumer trust requires huge clout and would take a long time to achieve. Shaving giant Gillette is a good example of a firm which continues to thrive, despite the fact that its products are usually more expensive than the competition's. Much of that is down to years of expensive brand building using celebrities such as David Beckham to promote the product.
4. The network effect
Sometimes firms can become almost too big to fail commercially. For example, the sheer numbers of people now using online auction site eBay make it very hard for anyone else to take it on - and the value of the service increases in turn as more and more people use it. After all, if you're going to sell something, you want to go to the auction site with the most potential customers. So copying the company's business model would be tough, let alone persuading its customers that your version is better. And it gets even harder the faster it expands.
What to buy
One sector that still enjoys a very wide economic moat is big pharma. There are fears about the impact of patents being removed from certain key drugs over the next few years - but rivals will still find it difficult to compete with the product pipelines that drug majors enjoy thanks to their hefty research and development spending, plus their ability to buy in new drugs from smaller rivals.
More to the point, many of the bigger firms in the sector are just plain cheap. At this time, in the UK, we like AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN), on a forward p/e of just over seven, and GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK) on a forward p/e of around 9.5. The stocks pay out current year dividend yields of 5.4% and 5.2% respectively.
Moats are there to make castles difficult to attack. The same goes for companies, according to Warren Buffett. In 1999 he said "the key to investing is… determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage". So one of the keys to picking winners is to find firms with strong defences - a wide 'economic moat'. But what does that mean?
Why moats matter
Advantages don't last. That's especially true in the corporate world. As soon as a business looks to be gaining a lead, making decent margins and expanding, other firms will try and break into their market. What stops them is the size of the economic moat enjoyed by an incumbent. Fair or not, long-lasting firms have an edge - something that makes them difficult to imitate quickly. Here are four traits to watch out for, as identified by Harvard professor Michael Porter.
1. Low-cost production
Given enough time, I could probably make a car and sell it. But could I do it on a large scale and at a low price? Firms with wide moats can. How? They can use their size to cut deals with suppliers and workers to keep production costs down. And their scale gives them the distribution clout to keep delivery costs to the end customer low, too. Getting to this sort of scale and negotiating these deals takes time and money - so new entrants have their work cut out trying to compete.
2. High switching costs
A firm with a wide economic moat often has a 'sticky' product. In short, it's not easy for a customer to find an alternative. For example a large drug-making firm may be the only producer of a particular drug. Even if it isn't, patients or doctors may not trust cheaper imitation products.
Equally, many IT firms are able to lock clients into multi-year contracts. Certainly a client - perhaps in the public sector - can pull out of a contract, and with the government planning to cut spending we're likely to see this happen in the near future. But doing so may cost a fortune. As Labour MP Geoffrey Robinson has pointed out, the NHS has wasted billions on IT thanks to being held hostage by several large consultants on long-term contracts. This is bad news for the taxpayer - but it certainly provides such consultants with a strong competitive advantage.
3. Intangible assets
Many firms hold patents or licences that make it tough for a rival to break in. For example, drug firms have exclusive rights to make their products for a number of years before competitors are allowed to produce copies. And getting through the regulatory process also requires scale and expertise. This makes it very hard for smaller rivals to grow and get new drugs approved without finding larger partners to work with. Equally an oil firm such as BP with a licence to drill in, say, Russia has a natural competitive advantage (assuming they have chosen their target country correctly).
Strong brands also create a moat. You might have invented a drink that tastes as good as Coca Cola. But challenging a brand which has been built over years of advertising spending and consumer trust requires huge clout and would take a long time to achieve. Shaving giant Gillette is a good example of a firm which continues to thrive, despite the fact that its products are usually more expensive than the competition's. Much of that is down to years of expensive brand building using celebrities such as David Beckham to promote the product.
4. The network effect
Sometimes firms can become almost too big to fail commercially. For example, the sheer numbers of people now using online auction site eBay make it very hard for anyone else to take it on - and the value of the service increases in turn as more and more people use it. After all, if you're going to sell something, you want to go to the auction site with the most potential customers. So copying the company's business model would be tough, let alone persuading its customers that your version is better. And it gets even harder the faster it expands.
What to buy
One sector that still enjoys a very wide economic moat is big pharma. There are fears about the impact of patents being removed from certain key drugs over the next few years - but rivals will still find it difficult to compete with the product pipelines that drug majors enjoy thanks to their hefty research and development spending, plus their ability to buy in new drugs from smaller rivals.
More to the point, many of the bigger firms in the sector are just plain cheap. At this time, in the UK, we like AstraZeneca (LSE: AZN), on a forward p/e of just over seven, and GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK) on a forward p/e of around 9.5. The stocks pay out current year dividend yields of 5.4% and 5.2% respectively.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Bank Lending Could Still Shrink Next Year
Bank Lending Could Still Shrink Next Year
As our regular columnist James Ferguson is always pointing out, you can't have a healthily growing economy if your banks are contracting lending. So Alistair Darling's Budget promise to force RBS and Lloyds to lend £94bn in total to small businesses in the coming financial year sounds like it might be a good thing. And that target sounds bold, when you compare it to the targets of £16bn for RBS and £11bn for Lloyds that were put in place last year. Especially when you realise that the banks in question didn't manage to hit those targets.
There's just one problem. The earlier targets were for net lending. In other words, the banks had to lend out more than they recouped in repayments. But the £94bn target is for gross lending.
In other words, the banks could be shrinking loans, and still hit the targets. How? Because if businesses pay back more than £94bn, then net lending could end up shrinking.Now, I don't have any problem with the banks shrinking lending. If they don't believe businesses are creditworthy, and their own balance sheets are in a mess, then that's just what has to happen.
But the fact that we have to unpick this target and explain it to you just goes to show what a lot of dishonest window dressing Budgets consist of. And I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from.
As our regular columnist James Ferguson is always pointing out, you can't have a healthily growing economy if your banks are contracting lending. So Alistair Darling's Budget promise to force RBS and Lloyds to lend £94bn in total to small businesses in the coming financial year sounds like it might be a good thing. And that target sounds bold, when you compare it to the targets of £16bn for RBS and £11bn for Lloyds that were put in place last year. Especially when you realise that the banks in question didn't manage to hit those targets.
There's just one problem. The earlier targets were for net lending. In other words, the banks had to lend out more than they recouped in repayments. But the £94bn target is for gross lending.
In other words, the banks could be shrinking loans, and still hit the targets. How? Because if businesses pay back more than £94bn, then net lending could end up shrinking.Now, I don't have any problem with the banks shrinking lending. If they don't believe businesses are creditworthy, and their own balance sheets are in a mess, then that's just what has to happen.
But the fact that we have to unpick this target and explain it to you just goes to show what a lot of dishonest window dressing Budgets consist of. And I'm sure there's plenty more where that came from.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Ignore the Theories and Buy Bargains
Ignore the Theories and Buy Bargains
Everything you learn at business school is wrong," says GMO's James Montier in his latest collection of essays, Value Investing: Tools and Techniques for Intelligent Investing.
I didn't go to business school but I think I learnt much the same muck as my husband (who did) on the Swiss Bank Corp (SBC) graduate training course.
There we were taught about 'modern portfolio theory', listened to endless, boring lectures on the 'capital asset pricing model' (CAPM), stared blankly at mathematical explanations of option pricing models and occasionally had to take turns doing incomprehensible sums on the white board at the front of the lecture hall.
I remember it through a haze of confusion. But I did at least come out of the whole thing with a rough understanding of modern portfolio theory – as well as a vague sense that its assumptions (that markets are efficient, that investors are rational and that there is a mathematically definable trade-off between risk and return) didn't really make much sense.
Even then, I knew that nothing much was ever efficient (even SBC – it later turned out I was enrolled on the wrong course). And while I didn't yet know much about the irrationality of investors, the following five years working in Japan's manic-depressive market soon sorted that out.
The truth, as Montier points out, is that the efficient market hypothesis looks completely wrong. The prima facie evidence of this? The existence of bubbles.
The events of the last few years should have made it clear that there is no such thing as an efficient market. But for those still thinking that efficiency might be more resting than dead, Montier points out that there have been 30-plus bubbles since 1925 (a bubble being defined as at least two standard deviations away from a trend). Not much sign of rational investor behavior in that. More like 30-plus signs of gross inefficiency.
The theory being wrong would, in itself, be just fine (it would join a large pile of totally wrong academic theories) but the problem with the efficient market hypothesis is that it has burdened us with a terrible investment legacy.
I haven't space to spell out Montier's entire argument (although I recommend getting the book and reading it), but he blames it – I think, rightly – for pretty much every bad investment experience any of us have ever had with a fund manager. These range from index hugging to ludicrously over-precise forecasting and the industry's obsession with diversification and risk at the expense of what should be the real point of investing – making "maximum real returns after tax".
For bored business school students, this should be excellent news. It means they can chuck out their 1,093-page copies of Principles of Corporate Finance (the business school bible) and start looking for real value in investments instead. And it means that they might actually make some proper money over the long term. Why? Because while most investment strategies show no sign of being able to offer very long-term out performance for investors, value does.
There is plenty of evidence for this but Montier adds to it with a look (from 2008) at global value investing. Here, too, he finds that buying bargains works. If you'd bought the cheapest 20% of all stocks, regardless of industry or geographical location, between 1985 and 2007, he says you would have generated an average return of 18% – a 7% out performance against the index.
Value can even be shown to have worked in Japan: there, post-bubble value strategies have returned around 3% a year (not bad in a deflationary environment) even as the market as a whole has returned -4% a year. Those who have operated a "long value/short glamour" strategy have apparently done even better (12% a year).
So why don't we all invest like this? Fund managers like to say they do. Their marketing material tells us of their propensity to swim against the crowd; their contrarian outlook; their ability to seek out value in sectors that more conventional peers aren't looking at properly. Type "next Warren Buffett" into Google and you'll see what I mean.
It is all nonsense, of course. They just say it because they assume we don't understand how the CAPM works (which we mostly don't). In fact, fund management is generally nothing more than financial groupthink: managers in thrall to the theories they learnt at business school, to the idea that they should be properly diversified, and to the career risk of investing differently to everyone else tend to ignore value and benchmark themselves to everyone else instead.
And the rest of us? Mostly, our failure to buy value and sit on it has got nothing to do with investment theory. We're just impatient and want to see returns now, now, now. So if something doesn't move, we dump it (incurring the fees that doom our portfolios to long- term underperformance). No wonder we never make any money.
Everything you learn at business school is wrong," says GMO's James Montier in his latest collection of essays, Value Investing: Tools and Techniques for Intelligent Investing.
I didn't go to business school but I think I learnt much the same muck as my husband (who did) on the Swiss Bank Corp (SBC) graduate training course.
There we were taught about 'modern portfolio theory', listened to endless, boring lectures on the 'capital asset pricing model' (CAPM), stared blankly at mathematical explanations of option pricing models and occasionally had to take turns doing incomprehensible sums on the white board at the front of the lecture hall.
I remember it through a haze of confusion. But I did at least come out of the whole thing with a rough understanding of modern portfolio theory – as well as a vague sense that its assumptions (that markets are efficient, that investors are rational and that there is a mathematically definable trade-off between risk and return) didn't really make much sense.
Even then, I knew that nothing much was ever efficient (even SBC – it later turned out I was enrolled on the wrong course). And while I didn't yet know much about the irrationality of investors, the following five years working in Japan's manic-depressive market soon sorted that out.
The truth, as Montier points out, is that the efficient market hypothesis looks completely wrong. The prima facie evidence of this? The existence of bubbles.
The events of the last few years should have made it clear that there is no such thing as an efficient market. But for those still thinking that efficiency might be more resting than dead, Montier points out that there have been 30-plus bubbles since 1925 (a bubble being defined as at least two standard deviations away from a trend). Not much sign of rational investor behavior in that. More like 30-plus signs of gross inefficiency.
The theory being wrong would, in itself, be just fine (it would join a large pile of totally wrong academic theories) but the problem with the efficient market hypothesis is that it has burdened us with a terrible investment legacy.
I haven't space to spell out Montier's entire argument (although I recommend getting the book and reading it), but he blames it – I think, rightly – for pretty much every bad investment experience any of us have ever had with a fund manager. These range from index hugging to ludicrously over-precise forecasting and the industry's obsession with diversification and risk at the expense of what should be the real point of investing – making "maximum real returns after tax".
For bored business school students, this should be excellent news. It means they can chuck out their 1,093-page copies of Principles of Corporate Finance (the business school bible) and start looking for real value in investments instead. And it means that they might actually make some proper money over the long term. Why? Because while most investment strategies show no sign of being able to offer very long-term out performance for investors, value does.
There is plenty of evidence for this but Montier adds to it with a look (from 2008) at global value investing. Here, too, he finds that buying bargains works. If you'd bought the cheapest 20% of all stocks, regardless of industry or geographical location, between 1985 and 2007, he says you would have generated an average return of 18% – a 7% out performance against the index.
Value can even be shown to have worked in Japan: there, post-bubble value strategies have returned around 3% a year (not bad in a deflationary environment) even as the market as a whole has returned -4% a year. Those who have operated a "long value/short glamour" strategy have apparently done even better (12% a year).
So why don't we all invest like this? Fund managers like to say they do. Their marketing material tells us of their propensity to swim against the crowd; their contrarian outlook; their ability to seek out value in sectors that more conventional peers aren't looking at properly. Type "next Warren Buffett" into Google and you'll see what I mean.
It is all nonsense, of course. They just say it because they assume we don't understand how the CAPM works (which we mostly don't). In fact, fund management is generally nothing more than financial groupthink: managers in thrall to the theories they learnt at business school, to the idea that they should be properly diversified, and to the career risk of investing differently to everyone else tend to ignore value and benchmark themselves to everyone else instead.
And the rest of us? Mostly, our failure to buy value and sit on it has got nothing to do with investment theory. We're just impatient and want to see returns now, now, now. So if something doesn't move, we dump it (incurring the fees that doom our portfolios to long- term underperformance). No wonder we never make any money.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Stagflation
What Is Stagflation?
There is a lot of talk going around about stagflation, but many people have no idea what stagflation is. The term has only been around for about 40 years and is not used all that much, but suddenly it is being thrown around everywhere.
Stagflation is a blend of the words stagnation and inflation. It is used to describe an economy which is stagnating (or not growing) while also facing high inflation.
Typically, the Fed deals with economic stagnation by lowering key interest rates or adding to the money supply. These actions usually work to get the economy growing again.
On the flipside, when an economy is booming and people are making money left and right, inflation begins to rise. When this happens, the Fed typically raises interest rates thus making money harder to get. This slows the economy and inflation with it. So back to Stagflation…
In a period of stagflation, the Fed doesn’t know what to do. The economy is slow, so they want to lower interest rates and get it moving, but making money easier to get only makes inflation worse. The Fed has to decide what is more important: economic growth or inflation.
Right now, the U.S. economy is grinding to a halt, and very likely heading into a recession. Unfortunately we are also facing strong inflationary pressure as prices continue to rise. If we aren’t already in a period of stagflation, then it appears that we are headed straight for it. The last time the U.S. dealt with stagflation was in the 1970’s and it was not a fun experience.
Though the way we run are economy now is different than it was back then, some would argue that our current situation (housing and credit crisis) is far worse then the situation was in the 70’s leading up to that period of stagflation. I don’t know how bad it can get, but something worse than the 15 percent inflation and 9 percent unemployment seen during the past episode of stagflation doesn’t sound the least bit exciting to me. Personally, I will be heavily diversifying into foreign markets and things like gold and silver to protect myself, just in case.
There is a lot of talk going around about stagflation, but many people have no idea what stagflation is. The term has only been around for about 40 years and is not used all that much, but suddenly it is being thrown around everywhere.
Stagflation is a blend of the words stagnation and inflation. It is used to describe an economy which is stagnating (or not growing) while also facing high inflation.
Typically, the Fed deals with economic stagnation by lowering key interest rates or adding to the money supply. These actions usually work to get the economy growing again.
On the flipside, when an economy is booming and people are making money left and right, inflation begins to rise. When this happens, the Fed typically raises interest rates thus making money harder to get. This slows the economy and inflation with it. So back to Stagflation…
In a period of stagflation, the Fed doesn’t know what to do. The economy is slow, so they want to lower interest rates and get it moving, but making money easier to get only makes inflation worse. The Fed has to decide what is more important: economic growth or inflation.
Right now, the U.S. economy is grinding to a halt, and very likely heading into a recession. Unfortunately we are also facing strong inflationary pressure as prices continue to rise. If we aren’t already in a period of stagflation, then it appears that we are headed straight for it. The last time the U.S. dealt with stagflation was in the 1970’s and it was not a fun experience.
Though the way we run are economy now is different than it was back then, some would argue that our current situation (housing and credit crisis) is far worse then the situation was in the 70’s leading up to that period of stagflation. I don’t know how bad it can get, but something worse than the 15 percent inflation and 9 percent unemployment seen during the past episode of stagflation doesn’t sound the least bit exciting to me. Personally, I will be heavily diversifying into foreign markets and things like gold and silver to protect myself, just in case.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Obama Is Taking Shots
Barack Obama Is Taking Shots From The Left And The Right
Barack Obama is getting attacked from all sides now, and it appears that no place is safe for him. On the left he is being attacked by Hillary Clinton, with accusations of plagiarism among other things. On the right he is being bombarded by supporters of John McCain, who are setting him up as a supporter of terrorists. I sincerely feel bad for the guy right now.
I’m not a big supporter of Obama, but I’m also not a supporter of low blows (I don’t support Obama because of his huge spending proposals and other polices, not personal issues). The latest blow coming from McCain supporters at a recent rally was especially distasteful. There the speaker who introduced Obama repeatedly called out his full name Barack Hussein Obama, and suggested that he was being friendly with our terrorist enemies. I was upset with Clinton’s plagiarism accusations, but this is 100 times worse. It would be one thing if they had proof that he is working with terrorists. But to accuse him of what amounts to treason just because the guy was born into a Muslim family (although it is debated whether they were even practicing) and has the middle name Hussein...give me a break. Not that religion even matters, but they guy is a renowned Christian now, not Muslim. All this does is make the McCain campaign look like an ignorant bunch of bigots, which is not exactly the image one wants to portray in a campaign.
To his credit, McCain did repeatedly apologize for the remarks made by his supporters, and he said that he expects that it won’t happen again. I certainly hope that is the case.
In every election, things eventually turn nasty, and it has been one of the biggest turn-offs to me for politics. For once, I would like to see the candidates fight a nice, clean fight and stick to the issues. If you have a problem with a candidate’s proposals...great, let’s debate them. Topics involving religion, race, and family...lets keep those out of it. Here’s hoping for a good clean Presidential race, whichever candidates it may involve.
Barack Obama is getting attacked from all sides now, and it appears that no place is safe for him. On the left he is being attacked by Hillary Clinton, with accusations of plagiarism among other things. On the right he is being bombarded by supporters of John McCain, who are setting him up as a supporter of terrorists. I sincerely feel bad for the guy right now.
I’m not a big supporter of Obama, but I’m also not a supporter of low blows (I don’t support Obama because of his huge spending proposals and other polices, not personal issues). The latest blow coming from McCain supporters at a recent rally was especially distasteful. There the speaker who introduced Obama repeatedly called out his full name Barack Hussein Obama, and suggested that he was being friendly with our terrorist enemies. I was upset with Clinton’s plagiarism accusations, but this is 100 times worse. It would be one thing if they had proof that he is working with terrorists. But to accuse him of what amounts to treason just because the guy was born into a Muslim family (although it is debated whether they were even practicing) and has the middle name Hussein...give me a break. Not that religion even matters, but they guy is a renowned Christian now, not Muslim. All this does is make the McCain campaign look like an ignorant bunch of bigots, which is not exactly the image one wants to portray in a campaign.
To his credit, McCain did repeatedly apologize for the remarks made by his supporters, and he said that he expects that it won’t happen again. I certainly hope that is the case.
In every election, things eventually turn nasty, and it has been one of the biggest turn-offs to me for politics. For once, I would like to see the candidates fight a nice, clean fight and stick to the issues. If you have a problem with a candidate’s proposals...great, let’s debate them. Topics involving religion, race, and family...lets keep those out of it. Here’s hoping for a good clean Presidential race, whichever candidates it may involve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)