But we all know the real reason the stock market is so crummy, right?
It’s October! Of course stocks are down!
It is a bizarre, inexplicable, and yet undeniable, fact that, throughout history, Wall Street has produced almost all of its gains during the winter months of the year — from Nov. 1 to April 30. It is an even more bizarre, inexplicable and yet undeniable fact that the rest of the world’s stock markets have done the same thing.
The so-called summer months, meaning the half of the year from May 1 to Halloween, have generally given you bupkis or worse.
Around the world, over the course of centuries of recorded financial history, stock-market returns have averaged four full percentage points higher from November to April than from May to October, report researchers Ben Jacobsen at Tilburg University and Cherry Yi Zhang at Nottingham University’s Business School in China. This so-called Halloween Effect seems “remarkably robust,” they concluded, after studying the financial returns of 114 different countries going back as far as they could find reliable monthly data — starting with the stock market in 1693 London.
Even more extreme: In the 65 countries for which they had extensive data both about the stock market and about short-term interest rates, it’s fair to say you would have been better off selling your stocks on May 1, putting the money in the bank, then taking it out again at the end of October and buying back your stocks (ignoring fees and taxes, of course).
“In none of the 65 countries for which we have total returns and short-term interest rates available — with the exception of Mauritius — can we reject a Sell in May effect based on our new test. Only for Mauritius do we find evidence of significantly positive excess returns during summer.”
Italics mine. Mauritius?
The Dow Jones Industrial Average DJIA
is now lower than it was at the end of April. So is the Russell 2000 RUT
index of small-cap U.S. stocks. The benchmark international stock index, the MSCI EAFE, is down about 6%. Japan’s Nikkei NIY00, +1.90%
is slightly up, as the yen has tanked.
The S&P 500 SPX
is hanging on to a small gain, but that is only because of the early summer gains of a few tech titans. The average S&P stock is down about 2.5% since the end of April — while an investment in no-risk Treasury bills is up more than 2%.
Meanwhile, let the record show that, over the same period, according to the record keepers at MSCI, the stock market in Mauritius is up 12%.
Booyah!
Every time I write about this Halloween or “sell in May” effect, I make the same two points, and I make no apologies for repeating them here, because they are unavoidable.
The first is that, every spring, after looking at this data, I am tempted to sell all my stocks at the end of April, and every year I don’t, because I think it’s absolutely ridiculous. (And someone on Wall Street who is much smarter than me usually persuades me not to.) And most years I end up kicking myself for not doing it.
The second is to recall the old economists’ joke: “I don’t care if it works in practice! Does it work in theory?” Selling in May — or, sure, the Halloween Effect — has absolutely no reason that anyone can find for working in theory. But apparently, it works in practice — which is pretty much where we are now.
Does this mean stocks are going to rally? It’s anyone’s guess. It would be crazy if it were that simple. But, then, the whole Halloween Effect is crazy.
If history is any guide, now is the time to buy stocks, not sell them, because the next six months are likely to be the time when they make you money. And if history isn’t any guide, well, aren’t we all sunk anyway?
It hasn’t served a vital economic function since the government stopped treating it as money back in 1971. Actually, you could argue it stopped being necessary long before that.
Yes, some people prefer it in jewelry. It is used in some technological equipment, and sometimes, still, in dentistry. But so what? According to authoritative data from the World Gold Council, even all those uses only account for about half of the world’s supply each year. Logically, this should mean that there is a gigantic glut of gold and that its price would be in free fall.
But it isn’t. Gold is beating U.S. stocks and bonds this month. And this isn’t even a rarity. I’ve run some numbers and have found a couple of things that could be very important to retirees, and for all of us suckers saving for retirement.
Even though, according to traditional financial theory, they really make no sense at all.
The first thing is that over the past century including some gold in your portfolio alongside stocks and bonds has genuinely added value. It has produced higher average returns, less volatility and fewer of those disastrous “lost decades” where your portfolio ended up whistling Dixie.
The second thing is that this peculiarity has been showing no signs of letting up in recent years or decades — even though, if anything, gold makes even less sense today than it used to.
Let me explain.
As usual, I’ve tapped the excellent database maintained by the NYU Stern School of Business, which tracks asset values going back to 1928.
Over that period, a conventional so-called balanced portfolio invested 60% in the S&P 500 SPY, -0.06%
index of large-company stocks and 40% in U.S. 10-year Treasury bonds TMUBMUSD10Y, 3.832%
has generated an average return of 4.9% a year in “real” terms, meaning above inflation.
A portfolio that’s 60% invested in the S&P 500, 30% in the bonds and 10% in gold GC00, -0.26%
earned a slightly higher average, 5.1% a year in real terms. But the volatility was lower: The portfolio that included the gold had a lower standard deviation of returns, and a much higher “median” return, meaning the middlemost return if you ranked all the years from best to worst. The portfolio including gold beat the traditional one by five full percentage points in total over the typical 10-year period, and failed to keep up with inflation for 10 years on only five occasions — half as often as the portfolio consisting exclusively of stocks and bonds.
Nor is this just about olden times. The portfolio including 10% gold has beaten the traditional 60/40 by an average of 0.4 percentage point a year since President Richard Nixon finally killed the gold standard in 1971. And it has beaten the traditional portfolio by the same amount, an average of four-tenths of a percentage point, so far this millennium. (The 60/40 portfolio has done better if you start measuring only in 1980, as that ignores the golden 1970s but includes the long bear market for gold of the 1980s and 1990s.)
And gold has added value in five of the last seven years (while in the other two it was effectively a tie).
It’s not so much that gold is a great long-term investment on its own. It’s that gold has seemed to shine when others, specifically stocks and bonds, have failed. And it still does. It held up during the crash of 1929-32. But it also held up during the crash in 2002. And in 2008. And 2020.
A financial expert told me this was “hindsight bias.” But so is most financial analysis.
When your financial adviser tells you what you might reasonably expect from large stocks, small stocks, international stocks, real estate and so forth in the decades ahead, he or she is basing that on history. (In some cases this has been downright hilarious, as when advisers said you should still expect “average” historical returns of 5% a year from Treasurys, even when they had only a 2% yield.)
I’m danged if I know why. But so far this year, once again, you’ve been better off in a portfolio of 60% stocks, 30% bonds and 10% gold than in just 60% stocks and 40% bonds. Make of it what you will.
If you’re a retiree and you’re trying to square the circle of rising costs, longer lifespans, more expensive medical care and turbulent markets, don’t be afraid to run the numbers on your biggest investment.
That would be your home — if you own it.
U.S. house prices are now so high that it is almost impossible for seniors not to ask themselves the obvious question: “Should we cash in, invest the money, and rent?”
Right now the average U.S. house price is nearly $360,000. That’s about a third higher than just a few years ago, before the COVID-19 pandemic. The lockdowns, the panic, the stimulus checks and 2.5% mortgage rates have all passed into history. But the sky-high prices remain — for now.
After several years of double-digit percentage increases, apartment-rent growth is falling for only the second time since the 2008 financial crisis. WSJ’s Will Parker joins host J.R. Whalen to discuss.
There is a similar story for seniors. Federal data show that the average U.S. house price is now nearly 17 times the average annual Social Security benefit — an even higher ratio than it was in August 2008, just before Lehman Brothers collapsed. At that juncture, the average house price was 15 times higher.
U.S. National Home Price Index vs. average rent of primary residence in U.S. city, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Indexed: January 1987=100.
S&P/Case-Shiller
Our simple chart, above, compares average U.S. home prices with average U.S. rents, going back to 1987. (The chart simply shows the ratio, indexed to 100.) The bottom line? House prices are very high at the moment compared with rents — again, prices are about where they were in 2006-07.
And the two must run in tandem over the long term, because the economic value of owning a house is not having to pay rent to live there.
If there are times when, in general, it makes more financial sense for seniors to rent than to own, this has to be one of those.
Seniors who own their own homes may think high interest rates on new mortgages don’t affect them. They most likely either already have a mortgage at a lower, older rate or they’ve paid off their home loan. But if you want to sell, you’ll almost certainly be selling to someone who needs a mortgage.
If borrowing costs drive down real-estate prices, seniors who hold off on selling may miss out on gains they may never see again. After the last housing peak, in 2006, it took a full decade for prices to recover fully. Those who sold when the going was good had the chance to buy lifetime annuities at excellent rates or to invest in stocks and bonds that overall rose about 80% over the same period.
Incidentally, there is also an exchange-traded fund that invests in residential REITs, Armada’s Residential REIT ETF HAUS, -0.53%,
though in addition to single-family homes and apartment-complex operators, about 25% of the fund is invested in companies involved in manufactured-home parks and senior-living facilities.
For each person, the math will be different, and there are a number of questions you need to ask. Where do you want to live? How much would you get if you sold your house? How much would you pay in taxes? How much would it cost to rent the right place? Do you want to leave a property to your heirs? And what would be the costs of moving — both financial and emotional?
The conventional wisdom is that you should own your home in retirement.
“I would advise any and all retirees against renting if at all possible,” says Malcolm Ethridge, a financial planner at CIC Wealth in Rockville, Md. “You need your costs to be as fixed as possible during retirement, to match your income being fixed as well. If you choose to rent, you’re leaving it up to your landlord to determine whether and by how much your No. 1 expense will increase each year. And that makes it very tough to determine how much you are able to allocate toward everything else in your budget for the month.”
A key point here, from federal data, is that nationwide rents have risen year after year, almost without a break, at least since the early 1980s. They even rose during the global financial crisis, with just one 12-month period where they fell — and then by only 0.1%.
“My general advice for clients is that owning a home with no mortgage in retirement is the best scenario, as housing is typically the highest cost we pay monthly,” says Adam Wojtkowski, an adviser at Copper Beech Wealth Management in Mansfield, Mass. “It’s not always the case that it works out this way, but if you can enter retirement with no mortgage, it makes it a lot easier for everything to fall into place, so to speak, when it comes to retirement-income planning.”
“Renting comes with a lot of risk,” says Brian Schmehil, a planner with the Mather Group in Chicago. “If you rent, you are subject to the whims of your landlord, and a high inflationary environment could put pressure on your finances as you get older.”
But it’s not always that simple.
“With housing costs as high as they are now though, renting may be a viable solution, at least for the moment,” says Wojtkowski. “We don’t know what the housing-market trends will be going forward, but if someone is waiting for a housing-market crash before they move, they could very likely be waiting for a long time. We just don’t know.”
“Any decision comes with pros and cons,” says Schmehil. “Selling when your home values are historically high and renting allows you to capture the equity in your home, which is usually a retiree’s largest or second-largest financial asset. These extra funds allow you to spend more money on yourself in retirement without having to worry about doing a reverse mortgage or selling later in retirement, when it may be harder for you to do so.”
Renting also allows you to be more flexible about where you live, for example nearer your children or grandchildren, he adds.
And as any experienced property owner knows, renting also brings another benefit: You no longer have to do as much work around the house.
“Renting is great in that you don’t need to maintain a residence,” says Ann Covington Alsina, a financial planner running her own firm in Annapolis, Md. “If the dishwasher breaks or the roof leaks, the landlord is responsible.”
Wojtkowski agrees, noting that many people no longer want to spend time mowing the lawn or shoveling snow in retirement. “Ultimately, one of the things that I’ve seen most retirees most concerned with is eliminating the general upkeep [and] maintenance of homeownership in retirement,” he says.
Several planners — including Covington Alsina and Wojtkowski — note that one alternative to selling and renting is simply downsizing. This can free up capital, especially when home prices are high, like now, without leaving you exposed to rising rents.
Many baby boomers have been doing exactly that.
Meanwhile, I am reminded of my late friend Vincent Nobile, who — after a long and fruitful life owning homes and raising a family — found himself widowed and alone in his 80s. He rented a small cottage on a New England sound and said how glad he was that he never had to worry about maintaining the roof or the appliances, or fixing the plumbing or the heating, or any one of a thousand other irritations. Or paying property taxes — which go down even more rarely than rents.
When the regular drives to Boston got too onerous, he moved into the city and rented there. And he was glad to do it. The money he had made was all in investments — a lot less hassle both for him and his heirs.
I once asked him if he would prefer to own his own home. He shook his head and laughed.
If there were no tax cheats in America, there would be no Social Security crisis. Benefits could be paid, and payroll taxes kept the same, for the next 75 years.
That’s not me talking. That’s math. It comes from the number crunchers at the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service.
And it explains why those of us who support Social Security should be pounding the table in outrage over one clause of the Biden-McCarthy debt ceiling deal: The part where the president has to retreat from his crackdown on tax cheats just so McCarthy and the House Republicans would agree to prevent America defaulting on its debts.
It’s just two years since the administration got into law an extra $80 billion for the IRS to beef up enforcement. That was supposed to include hiring an estimated 87,000 IRS agents.
OK, so nobody likes paying taxes and nobody likes the IRS. Cue the inevitable critiques of an IRS tax “army,” and so on. But this isn’t about whether taxes should be higher or lower. It’s about whether everyone should pay the taxes that they owe.
After all, if we’re going to cut taxes, shouldn’t they apply to those of us who obey the laws as well as those who don’t? Or do we just support the “Tax Cuts for Criminals” Act?
Why would any voter rally around a platform of “I stand with tax cheats?”
If this seems abstract, consider the context and how it affects you and your retirement — and the retirements of everyone you know.
Social Security is now running at an $80 billion annual deficit. That’s the amount benefits are expected to exceed payroll taxes this year. (So say the Social Security Administration’s trustees.)
Next year, that deficit is expected to top $150 billion. By 2026, we’re looking at $200 billion and rising. The trust fund will run out of cash by 2034, and without extra payroll taxes will have to slash benefits by a fifth or more.
Over the next 75 years, says the Congressional Budget Office, the entire funding gap for the program will average about 1.7% of gross domestic product per year.
Meanwhile, how much are tax cheats stealing from the rest of us? A multiple of that.
But it still worked out at around 12% of all the taxes people were supposed to pay (including payroll taxes). And around 2.3% of GDP.
Over the next 10 years, based on similar ratios to GDP, that would come to another $3.3 billion.
Sure, Social Security’s trust fund is theoretically separate from the rest of Uncle Sam’s finances. But that’s an accounting issue: A distinction without a difference.
Some people want to cut benefits. Others want to raise the retirement age, which also means cutting benefits. Others want to raise taxes on benefits — which also means cutting benefits. Others want to hike payroll taxes, either on all of us or (initially) only on very high earners.
But if investing some of the trust fund in stocks is a no-brainer, so, too, is insisting everyone obey the law and pay the taxes they actually owe each year. I mean, shouldn’t we do that before we think about raising taxes even further on those who abide by the law?
How could anyone object? Any party that believes in law and order would support enforcing, er, law and order on tax evasion. And any party of fiscal conservatism would support measures, like tax enforcement, to narrow the deficit.
And, actually, any party that truly supported lower taxes for all would be tough on tax evasion: It is precisely this $500 billion in evasion by a small, scofflaw minority that forces the rest of us to pay more. We have, quite literally, a tax on obeying the law.
A finance company boasting hundreds of apparently glowing online “customer reviews” and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau was this week civilly charged with cheating over 700 investors — many of them senior citizens — out of more than $30 million over 5 years.
El Segundo, Calif.–based Red Rock Secured and its controlling chief executive, Sean Kelly, were accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of playing on the retirement and tax fears of older investors to sell them gold and silver coins at vastly inflated prices to hold in self-directed IRAs.
The markup on the coins “was almost always above 100 percent, and typically 120 percent or more,” the SEC said in its complaint.
Between 2017 and last year, Red Rock pocketed more than $30 million of the $50 million investors paid for the coins, said the SEC, which also sued two former Red Rock executives.
Attorney Michael Schafler of the Los Angeles law firm Cohen Williams, representing both Red Rock and its CEO, said the company had “nothing to hide” and has been “completely cooperative” with the SEC investigation.
“Red Rock has demonstrated that it is focused on compliance and providing clients with information necessary to make reasoned and informed decisions about purchasing precious metals,” he added. “Red Rock stands by that. It looks forward to the opportunity to defend itself against the government’s allegations in Court.”
According to the SEC, Red Rock used an aggressive marketing campaign to target investors, especially those who were “conservative” or “right wing” politically and “over 59½ [years old].”
Sales personnel played on customers’ fears about government policy, inflation, the stock market and retirement to persuade investors to move IRA funds to Red Rock and invest in gold and silver bullion, according to the SEC. But then, using what the commission calls a “bait and switch,” they persuaded investors instead to buy niche “premium” gold coins with huge, but hidden, markups, which included an 8% sales commission.
These so-called premium coins included an obscure silver Canadian coin for which Red Rock Secured controlled the entire market, allowing it to claim falsely that the “market value” of the coin was more than twice the value of its silver content, the SEC said.
Red Rock Secured salespeople were told to pitch the idea of a “worry-free retirement” to potential clients, while warning them that in the stock market “you could wake up and half your retirement could be gone,” the SEC said.
“The defendants used fear and lies to defraud investors out of millions of dollars from their hard-earned retirement savings,” said Antonia Apps, director of the SEC’s New York office.
There was no hint of any of this in the company’s glowing online “customer reviews.” At Google, Red Rock had an average rating of 4.8 stars out of 5 from 136 self-described customers. At Trustpilot, it got an average rating of 4.8 stars out of 5 from 167 alleged customers. Trustpilot said the rating was “excellent.” At the Better Business Bureau, Red Rock got an average rating of 4.75 stars out of 5 across 96 reviews. At Consumer Affairs it got an average rating of 4.9 stars out of 5.
The Better Business Bureau, contacted by MarketWatch, said it had added an alert to its site about the SEC probe into Red Rock. But, it added, “BBB ratings are not a guarantee of a business’s reliability or performance. BBB recommends that consumers consider a business’s BBB rating in addition to all other available information about the business.”
The organization, which provides information about businesses through a rating system and handles consumer complaints, said its standard policy is to check that all reviews are from legitimate customers by contacting the company being reviewed. The BBB does not possess legal or policing powers.
Business-review platform Trustpilot also told MarketWatch it had added an alert to the Red Rock Secured review page.
“Trustpilot is an open, independent review platform, meaning anyone who has had an experience with a business can leave a review — whether positive or negative — on the business’s Trustpilot profile page,” the company said in a statement “We are currently investigating Red Rock Secured to ensure that they are using our platform in line with our business guidelines, and should we find any evidence they are not, we will take the necessary steps to prevent it.”
When it comes to investing, some people don’t think in terms of thousands of dollars, tens of thousands, or even millions.
They think in hundreds of millions, or even billions. They have so much money they actually set up a private company, known as a “family office,” to manage all the loot.
Cheesecake Factory appears to be “running the same play,” wrote J.P. Morgan analyst John Ivankoe in a recent restaurant industry outlook. I don’t think he meant it as a compliment—the stock, he noted, trades where it did in 2004, adjusted for splits.
Why the long stall-out? My first thought was that maybe hitting the mall for a hypercaloric sit-down meal off a menu the size of a Gutenberg Bible has fallen out of favor over the years. But no: Sales have bounced back and then some from the Covid pandemic, with plenty of takeout business and dessert orders. The average
Cheesecake Factory
(ticker: CAKE) restaurant does more than $10 million in yearly sales, or twice as much as an Olive Garden.
Investors love dividend stocks but there are different ways to look at them, including various “quality” approaches. Today we are focusing on high yields.
A high dividend yield can be a warning that investors have lost confidence in a company’s ability to maintain its dividend payout. But there are always exceptions, some of which can be brought about by market events — some investors remain skeptical of energy stocks, for example, after so much pain before this year’s outstanding performance for the sector.
Below is a screen of stocks that have high dividend yields and are favored by analysts. The screen has no financial quality filters.
For investors who are interested in dividend stocks but wish to focus on quality and total returns, this recent look at the S&P Dividend Aristocrats (companies that have raised dividends consistently for many years) might be of interest. For those looking for income but also worried about dividend cuts, here is a list of stocks with dividend yields of at least 5% whose payouts are expected to be well-covered by free cash flow in 2023.
Removing the filters for a high-yield dividend-stock screen
For a broad screen of stocks with high dividend yields that are favored by analysts, we began with the S&P Composite 1500 Index SP1500, +1.42%,
which is made up of the S&P 500 SPX, +1.42%,
the S&P 400 Mid Cap Index MID, +1.48%,
and the S&P 600 Small Cap Index SML, +1.49%.
The S&P indexes exclude energy partnerships, so we added the 15 stocks held by the Alerian MLP ETF AMLP, +1.81%
to the list. Energy partnerships tend to have high distribution yields, in part because they pass most earnings through to investors. But they also can make tax preparation more complicated. They can also be volatile as oil CL00, +2.96%
CL00 and natural-gas NG00, +1.58%
prices swing.
The S&P indexes also exclude business development companies, or BDCs, so we expanded our initial screen to include the 24 stocks held by the VanEck BDC income ETF BIZD, +0.76%.
BDCs are specialized leveraged lenders that make loans with high interest rates, mainly to middle-market companies. They often take equity stakes in the companies they lend to, for a venture-capital-type of investment style. The BDC space features several stocks with very high dividend yields, but is also known for volatility.
You have been warned — this particular stock screen focuses only on high yields and favorable ratings among analysts working for brokerage firms. There is no look back at dividend cuts and no cash-flow analysis as featured in other dividend-stock articles. If you see anything of interest resulting from the screen, you need to do your own research to consider whether or not a long-term commitment to one or more of these companies is worth the risk as you seek high income.
The screen
Starting with the S&P Composite 1500 and the components of AMLP and BIZD, there are 68 stocks with dividend yields of at least 8%, according to data provided by FactSet.
Among the 68 companies, 55 made the first screen, because they are covered by at least five analysts polled by FactSet.
Among the 55 companies, 11 have “buy” or equivalent ratings among at least 70% of analysts.
Here they are, ranked by upside potential implied by analysts’ consensus price targets:
We all make mistakes in planning for our golden years. But which are the worst, which are the most common, and which ones do we all need to watch out for?
Financial planners have weighed in with the top 10 they see among clients. It’s emerged in a survey conducted by money managers Natixis and just released. And it’s a terrific checklist for anyone who wants to see how they’re doing, and what they need to change.
