If I were the minister of Middle-Class Prosperity

Save the Middle Class

Launched to much derision and the collective snort of Canada’s journalist class, the government introduced a new cabinet position, “Minister of Middle-Class Prosperity”. Shockingly the new minister seemed incapable of defining what the middle class actually is, and in an effort to clarify her earlier non-position, went on TV to describe understanding the middle class as different things to different people that needs to be viewed through different lenses.

This answer, such as it was, was uniquely terrible since any applied thought to the question of “middle class prosperity” should yield several interesting ideas that deserve close examination.

For instance, an office focused on middle class prosperity might provide a useful take on inflation in terms of how it affects the middle class. Rather than relying on the aggregate rate that economists talk about at national levels, some clarity might come in about where that inflation is felt, like in housing, child rearing and education. We might also find something useful to say about savings and retirement, both of which are going to be increasingly serious questions into the very near future.

But let’s start with the basics. What is a middle class? First, the middle class is a result of an industrialized society. Though there is evidence of times of improving and deteriorating living conditions for humans in our pre-industrialized past, sustained and persistent improvements in living standards exist as a result of industrialization. This is not just because people got richer (and skills became more specialized) but because the cost of things dropped.

This really picked up steam after the Second World War when Western nations went toe to toe with Soviet command economies and showed, despite all their inequality, that more prosperity for more people came about as a result greater innovation in production in the pursuit of reducing prices. Yes, many people had good jobs, but luxury items like refrigerators, dishwashers, and microwaves all became standard kitchen appliances, as did (in time) TVs, cell phones and computers because prices for those items have been in free fall since the 1950s.

Historical and Predicted Prices

If we are looking for a definition of the middle class we could do worse than something along these lines: “The middle class represents a working sector of our society that is sufficiently monetarily rewarded to save for future financial stability, retains ample discretionary income in the present, and can reasonably aspire to help their future generations.” Threats to the middle class, both to people trying to enter it and to those trying to maintain their status within it, come from the erosion of the cost effectiveness of certain services. Housing, education and long retirements threaten this class of people and some of their ills are obscured by how we understand and talk about the economy.

Consider for instance why we talk so much about taxes. Taxes represent one of the few and very clear levers that a government can pull to change personal finances. They can take less money, or they can take more. As of this week the Liberal government has promised another “middle class tax cut” that should leave an average middle class Canadian $300 richer every year, or $600 for a family. Not bad, and for an individual that works out to being 25% of one month’s rent in Toronto for a single bedroom (average) or three weeks of groceries for the average Canadian family! If you are struggling as a Canadian family despite two good jobs, its hard to imagine that this will make or break a retirement or fund a university tuition.

In a survey done by BDO, 2047 Canadians were asked about their personal finances. The results were less than encouraging. 57% were carrying credit card debt and a third couldn’t pay off their short-term credit. 39% said they had no savings for retirement and 69% said they didn’t have enough savings to get through retirement. These findings match repeated surveys and studies done over the past decade that continue to suggest that Canadians are simply not saving enough and are drowning in debt.

Debt Issues

Small tax cuts seem unlikely to fix problems that look like this, and I think its important to note that solutions to these problems are not readily apparent. It should also be noted that being middle class should not mean that you are always financially whole and never struggle. Part of the reason that the middle class has financial issues is because it strives for a life above mere subsistence. Its goals are materially aspirational, and people live their lives according to that aspiration.

A more productive focus should be on helping people enter the middle class. Far too much energy has been dedicated to using houses to boost middle class wealth, both through restricting development to preserve neighbourhoods, and relying on the equity within homes to boost standards of living. This is the wrong place to hoard wealth and it should be replaced with more aggressive home development within cities to boost density, improve services, and reduce the price of homes. Just as importantly the role of higher education should go under a microscope. The costs of University have jumped as more Canadians get degrees and those degrees are worth less in the market. Canadian parents regularly save for children’s education, to the detriment of their retirement savings. The cost of that education is expected to be over $120,000 for a four year degree very soon. Attacking the issue of education head-on would be an enormous help in easing access to middle class security.

Lastly, dealing with debt should be a priority. Lending should have tighter restrictions, especially for younger Canadians in their early 20s when their financial needs are lower, and a state run bank set up to help Canadians get out of debt (the use of which should preclude any other financial lending) would be an enormous asset in terms of allowing Canadians get on going debt help and learn to better manage budgets and connect people to financial help.

Far from having little idea of what constitutes the middle class, we are, if anything, too certain of what a middle-class life looks like and the path to getting there. This is a moment when we should be experimenting with how we create a growing middle class, not calcifying a particular version of life that no longer fits a world that has dramatically changed since the 1950s. A minister for “Middle Class Prosperity” need not be a pointless fluff position making vague pronouncements. Instead it could be a cabinet position that spearheads exciting new ways to improve access to financial security and create paths to long term growth.

Information in this commentary is for informational purposes only and not meant to be personalized investment advice. The content has been prepared by Adrian Walker from sources believed to be accurate. The opinions expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ACPI.

When Only One Thing Matters

iStock-968895338.jpg

In my head is the vague memory of some political talking head who predicted economic ruin under Obama. He had once worked for the US Government in the 80s and had predicted a recession using only three economic indicators. His call that a recession was imminent led to much derision and he was ultimately let go from his job, left presumably to wander the earth seeking out a second life as political commentator making outlandish claims. I forget his name and, so far, Google hasn’t been much help.

I bring this half-formed memory up because we live in a world that seems focused on ONE BIG THING. The ONE BIG THING is so big that it clouds out the wider picture, limiting conversation and making it hard to plan for the future. That ONE BIG THING is Trump’s trade war.

I get all kinds of financial reports sent to me, some better than others, and lately they’ve all started to share a common thread. In short, while they highlight the relative strength of the US markets, the softening of some global markets, and changes in monetary policy from various central banks they all conclude with the same caveat. That the trade war seems to matter more and things could get better or worse based on what actions Trump and Xi Jinping take in the immediate future.

Donald-Trump-Xi-Jinping-1127037

Now, I have a history of criticizing economists for making predictions that are rosier than they should be, that predictions tend towards being little more than guesses and that smart investors should be mindful of risks that they can’t afford. I think this situation is no different, and it is concerning how much one issue has become the “x-factor” in reading the markets, at the expense of literally everything else.

What this should mean for investors is two-fold. That analysts are increasingly making more useless predictions since “the x-factor” leaves analysts shrugging their shoulders, admitting that they can’t properly predict what’s coming because a tweet from the president could derail their models. The second is that as ONE BIG THING dominates the discussion investors increasingly feel threatened by it and myopic about it.

This may seem obvious, but being a smart investor is about distance and strategy. The more focused we become about a problem the more we can’t see anything but that problem. In the case of the trade war the conversation is increasingly one that dominates all conversation. And while the trade war represents a serious issue on the global stage, so too does Brexit, as does India’s occupation of Kashmir (more on that another day) , the imminent crackdown by the Chinese on Hong Kong (more on that another day), the declining number of liberal democracies and the fraying of the Liberal International order.

This may not feel like I’m painting a better picture here, but my point is that things are always going wrong. They are never not going wrong and that had we waited until there were only proverbial sunny days for our investing picnic, we’d never get out the door. What this means is not that you should ignore or be blasé about the various crises afflicting the world, but that they should be put into a better historical context: things are going wrong because things are always going wrong. If investing is a picnic, you shouldn’t ignore the rain, but bring an umbrella.

181025-Tani-Republican-Party-Press-tease_zr23lf

The trade war represents an issue that people can easily grasp and is close to home. Trump’s own brand of semi-authoritarian populism controls news cycles and demands attention. Its hard to “look away”. It demands our attention, and demands we respond in a dynamic way. But its dominance makes people feel that we are on the cusp of another great crash. The potential for things to be wiped out, for savings to be obliterated, for Trump to be the worst possible version of what he is. And so I caution readers and investors that as much as we find Trump’s antics unsettling and worrying, we should not let his brash twitter feuds panic us nor guide us. He is but one of many issues swirling around and its incumbent on us to look at the big picture and act accordingly. That we live in a complex world, that things are frequently going wrong and the most successful strategy is one that resists letting ONE BIG THING decide our actions. Don’t be like my half-remembered man, myopic and predicting gloom.

Information in this commentary is for informational purposes only and not meant to be personalized investment advice. The content has been prepared by Adrian Walker from sources believed to be accurate. The opinions expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ACPI.

What’s Next? (And When Will It Happen)

economyis bad

Talk of recession is in the air and amongst my clients and readers of this blog the chief question is “when”?

Ever since Trump was elected, questions about when “it’s going to happen” have been floating about. Trump, an 800-pound gorilla with a twitter addiction, has left a predictable path of destruction and the promise of more chaos always seems on the horizon. It should not be surprising then that investors have been waiting with bated breath for an inevitable correction.

Those predicting imminent doom got a little taste of it last week when markets convulsed and delivered the worst day of the year so far, shedding a dramatic 800 points off the Dow Jones. Globally the news hasn’t exactly been stellar. Germany, Italy and France are all showing a weakening economic outlook, which is to say nothing of Great Britain. Despite three Prime Ministers and two deadline extensions, the nation has yet to escape its Brexit chaos and is no closer to figuring out what to do about Northern Ireland. China too is facing a myriad of problems. Trump’s tariffs may be making American’s pay more for things, but it does seem to be hurting the Chinese economy. Coupled with the persistent Hong Kong protests and its already softening market, last week the Chinese central bank opted to weaken the Yuan below the 7 to 1 threshold, a previously unthinkable option aimed at bolstering economic growth.

In all of this it is the American economy that looks to be in the best shape. Proponents of the “U.S. is strong” story point to the historic low unemployment and other economic indicators like consumer spending and year over year GDP growth. But this news comes accompanied with its own baggage, including huge subsidies for farmers hit by Chinese import bans and other trade related self-inflicted wounds. This issue is best summarized by Trump, who himself has declared that everything is great, but also now needs a huge rate cut.

Trump TweetThe temptation to assume that everything is about to go wrong is therefore not the most far-fetched possibility. Investors should be cautious because there are indeed warning signs that the economy is softening and after ten years of bull market returns, corrections and recessions are inevitable.

But if there is an idea I’ve tried to get across, it is that prognostication inevitably fails. The real question that investors should be asking is, “How much can I risk?” If markets do go south, it won’t be forever. But for retirees and those approaching retirement, now ten years older since the last major recession, the potential of a serious downturn could radically alter planned retirements. That question, more than “how much can I make?”, or “When will the next recession hit?”, should be central to your conversations with your financial advisor.

As of writing this, more chaotic news has led Trump to acknowledge that his tariff war may indeed cause a recession, but he’s undeterred. The world is unpredictable, economic cycles happen, and economists are historically bad at predicting recessions. These facts should be at the center of financial planning and they will better serve you as an investor than the constant desire to see ever more growth.

So whether Donald Trump has markets panicked, or a trade war, or really bad manufacturing numbers out of Germany, remember that you aren’t investing to do as well as the markets, or even better. You’re investing to secure a future, and ask your financial advisor (assuming it isn’t me) how much risk do you need, not how much you’ve got.

Information in this commentary is for informational purposes only and not meant to be personalized investment advice. The content has been prepared by Adrian Walker from sources believed to be accurate. The opinions expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ACPI.

Making Kids Money Smart, Reprise

Little girl withdrawing money form ATM with help of mother.

Some time back I had written about how we could better prepare children to handle money responsibly, how to help establish good financial habits and why that was important. You might have thought that banks would have played a role in that education, but I failed to talk about them and what positive (and negative) aspects they can play when it comes to a child’s money intelligence.

In theory banks should be the obvious first stop when it comes to talking about money and yet they rarely are. They may not even be helpful. This is partly because banks have long since given up being a waystation for protecting money from the general economy. While banks themselves have always had a central part to play in lending and growing the economy, the roll of doing that off the back of people who are housing their savings for a rainy day has been replaced by the desire to more quickly facilitate economic activity. Whereas banks were once a speedbump on the road to making a purchase, today they occupy the chief role of facilitating that purchase. No one would dare deposit money with a bank that did not provide debit cards, credit cards and easy online financial transactions.

Being money smart though has a lot more to do with instilling patience and setting goals, not immediately reacting to every consumer temptation. But a teenager with a bank account is not going to find that he or she is hindered much by their savings account. Furthermore, they are unlikely to see the benefits of keeping money in a savings account since there is little growth to be offered. This gives banks a paradoxical role in your child’s financial education, one that offers little incentive to save while facilitating bad financial choices.

For instance, TD Bank offers a Youth Account, a basic savings account for children up to the age of 18. There’s no fees, unlimited transactions per month and minimal interest rates for savers at 0.05%, or 50₡ for every $100. However, a child of 12 will receive a debit card with the Visa Debit system and a daily limit of $25 or $50/day. Meanwhile Scotiabank’s Getting There Savings Account offers similar low fees and minimal interest, but throws in 2 free Interac transactions per month and Scene Reward Points for the movies. The lesson banks teach kids is that putting money in the bank helps buy things they want whenever they want it.

For parents who opened an account for their children when they were small it may be a surprise that banks will send teens and pre-teens bank cards. And even approaching a bank about what can and cannot be done with a bank card may not offer up much help. I went to three separate banks to ask about their youth accounts and was frequently met with several “umms” and “ahhs” when I pressed for details. At one bank I was assured that even though the bank card was a “Visa Debit” that card could not be used to buy items online (which is what the Visa Debit system does). When I pressed for confirmation that this was the case the person disappeared to consult with other employees before returning and confirming that online purchases would be allowed. Financial limits are also not particularly inspiring. A $25 limit per day totals pretty quickly, and parents may not realize what that money is going towards since online purchases can be easily overlooked.

And yet.

This is also the system that we live in. Children should be raised to understand that there will be few breaks when it comes to making bad financial choices. Banks and credit card companies will happily provide debt to those who can barely afford it and defend themselves with impenetrable multi-page legal documents. Engaging with this system is essential to beating it.

So what can parents do?

As I wrote back in 2015 the best course of action is to do planning with kids to help establish good habits. Giving kids an allowance in exchange for chores isn’t a bad idea, but it might make more sense to both expand the money that is given, and then set up automatic withdrawals to cover expenses. Rather than receive $20/week as an allowance, consider $50/week and automatically take $30 back for RESP contributions. Or up it even further and charge them room and board. The experience of seeing financial responsibilities coming ahead financial luxury would establish a good habit of the real costs of living.

Another idea would be to sit and plan the purchase of a large item together that a child wants. Maybe it’s a video game system or a subscription of some kind. Go through the budgeting process together and figure out how many weeks it would take to get the item while also factoring money in that time for usual expenses like eating out with friends and going to movies (people still go to the movies right?). Invariably good budgeting forces us to question what we’re doing and whether it makes sense, so the action of picking an item and working towards it will go a long way to either validating those wants or rethinking what to do with that cash.

If you can convince your child to save and budget, help them as well consider alternative things to do when it comes time and they’re tempted to spend the money they were meant to be saving. Budgeting should help provide a passage to success and being left home alone while their friends are out having a good time will be hard.

Lastly, take your kids to the bank and have a meeting with someone together about the ins and outs of their youth account. Parents should know what is and is not allowed and not assume that simply because they opened the account 8 or 9 years ago, they understand what that account does or does not allow.

Financial planning remains an unpopular pastime, and few enjoy the responsibility of dealing with money. This may have more to do with how out of control Canadians feel with regard to their expenses and how much debt we carry. But as parents we should be looking for every opportunity to teach our children some of the bitter truths about money, debt, banks and budgets. Nobody else is.

As always, if you have questions about fees, performance or your financial future, please don’t hesitate to give me a call or send a message.

Information in this commentary is for informational purposes only and not meant to be personalized investment advice. The content has been prepared  by Adrian Walker from sources believed to be accurate. The opinions expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ACPI.

The Cost of Advice

Everyone’s focused on the cost of investing, they should be looking at the cost of not having help.

iStock-1058690454

I regular question I receive is whether fees are to high. This isn’t a perplexing question, it always makes sense to see whether you could, or perhaps should, be paying less. But from a financial planning perspective the questions seem to dominate an awful lot of initial meetings that I have.

For clarity, I think its important to point out that within my own practice we’ve done a lot to increase transparency about our fees and have done what we can to make costs explicit and earn our keep. Years ago, while working for a mutual fund company, I was shocked to learn that some advisors never wanted their clients to know how they were getting paid, or how much. This always struck me as a poor business practice and given the public focus on the expense of financial advice means that I’m not alone in that assessment.

The focus on fees has also paid results to investors. While I have no data on Canada, in the United States mutual fund fees have dropped by nearly 50% since 2000. Canada has been following suit (to what degree I don’t know) but I haven’t had a meeting with a mutual fund company in the last few years that hasn’t spent time highlighting the cost of the investments, or a recent cut to MERs. Much of this has been aided by the arrival of ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds) which have also been on a mad rush to cut costs. Today there are even 0% cost ETFs, although the true costs of those products remains opaque.

And yet, much of this seems like a secondary problem. Costs have rapidly dropped but little attention is being paid to more worrying trends. Investors do badly without help, and financial advice is worth a great deal more than the cost of receiving it.

Dalbar 1

The 2019 Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior is the most recent annual report produced by Dalbar (Dalbar is an independent provider of business practices in the financial space – you can learn about them HERE), which looks to compare investor behavior against market returns. Produced annually the report stretches back decades and its findings are conclusive. People do badly as investors, and frequently stay just ahead of inflation and well behind market returns. For instance, in 2018 the S&P 500 had a -4.38% return, while the average equity fund investor averaged -9.42%, and the Average Equity Index Fund Investor returned -7.22%.

Dalbar 2

These results speak for themselves, but it shows that the greatest enemy to maximizing investor returns are not the fees, but the behavior of investors. Even when investors hold low cost index ETFs, they still underperform markets. The reasons for this are complex, but have much to do with the human mind and its limitations in facing an uncertain future (best captured by the growing field of behavioral economics). A good example of his is found in the report’s Guess Right Ratio, a ratio based around the inflows and outflows of funds to determine how often investors have correctly anticipated the direction of the market. You might be surprised to learn that investors have guessed correctly 50% of the time over the last 13 years, but that guessing right didn’t translate into more money, since investors guessed wrong in a larger magnitude than they ever guessed right (in other words people made bigger bets when guessing wrong) and one wrong guess would wipe out months of correct bets.

Dalbar 3

If there is a place where investors and advisors need to improve, it is how much work is being done for investors at all. The rise of “Robo-Advisors” seemed to solidify a type of investor experience, one in which 75% of investors admit to only communicating with their advisor once or twice a year, and up to 68% never spend more than an hour with their advisor a year, and 31% of investors have never discussed their investment goals. That gap seems one worth closing, and one that cannot be capably done through automated systems, or through impersonal financial practices. The cost of good financial planning seems to be worth it if it improves your returns, gives you comfort in your long term planning and helps make your retirement a success.

As always, if you have questions about fees, performance or your financial future, please don’t hesitate to give me a call or send a message.

Information in this commentary is for informational purposes only and not meant to be personalized investment advice. The content has been prepared  by Adrian Walker from sources believed to be accurate. The opinions expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ACPI.

Donald Trump & The Federal Reserve

trump-powell1-kMGE--621x414@LiveMint

In conversations the number one concern I’m asked to address is the effect of Donald Trump on markets. This isn’t surprising. He looms over everything. He dominates news cycles. His tweets can move markets. He is omnipresent in our lives, and yet curiously much of what he has done has left no lasting impression. His tweets about trade and tariffs cause short term market blips, but after a time, things normalize. In all the ways that Donald Trump seems to be in our face, his impact is felt there the least.

Trump’s real, and more concerning impact is in the slow grind he directs at public institutions that are meant to be independent and non-partisan. He’s placed people in charge of departments whose chief qualification is their loyalty to Trump, some of them no nothings and buffoons, others with disastrous conflicts of interest, with only a passing understanding of the enormous responsibility they’ve taken on. But where Trump hasn’t been able to overcome the independence of an institution, he wages tireless and relentless war against their heads. I’m talking about Trump’s yearlong obsession with the Federal Reserve and his desire for a rate cut.

The Fed, you may recall, is America’s central bank. It sets the key interest rate and uses it to constrain or ease monetary supply, the goal of which is to rein in inflation or stimulate it depending on the economic health of the nation (and world, it turns out). The Fed meets regularly and sends signals to the market whether it thinks it needs to raise or lower rates, and markets respond in kind. If the markets and federal reserve are on the same page, markets may respond positively to what is said. If markets and the fed disagree, well…

Last year the Fed was expected to raise rates to stave off inflation and hopefully begin normalizing interest rates to pre-2008 levels. Rates have been very low for the better part of a decade and with inflation starting to show itself through wages and a tightening of the labor market, the Federal reserve Chairman, Jerome Powell, was expected to make up to 4 rate hikes in 2018, which would add (about) 1% to borrowing costs. But then things started to get a bit “wibbly wobbly”.

generate-L-duuE7C

By the fourth quarter the overnight lending rate was between 2.25% and 2.5% following a rate hike in late December. That triggered a massive sell-off following a year of already disappointing market returns.  The Fed was seen to be to hawkish, and the market didn’t believe the economy was strong enough to support the higher lending rate. By January the Fed had relented, saying that it the case for higher rates was no longer as strong and that its outlook would be tempered. By March the consensus view was that there would be no rate hikes in 2019 at all.

By April things had turned around. US economic data, while mixed, was generally strong. Unemployment remained historically low, and wage inflation was positive. And then Trump said this:

Trump Tweets April 30

May was an interesting month in politics and markets. After four months of a resurgent bull market the breaks were put on in May following renewed concerns about the US and China and a trade war. By the end of May Trump was tweeting about using tariffs against Mexico to get results at the border. At this point markets had started to get nervous. The Dow Jones had shed about 2000 points, and the rumblings from Wall Street were getting pretty loud. Trump, who sees his popularity reflected in the value of the stock market, started to make noises that things were once again progressing with China and the tariff threat against Mexico was quickly put to bed. As is now typical in 2019, markets were assuaged by further tweets from the president, assuring that solutions had been found or that negotiations would begin again.

June saw a resumption of the bull run, with May’s dip largely being erased. But Trump still wanted his rate cut and increasingly so does the market. Where markets were satisfied by the promise of no new hikes earlier in the year, by June pressure was building to see an actual cut. This quarter markets have remained extremely sensitive to any news that might prompt looser monetary policy and have jumped every time its hinted that it might happen. On June 7th a weak jobs report got the market excited since it gave weight to the need for a rate cut. This past week the Fed has now signaled it may indeed cut rates as soon as this summer.

There are, of course, real concerns about the global economy. The IMF believes that if the various trade fights continue on unabated a full 0.5% of global growth could be wiped out (roughly ½ trillion dollars). That’s already on top of signs of slowing growth from Europe and Asia and at a time when markets are at all time highs when it comes to valuations. Trump is effectively saying that markets should be allowed to creep higher on the backs of cheap credit rather than on the back of real economic growth. It’s a bit like saying that you could be so much richer if you could easily borrow more money from the bank.

People with longer memories may recall that Trump, during the 2016 election campaign, had argued against the low rates of the Fed, and believed they should be much higher. Today its quite the opposite. But Trump’s chief issue is that his own pick for the Fed has continued to exert a significant amount of independence. Trump’s response, beyond merely bullying Jerome Powell over twitter has been to try and appoint more dovish members to the Fed, including a woman who used to advocate a return to the gold standard, but is now an avowed Trump supporter and of easier money.

                “Any increase at all will be a very, very small increase because they want to keep the market up so Obama goes out and let the new guy … raise interest rates … and watch what happens in the stock market.”

  • Donald Trump

As with all things Trump, there is always some normal rational behind the terrible ideas being pursued. Trump’s tariffs, arguably a poorly executed attempt to punish China, is hurting US farmers and is a tax on the US citizenry. Its also done nothing to change the trade deficit, which is the highest its ever been. But nobody is under the illusion that China is a fair operator in global trade that respects IP or doesn’t manipulate currency.

There is also a very secular case to be made for a rate cut. Global markets are weakening and that traditionally does call for an easing of monetary policy, and globally many central banks have reversed course on hiking rates, returning to lower rates. For the United States there is a legitimate case that a rate cut serves as a defense if the trade fight with China draws on, and can be reversed if it is brought to a speedy conclusion.

Trump tweet 2

Those points run defense for Trump’s politicization of a critical institution within the economy, and we shouldn’t forget that. Underlying whatever argument is made for cutting rates is Trump’s own goals of seeing the stock market higher for political gain, regardless of the long term impact to the health of the economy. We should be doubly worried about a politics that has abandoned its critical eye when it comes to cheap money and Wall Street greed. Individually Wall Street insiders may think that too much cheap money is a bad thing, but in aggregate they act like a drunk that’s been left in charge of the wine cellar.

Lastly, we should remember that after Trump is gone, his damage may be more permanent than we would like. Structural damage to institutions does not recover on its own, but takes a concerted effort to undo. Does the current political landscape look like one that will find the bipartisan fortitude post-Trump to rectify this damage? I’d argue not.

All this leaves investors with some important questions. How should they approach bull markets when you know that it may be increasingly be built on sand? What is the likely long term impact of a less independent Federal reserve, and what impact does it have on global markets as well? Finally, how much money should you be risking to meet your retirement goals? They are important questions the answers should be reflected in your portfolio.

The next Federal Reserve meeting is on July 30th, where the expectation is that a 25bps rate cut will be announced.

As always, call or send a note if you’d like to discuss your investments or have questions about this article.

Wealth in all Stages of Life

597EF3CB-F153-4C43-8AF5-7093721039FA

My associate, Kimber, frequently points out that my bookshelves contain a number of real “downer” books on death. She’s not wrong: I have an abiding interest in what it means to grow old and how we die. My bookshelves creak under the weight of Greek and Roman philosophy texts, medical studies about aging, and financial guides for estate planning and preparing heirs. This interest goes back years for me, as part of a philosophical question about what it means to not just live, but also die well.

I’m not alone in this seemingly macabre fascination. Many others, including other philosophically minded people, ask similar questions regarding the difference between being rich and being wealthy. In simple terms, being rich is relatively easy (okay, maybe not easy – but certainly easier to define) while being wealthy asks us to consider what it is that makes us happy beyond material acquisition.

In one respect, this has been the great achievement of Western societies. By enshrining a key number of rights and making them central to our society, we have removed barriers to free association, free movement, freedom of religion and freedom from oppressive institutions. To get up every morning and know that the government isn’t going to seize your lands, punish you for your beliefs or race, or force you to pick up and flee your home in the night is the path towards building wealth. It’s possible to be rich in China, but it is not possible to be wealthy in the same way.

Being wealthy in life also grants the possibility of being wealthy in death. To know that your affairs are in order, to choose what happens to your physical remains, to be able to bequeath in confidence your assets to another generation and even help your children or grandchildren are all things that, until relatively recently, did not always reside in one’s control.

When we were choosing our new trade name, I briefly toyed with the name Walker FINANCIAL Management. But given our 25 year history, the things we’ve helped people do or try to do, limiting our scope to merely the finances of our clients seemed narrow and imprecise. While its true that my role in people’s lives is to help accumulate and save, my job is to help people save for things. I manage money so that children can get an education without leaving school encumbered by massive debt;to help people buy homes and pay down mortgages faster; to help families travel; to help retirees enjoy their time free from worry; and even to facilitate one generation helping another. We’re in the wealth business, not the financial business.

Which brings me back to my abiding interest in dying. I periodically like to point out that we, as a society, are getting older. Demographically, we will feel the effects of a population age across multiple aspects of our society. From health care to real estate, our greying society will challenge us in unique and surprising ways. How we face those challenges will determine how well we preserve our wealth, and it will mean tackling tough questions around independence, lifestyle, and even death.

So, while Kimber looks at my bookshelf and thinks I’m a bit of a downer, I look at it as the next big stage in building and preserving wealth. That’s why we’re Walker Wealth Management of ACPI.

If you have questions about wealth and aging, please give us a call! We can provide retirement planning, help you to find good solutions for Wills, Trusts, and Estates, and walk you through the different questions you should consider when considering passing on assets to heirs.