The Present Doesn't Portend the Future

You probably know the well worn disclaimer in the investing world, "past performance is no guarantee of future results." It's essentially how many investment firms wow you with statistics about their past performance, only to remind you that your future results may never match theirs. OK, fair enough, so how about present circumstances? Do they portend the future?

It's human nature to focus more on the present than the future, which is in line with our basic instinct of survival. After all, if we don't take care of the here and now, there may not be a future, right?

Marketing departments know this! Many things in life are about experiencing pleasure today, and pushing the cost of that pleasure into the future (credit cards anyone?). Drive off with the car with zero dollars down, and pay over 84 months. Go ahead--have another piece of cake - you can work it off later. No problem.

Many decisions investors face have similar tradeoffs. Buy a new car, or put more money into retirement? Take another vacation or fund the college account? And the further out the consequence, the less weight we tend to give to it. This is because we have a hard time imagining the future…especially way into the future.

Smart Today May Not Be Smart Tomorrow

We tend to extrapolate the present into the future, as if things will never change and will continue the status quo.

In the financial crisis of 2008-2009, many people were selling after experiencing financial losses. Some of that selling came just weeks before the market hit bottom. What would cause an investor, who desires to buy low and sell high, to sell after experiencing significant (yet unrealized) losses (i.e. sell low)? One factor is that they were extrapolating the present into the future…they couldn’t see how things would change.

Another great example is the German Bund (treasury bond). In 2016, Germany sold the 10-year Bund at a negative yield (this means that buyers were guaranteed to get back less principal than they originally put in). Those investors were certain that rates would continue going negative for the next 10 years. But here we are almost two years later and the current yield is already over +0.50%. Substantial money (principal) may be lost on this bond simply because investors extrapolated the "present of 2016" into the future.

More recently, the stock markets have struggled to continue the torrid advance that began with the presidential election in 2016, lasting through this past January. The markets had a handful of "1% days" during a low volatility year in 2017, yet so far in 2018, we've had more 1% days than all of 2017 as volatility has returned. While the markets haven't yet closed more than 10% from their January peak, you've probably read or heard the prognosticators calling this correction the beginning of the end for the bull market. Enough investors will be scared witless of enduring another 2008-2009 selloff that they'll sell now and probably miss the next great advance that makes another new all-time high sooner than they can presently imagine.

History May Help Here

Think about everything that has happened in the last 10 years--of course, a lot has happened. And while we may not be able to project what will happen in the future, how it will happen or when, we know – through the history of mankind - that lots of unexpected things will occur. Another crisis is always bound to come along.

The plans that we have developed for our clients prepare them for many different scenarios. They take into account their risk tolerance, time-frame and overall monetary goals and dreams.  But we don’t have to get any one scenario right. We just need to be disciplined enough to stick with the plan through both the good and the tough times.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first. If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch. We start with a specific assessment of your personal situation. There is no rush and no cookie-cutter approach. Each client is different, and so is your financial plan and investment objectives.

Source: Information obtained from The Emotional Investor

A 2018 Forecast to Bank On

Will the markets go up, go down, go sideways, and by how much? If you're like me, you're reading many of the forecasts that pundits publish this time of the year. So I decided to publish my own.

Before I get into my market forecast for 2018, I want you to consider why forecasts are so alluring to investors like ourselves. What is the force that influences us to make decisions based on forecasts? There is ample evidence that expert forecasts are correct only half of the time, yet we are still attracted to them. Why?

You may not be able to put your finger on it because our attraction to forecasts is largely subconscious. It boils down to how the brain likes to operate. Our brain is a planning machine; it finds much contentment and peace in being able to plan. When we don’t know what the future holds, we can’t plan with certainty. This bothers the brain. So it, subconsciously, seeks for some sort of certainty. And forecasts, especially confident ones, provide an illusion of certainty.

We are subconsciously attracted to forecasts even though we consciously recognize that forecasts historically have not been very accurate. We fix this problem by giving greater weight to forecasts that 1) confirm what we want to happen and 2) are more confident than others. But these don’t improve the accuracy, just our perception of accuracy.

My Forecast

I am quite confident in my forecast for 2018. To be fair, it was the same forecast I’ve had in prior years (though this is the first time I've actually published it), and will likely be the same forecast in future years. Why wouldn’t I keep it the same? It has an overall accuracy very close to 100%:

• The economy/market will do something that surprises us
• Investors who watch or look at the markets or their portfolio quite often will experience more stress and greater unhappiness than those that don’t
• No one will be able to predict what will happen perfectly, but it will all seem obvious in hindsight
• You will wish you owned more stocks if the markets are going up, and wish you were holding more cash if the markets are going down
• Your diversified portfolio’s return will not match the market’s return, will lag it in a rising market environment, and probably outperform it in a falling market environment (but you'll find cold comfort in an outperforming portfolio if it's still going down)
• The pain of missing out on bigger gains will outweigh the pain of bigger losses
• You will be tempted to abandon your plan at some point based on expert forecasts and/or short-term market performance
• Investors that focus on those things they can control (i.e. your reaction) will have a better investment experience than those that focus on what they can’t control nor predict (i.e. What’s XYZ going to do?)
• Investors who abandon their plan to chase a “winning investment” or “sure thing” will have lower long-term returns than investors who stick with their plan

You may be frustrated that my forecast doesn’t say anything about where the market will go or what sector to invest in. If so, then I’m sorry to disappoint you. But understand that in my 30+ years advising clients, I have learned that the best results are obtained by those who have the discipline to ignore the distractions and stick with the plan we have developed.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first. If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch. We start with a specific assessment of your personal situation. There is no rush and no cookie-cutter approach. Each client is different, and so is your financial plan and investment objectives.

I wish you all a prosperous, fulfilling, happy and healthy 2018.  Thank you for allowing me to be your trusted partner along the journey.

Source: Information provided by The Emotional Investor, a Member of The Behavioral Finance Network. Used with permission.

Is A Donor Advised Fund Right for You?

Executive Summary: Setting up a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) and front loading charitable deductions can save you thousands of dollars in taxes immediately, while directing distribution to charities in/for future years. Even if you decide not to establish a DAF, you should consider whether accelerating the coming years' charitable contributions to this year makes sense for you, especially if you are phased out of itemizing deductions starting the next year.

As you've heard by now, President Donald Trump has signed the Tax and Jobs Act of 2017, which mostly makes sweeping changes to tax rates and eliminates many deductions starting in 2018. For most households, this means no itemized deductions due to an increased standard deduction ($12,000 for single, $24,000 for married), a limit on the deduction of taxes ($10,000 of income, sales and property taxes combined) and elimination of most miscellaneous itemized deductions.

Many of you give generously to charities every year regardless of the prospect of deducting those contributions. While the changes to the deductiblity of contributions is little changed, the fact that you likely won't be able to itemize, means that you'll receive no tax benefit going forward if your contributions plus other itemized deductions don't exceed your standard deduction.

This means that 2017 may be a year that you'll want to consider a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) to take advantage of what might be your last year for itemizing, and take a large 2017 deduction for your contribution. The deadline for establishing a DAF is December 31, 2017, though for all intents and purposes, December 29 is the last business day of the year and may be the true deadline.  Of course, you can consider one for 2018 and future years.

A DAF is simply an account that you establish with the charitable entity of a well-known custodian (Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard or TD Ameritrade for example) and to which you make a lump sum contribution to fund future years' contributions. For example, if you give $2,000 a year to charity, you could fund it with $10,000 today, and direct $2,000 a year to your charities each year while the fund grows tax free. Better yet, if you fund the DAF with long-term appreciated stocks or funds, you'll get a full deduction for the fair market value of the securities, and never have to report the capital gain on your tax return.

This is right for you if:

1. You're willing and able to irrevocably contribute at least $5,000 (some custodians have higher minimums) to a managed account where you direct future contributions to the charities of your choice;
2. You expect to be phased out of itemized deductions starting in 2018 due to the increased standard deduction and other changes to itemized deductions (see above) or,
3. You would benefit more from an acceleration of charitable deductions to this year (than in future years) due to high income or lower tax rates in the years ahead.

Even if you decide not to establish a DAF, you should consider whether accelerating the coming years' charitable contributions to this year makes sense for you.

The most common ‘strategy’ for creating a donor-advised fund is relatively straightforward – donor-advised funds are a good fit any time there’s a desire to contribute (and get the tax deduction) now, but make the actual grant to the final charity at some later date. In fact, the whole point of a donor-advised fund is to separate the timing of when the tax deduction occurs from when the charity ultimately receives the money.

Once established, you can add funds to a DAF in future years, and you can take as long as you want to distribute the funds to various charities. Some custodians maintain minimum donations you can make to a charity at any one time, say $50.

The important caveat to remember in all donor-advised fund strategies is that once funds go to the donor-advised fund, they must go to some charity, and cannot be retracted for the donor. The charitable gift to a donor-advised fund is still irrevocable, even if the assets have not yet passed through to the underlying charity. Nonetheless, for those who are ready to make the charitable donation – and want to receive the tax deduction now – the donor-advised fund serves as a useful vehicle to execute charitable giving strategies over time. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that any growth along the way will ultimately accrue tax-free for the charity as well.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss setting up a Donor Advised Fund, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first. If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch. We start with a specific assessment of your personal situation. There is no rush and no cookie-cutter approach. Each client is different, and so is your financial plan and investment objectives.

Common Estate Planning Mistakes People Make

"Mortality never prevented the majority of human beings from behaving as though death were no more than an unfounded rumor" - Aldous Huxley

A Rocket Lawyer survey in 2014 indicated that 64% of Americans did not have a will. If you're one of them, then this is a must-read.

The most common way to transfer assets to your heirs is also the messiest: to have a will that is so out-of-date that it doesn’t even relate to your property or estate anymore, to have your records scattered all over the place, to have social media, banking and email accounts whose passwords only you can find—and basically to leave a big mess for others to clean up. I’ve reviewed over a hundred wills and estate plans in my lifetime, and it never ceases to amaze me how out-of-date or incomplete some of them are.

Is there a better way?

Recently, a group of estate planning experts were asked for their advice on a better process to handle the transfer of assets at your death, and to articulate common mistakes. A list of mistakes, including a few that I identified during my reviews, are covered below:

Not regularly reviewing documents. What might have been a solid plan 5 to 15 years ago may not relate to your estate today. The experts recommended a full review every three to five years, to ensure that trustees, executors, guardians, beneficiaries and healthcare agents are all up-to-date. You might also consider creating a master document which lists all your social media and online accounts and passwords, so that your heirs can access them and close them down. Be sure your documents specifically authorize and instruct your executor to access and shut them down after your death.

Not leaving personal property disposition instructions, keys and passwords for your executor. Untold numbers of safes and safety deposit boxes have to either be drilled open or forced open by court order because no one else held the key or numeric combination. If you have a home or office safe, or a safety deposit box at a bank, make sure that your executor and/or trustee knows where the key(s) are, or what the combination is (and what bank location the safe deposit box is in). Even better, and to facilitate distribution, leave a signed inventory of the valuables left in there and who is to inherit them. Having a schedule of valuable property or heirlooms and who is designated to inherit them is invaluable to your executor after you're gone. Don’t wait until after the will is executed to do this. Do it before you sign the will and make yourself a to-do to update the list at least once a year. Will your executor know where to find and be able to access all of your original estate planning documents?

Using a will instead of a revocable trust. This relates mostly to people who want to protect their privacy or pass their wealth to under-age children. When assets pass to heirs via a will, the transfer creates a public record that anybody can access and read. A revocable trust can be titled in your name, and you can control the assets as you would with outright ownership, but the assets simply pass to your designated successor upon death.

Establishing a longer term trust for a small amount of assets. If the trust distributes assets over multiple years, be sure the value of the trust assets justify the cost and burden of fiduciary administration. Creating a trust holding $50,000 worth of assets to distribute $10,000 to each of five beneficiaries over five years makes little financial sense.

Failure to require mandatory and timely annual income distributions. Not distributing income annually to the beneficiaries can subject the trust to a 35% maximum tax rate on all income over $12,500 (currently), a much steeper income tax schedule than that of any individual beneficiary. With an inexperienced trustee, he/she may not know that not distributing the income from the trust annually will likely result in much higher taxation. By specifically REQUIRING annual income distributions in the trust, an ignorant trustee has no choice, and can thereby avoid high trust tax rates, and the beneficiaries pay their own (likely lower) tax rates on their distributions.

Not carefully vetting the trustee. The role of the trustee is both a powerful and time consuming one: make sure the person is qualified, willing and able to devote the time to properly understand and execute the trust instructions. Be sure to ask your candidate if they’re willing to serve before naming them in your trust. Family members who may also be beneficiaries frequently become a source of conflict or present a conflict of interest, so you may want to try and appoint a trusted non-relative instead if at all possible, or designate a corporate trustee. Also, provide in the trust document for reasonable compensation, expense reimbursement and indemnification of the trustee.

Failing to fund the revocable trust. You’ve set up the trust, but now you and your team of professionals have to transfer title to your properties out of your name and into the trust, with you as the initial trustee. If you forget to do this, then the entire purpose of the trust is wasted. Be sure to specify at least two successor trustees.

Having assets titled in a way that conflicts with the will or trust. You should always pay close attention to account beneficiary designations, because they—not your will or trust—determine who will receive your life insurance proceeds, IRA distributions and employer retirement plan assets. Meanwhile, assets (like a home) owned in joint tenancy with rights of survivorship will pass directly to the surviving joint tenant, no matter what the will or trust happens to say. Review beneficiary designations at least once a year. Does that old employer 401(k) beneficiary still list your former spouse as the beneficiary?

Not using the annual gift exemption. Each person can gift $14,000 a year tax-free to heirs without affecting the value of their $5.49 million lifetime estate/gift tax exemption. That means a husband and wife with four children could theoretically gift the kids $112,000 a year tax-free. Over time, that can reduce the size of a large estate potentially below the gift/estate exemption threshold, and in states where there is an estate or inheritance tax, it can help as well.

Not understanding the generation-skipping transfer tax. A husband and wife can each leave estate values of $5.49 million to any combination of individuals. But if there’s anything left over, there’s a 40% federal estate tax on those additional assets left to heirs in the next generation (the children), and an additional 40% on assets left to the generation after that (the grandchildren). Better to transfer $5.49 million out of the estate before death (tax-free, since this fills up the lifetime gift exemption) into a dynastic trust for the benefit of the grandchildren. You can also transfer that annual $14,000 to grandchildren. If your estate is that large, it is imperative that you seek the assistance of an estate planning attorney unless you favor leaving half or more of your assets to your federal and state governments.

Not taking action because of the possibility of estate tax repeal. Yes, the Republican leadership in Congress includes, on its wish list, the total repeal of those estate taxes (the estate tax is based on the value of the estate on the date of death). But what if there’s no action, or a compromise scuttles the estate tax provisions at the last minute? Federal wealth transfer taxes have been enacted and repealed three times in U.S. history, so there’s no reason to imagine that even if there is a repeal, the repeal will last forever. Meanwhile, dynastic trusts and other estate planning tactics provide tangible benefits even without the tax savings, including protecting assets from lawsuits and claims. And while the estate tax may be going away, the tax on estate and trust income is not, and may become a focus of the IRS as replacements for lost revenue are sought out.

Thinking that having just a will is enough. A health care directive (to allow your designee to speak on your behalf regarding health care decisions when you can’t) and a durable power of attorney (to perform duties on your behalf when you’re possibly incapacitated) are essential for every adult to have, in addition to a will.

Leaving too much, too soon, to younger heirs. Nothing can harm emerging adult values quite like realizing, as they start their productive careers, that they actually never need to work a day in their lives. The alternative? Create a trust controlled by a trusted individual (again, preferably not a family member or beneficiary) or a corporate trust company until the beneficiaries reach a more mature stage of their lives, perhaps 30-35 years old.

There are so many other estate planning provisions that may be unique to you, your family and your business. A fee paid to a legal professional who specializes in estate planning is a final act of love to your loved ones to help them understand your dying intentions, and minimize the hassles inherent in estate administration and disposition.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first. If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch. We start with a specific assessment of your personal situation. There is no rush and no cookie-cutter approach. Each client is different, and so is your financial plan and investment objectives.

Tax Reform or Accountant's Re-employment Act?

For as long as I can remember, tax reduction and simplification have been on the table for congress and past presidents. So why not President Trump? File your next tax return on a postcard (not likely)? I might be a bit cynical, but the only result of the next tax act I see will be extending my employment as a tax planner and preparer for the foreseeable future.

I sincerely doubt I'll see significant tax simplification in my lifetime, so my fellow CPA's and Turbotax employees can probably breathe a sigh of relief-their jobs are likely safe for years to come.

You can be forgiven if you're skeptical that Congress will be able to completely overhaul our tax system after multiple failures to overhaul our health care system, but professional advisors are studying the newly-released nine-page proposal closely nonetheless. We only have the bare outlines of what the initial plan might look like before it goes through the Congressional sausage grinder:

First, we would see the current seven tax brackets for individuals reduced to three — a 12% rate for lower-income people (up from 10% currently), 25% in the middle and a top bracket of 35%. The proposal doesn't include the income "cutoffs" for the three brackets, but if they end up as suggested in President Trump's tax plan from the campaign, the 25% rate would start at $75,000 (for married couples--currently $75,900), and joint filers would start paying 35% at $225,000 of income (currently $416,700).

The dreaded alternative minimum tax, which was created to ensure that upper-income Americans would not be able to finesse away their tax obligations altogether, would be eliminated under the proposal. But there is a mysterious notation that Congress might impose an additional rate for the highest-income taxpayers, to ensure that wealthier Americans don’t contribute a lower share than they pay today.

The initial proposal would nearly double the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for married couples, and increase the child tax credit, now set at $1,000 per child under age 17. (No actual figure was given.)

At the same time, the new tax plan promises to eliminate many itemized deductions, without telling us which ones other than a promise to keep deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The plan mentions tax benefits that would encourage work, higher education and retirement savings, but gives no details of what might change in these areas.

The most interesting part of the proposal is a full repeal of the estate tax and generation-skipping estate tax, which affects only a small percentage of the population but results in an enormous amount of planning and calculations for those who ARE affected. Anyone with enough money to be subject to the estate tax, has probably paid lawyers and accountants enough for planning to avoid paying a single dollar of it.

The plan would also limit the maximum tax rate for pass-through business entities like partnerships and limited liability companies (LLC's) to 25%, which might allow high-income business owners to take their gains through the entity, rather than as personal (1040) income and avoid the highest personal tax brackets.

Finally, the tax plan would lower America’s maximum corporate (C-Corporation) tax rate from the current 35% to 20%. To encourage companies to repatriate profits held overseas, the proposal would introduce a 100% exemption for dividends from foreign subsidiaries in which the U.S. parent owns at least a 10% stake, and imposes a one-time “low” (not specified) tax rate on wealth already accumulated overseas.

What are the implications of this bare-bones proposal? The most obvious, and most remarked-upon, is the drop that many high-income taxpayers would experience, from the current 39.6% top tax rate to 35%. That, plus the elimination of the estate tax, in addition to the lowering of the corporate tax (potentially leading to higher dividends) has been described as a huge relief for upper-income American investors, which could fuel the notion that the entire exercise is a big giveaway to large donors. But the mysterious “surcharge” on wealthier taxpayers might taketh away what the rest of the plan giveth.

But many Americans with S corporations, LLCs or partnership entities (known as pass-through entities because their income is reported on the owners' personal returns and therefore no company level tax is paid) would potentially receive a much greater windfall, if they could choose to pay taxes on their corporate earnings at 25% rather than nearly 40% currently. (No big surprise: The Trump organization is a pass-through entity.)

A huge unknown is which itemized deductions would be eliminated in return for the higher standard deduction. Would the plan eliminate the deduction for state and local property and income taxes, which is especially valuable to people in high-tax states such as New York, New Jersey and California, and in general to higher-income taxpayers who pay state taxes at the highest rate? Note that on average, only about 35% of Americans itemize their deductions on Schedule A, most of them higher income taxpayers.

Currently, about one-third of the 145 million households filing a tax return — or roughly 48 million filers — claim state and local tax deductions. Among households with income of $100,000 or more, the average deduction for state and local taxes is around $12,300. Some economists have speculated that people earning between $100,000 and around $300,000 might wind up paying more in taxes under the proposal than they do now. Taxpayers with incomes above $730,000 would hypothetically see their after-tax income increase an average of 8.5 percent.

Big picture, economists are in the early stages of debating how much the plan might add to America’s soaring $20 trillion national debt. One back-of-the-envelope estimate by a Washington budget watchdog estimated that the tax cuts might add $5.8 trillion to the debt load over the next 10 years. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysis, Republican economists have identified about $3.6 trillion in offsetting revenues (mostly an assumption of increased economic growth), so by the most conservative calculation the tax plan would cost the federal deficit somewhere in the $2.2 trillion range over the next decade.

Others, notably the Brookings Tax Policy Center (see graph) see the new proposals actually raising tax revenues for individuals (blue bars), while mostly reducing the flow to Uncle Sam from corporations.

These cost estimates have huge political implications for whether a tax bill will ever be passed. Under a prior agreement, the Senate can pass tax cuts with a simple majority of 51 votes — avoiding a filibuster that might sink the effort — only if the bill adds no more than $1.5 trillion to the national debt during the next decade.

That means compromise. To get the impact on the national debt below $1.5 trillion, Congressional Republicans might decide on a smaller cut to the corporate rate, to something closer to 25-28%, while giving typical families a smaller 1-percentage point tax cut (gee...thanks?). Under that scenario, multi-national corporations might be able to bring back $1 trillion or more in profit at unusually low tax rates, and most families might see a modest tax cut that will put a few hundred extra bucks in their pockets.

Alternatively, Congress could pass tax cuts of more than $1.5 trillion if the Republicans could flip enough Democratic Senators to get to 60 votes. The Democrats would almost certainly demand large tax cuts for lower and middle earners, potentially lower taxes on corporations and higher taxes on the wealthy. Would you bet on that sort of compromise?

We shall see, and I'll keep you posted on tax developments. For now, put away that post card--you're probably going to need an envelope and more postage.

If you would like to review your current investment portfolio or discuss any other financial planning matters, please don’t hesitate to contact us or visit our website at http://www.ydfs.com. We are a fee-only fiduciary financial planning firm that always puts your interests first. If you are not a client yet, an initial consultation is complimentary and there is never any pressure or hidden sales pitch. We start with a specific assessment of your personal situation. There is no rush and no cookie-cutter approach. Each client is different, and so is your financial plan and investment objectives.

Sources:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trump-overpromising-tax-cuts-205013012.html

https://www.aei.org/publication/the-big-six-tax-reform-framework-can-you-dynamically-score-a-question-mark/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/09/27/trumps-new-tax-plan-shows-how-unserious-republicans-are-about-governing/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.d37e0bcf718d

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hidden-tax-hikes-trumps-tax-cut-plan-202041809.html

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/republicans-700-million-problem-could-173027048.html

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/trumps-tax-plan-just-got-180000645.html

The MoneyGeek thanks guest writer Bob Veres for his contribution to this post