Defining Sophistication: Investing and Knowledgeable Investors

Leonardo da Vinci once said: “It had long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things.” He also is quoted as suggesting that “simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”. The second statement cancels the first when you think about investing. It’s true that you do need to take a risk and be willing to suffer the consequences of those decisions. Accomplished people will be the first to tell you that they have lost, often on numerous occasions, before they ever won.

As to the second statement: go ahead and try and do what Leonardo did. Yet everyday, we try and do what accomplished investor do. And on a regular basis, within the trading community, the mention of the sophisticated investor suggest some line between those who can and those who should not. Defining your own sophistication is much like defining your risk tolerance, albeit more elegantly.

Of late, it has been this delineation of investment style or belief that these two groups of investors exist for the benefit of the other, a sort of predator/prey relationship. To be more sophisticated, one must have the less-sophisticated to feast upon. Investing is not and never has been a mutually beneficial arrangement. One trade has two sides and one of those sides believes, without any doubt, it knows what the other side of that trade does not. The “knowledgeable investor” may be on both sides of the trade in an irony that keeps this market forever fascinating.

Perhaps one of the most obvious indication of this sophistication is the debate between exchange traded fund investors and those who use a more traditional method of growing their investments, the mutual fund investor. The two types of investments have created numerous side by side comparisons (and I am guilty in the name of financial education of having done that on more than one occasion). But they are and even when the surface is pulled back and the soft underbelly exposed, very similar.

Both are run by a manager, a sophisticated individual or team of or computer or sometimes all three, who picks an index to mimic or a sector to buy. With this in mind, they name their endeavor, crack a bottle fo champagne across the bow and set sail in the marketplace. To purchase the mutual fund, you need only to enroll in the available retirement plan at work or open and IRA with a mutual fund company. There are minimums sometimes but there is no cost to buy a certain number of shares. Reinvesting is just as easy and any gains can be reinvested as well.

The ETF is traded like a stock. Only it isn’t. And here is where the sophistication of the investor begins. Or does it? A stock always has a bid and ask price. And while an ETF does as well, the changes in those two crucial pieces of information suggest that the professional trader is even a bit confused about which price is the right price. For the un-sophisticated investor, the mutual fund investor who is wondering whether an ETF or five would be better than what they are investing in, the first alarm just rang.

The bid/ask relationship is not that hard to comprehend. A bid is exactly what it suggests: your willingness to buy a stock at a certain price that you feel is correct and the the ask is what the seller believes is right. The closer these two get to one another, the more a trader believes that what they know is a good as what the seller knows. In an ETF, something else is at work.

While the vast majority of ETFs available to investors are considered indexed, a much smaller amount exist as the indexes we can readily purchase from any fund family in the form of large cap, S&P 500 funds. ETFs have indexed not only those well-known published indexed. They have created their own. And in doing so, they have made sophisticated investors think twice. An ETF may not be able to index the sector they have chosen in part because of the illiquidity of some of the companies.

That means the the ETF is what is known as a derivative security. This should give even sophisticated investors a reason to pause. This simply means that the underlying investments are changing all-day long and because of that repricing, know one can say for sure, at any one moment in time, what the ETF is worth. The National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) attempts to do this and for the most part, they can. But until the final bell rings, it is a guess at any one second. For the mutual fund investor, your investment of cash buys the exact price of what is in the fund.

Sophisticated investors, the folks who know how to win and also how to lose, understand a few things about ETFs. They trade a lot. On some days, they make up half the volume. They also have, under the plain monicker of index, sliced the market into so many chunks, unless you have very good information, and even the sophisticated don’t know all of the things about an ETF all of the time, the risk will be higher than you assume.

Sophisticated investors know that regular investing over time, the old school dollar cost averaging method employed by your 401(k) at work, works best. It’s been proven and the sophisticated trader knows this. But they ignore it and novice ETF investors will as well. It’s a stock or it trades like one and therefore, needs to be traded. These costs can strip away any beneficial comparison this investment might have had.

So if you know yourself and how to make money over the long-term, you may be more sophisticated than the ETF investor who shuns the potential risk, ignores the possible cost, and considers the relevant trading info as white noise. While mutual funds seem staid and poised for the possible dethronement, it won’t happen soon. The mutual fund investor may turn out to be the sophisticated investor after-all. Because it isn’t who makes the most money,; it is who keeps what they’ve made the longest.

For the opportunity to buy something that has an underlying portfolio that is priced throughout the day (mutual funds are priced at the close), one must open a brokerage account. Admittedly, many brokers are allowing investors free-trades in ETFs but often downplay the needed account balance to do so.

On the Radio with Brad Thomas

As Will Rogers once said: “Don’t wait to buy land, they aren’t making any more of it.” But we have developed it making the ground far more valuable and those who own what’s on it, in some instances richer because of it. Over the last couple of days we have focused on your immediate real estate. While your home is not an investment per se, it is often considered one. Owning a hundred homes, or a shopping center or an office tower is an investment. The roof over your head, not so much an investment as a stewardship. You pay for it, you fix it up, you might even spend your entire life in it but at some point, you pass it on to the next owners. And you care for it in that manner, improving it so it is saleable to those next in line.

Today on the Financial Impact Factor Radio with Paul Petillo, Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng, we have someone who has focused his career on real estate as an investment: Brad Thomas. Mr. Thomas researches and writes on a variety of real estate based fixed- income alternatives including both publicly-traded and non-traded REITs or real estate investment trusts. He has a broad background in capitalization and sustainable net lease investing. Mr. Thomas currently writes weekly articles for Seeking Alpha and Forbes where he maintains “real time” research on many of the equity REITs and retailers.

Among the topics Brad explained included the risk of owning these investments, how they are structured and the dividends they offer, how to analyze their worth and most importantly, how these investments react to various economic forces. REITs have been around for over five decades and are a widely suggested part of a diversified portfolio.

This is a must listen show for not only the curious investor but those looking to better understand the subject of REIT investments.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts:
Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

The show is broadcast daily, online at 6amPST/9amEST.

A Closer Look at Homeownership

I thought that today on the Financial Impact Factor Radio we would switch gears a bit and talk about something that plays a significant role in what defines us as Americans: our homes. Ellen Thomas once suggested: “”Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for – in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car, and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it.”

It is still a popular notion that the real arrival to adulthood isn’t obtaining credit, managing your personal finances, or even investing and saving for retirement: it is owning a home. And that emotional journey should be anything but emotional. It is without a doubt, the single biggest obligation we will commit ourselves to and in doing so, tighten the knot around the neck of our future plans.

We often think of money in a cold, calculated sort of way. But the money we spend on a house removes that cold calculation with the emotion we bring to the process. In almost every instance, buying a home depends on the visceral appeal of the place we are buying or looking to buy.

There are a couple of considerations we should entertain before we even begin the process, considerations that will play into the process after-the-fact. Housing is cheap, we’ve been told with home prices lower than they have been in almost a decade. That doesn’t make a home affordable. But because of the emotion we bring to the process, we will do everything we possibly can to make the transaction work.

Do many of us consider what a mortgage is? Under early English and U.S. law, the mortgage was treated as a complete transfer of title from the borrower to the lender. The lender was entitled not only to payments of interest on the debt but also to the rents and profits of the real estate. This meant that as far as the borrower was concerned, the real estate was of no value, that is, “dead,” until the debt was paid in full—hence the Norman-English name “mort” (dead), “gage” (pledge). Based on that, isn’t the term homeowner a bit of an oxymoron?

That said, how do we find the emotional middle ground between the reality of what we can afford and what is our concept of a home?

Most of us know exactly how much it costs us to live. We may not have written it down on paper or mapped it out in excel, but we know what our rent is, what our expenses are and how that fits in week over week with our paychecks. This exercise may show what money people like to call either a positive position or free cash flow or a negative one, where we service debt that might be in excess of our take-home pay. Adjusting that for many will be the first step to either dashing those dreams or offering some potential that you might actually be able to buy a house.

We often refer to the cost-of-living in inflationary terms. It costs x-amount of dollars to live in a particular city and you know it might be less expensive to live elsewhere – but this is where you work, where your friends and family live – and you don’t want to move just to buy something more affordable. In some cases, renting might be your best option.

When the two a put side-by-side, houses tend to cost more. Renting can put you closer to work, give you more mobility and perhaps allow you to do so without a car. If the neighbors are not to your liking, you can pack up your belongings and look for friendlier environments. Once you are in a house, and many people across the country can attest to this, you are stuck. That is an emotional weight we often dismiss when we first set that home-buying goal.

So we tell ourselves that a home is an investment. It’s not – at least in the clinical sense of the word investment. It can’t be liquidated with any ease. We even misconstrue the word equity suggesting it is profit. Even people who have homes – with positive market value – still think of their home in terms of the difference as profit on the purchase. And we do so without calculating, in cold hard numbers, the cost of getting it to the point that it is worth more than you owe.

Once in a home, the cost of living changes. Suppose you want to remodel the kitchen in that $250,000 home you just bought. Chances are you will look at the cost of the remodel in the following terms: If it costs $40,000 to redo a kitchen, you tend to suggest that the house is now worth $290,000. When in fact, this is the new cost of the house. Anything north of that figure is equity. And equity, for lack of a better term, is simply a dividend.

This is the first of a three part conversation on Financial Impact Factor Radio we are having on homeownership ending on Friday with a visit from Brad Thomas, Forbes and Seeking Alpha columnist to discuss REITs (Real Estate Investment Trust).

So take a moment and listen to this show as a primer to what will follow on the next couple of days.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts:
Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

The show is broadcast daily, online at 6amPST/9amEST.