As I have written before: Avoiding Hedge Fund Investments is One of the Benefits of Being in the 99%.

This is pretty well understood by most knowledgeable investors, financial planners and investing experts. But funds that charge huge fees continue to get away with it. If you are smart you will avoid them. A few simple investing rules get you well into the top 10% of investors

• seek low fees
• diversify – pay attention to risk of portfolio overall
• limit trading (low turnover)
• use tax advantage accounts wisely (in the USA 401(k)s and IRAs)

From a personal finance perspective, saving money is a key. Most people fail at being decent investors before they even get a chance to invest by spending more than they can afford and failing to save, and even worse going into debt (other than to some extent for college education and house). Consistently putting aside 10-20% of your income and investing wisely will put you in good shape over the long term.

Warren Buffett put his money (a tiny bit for him, just $1 million) on the idea that hedge funds can’t outperform the market given the huge fees they charge. After 6 years he is well up on his bet with his pick (Vanguard S&P 500 index soundly beating a portfolio of hedge funds selected by the opponent in the bet).

I do wonder at what point the huge amount of index investing creates opportunities that can be exploited profitably. I actually think that point has been passed. The question now is can you profitably and reliably find active investing managers that are wise and charge relatively low fees? Passive investing may now account for over 60% of investments in the market.

Also in certain market environments where the market is likely to ignore useful data (bubbles or fads) or where data is questionable and smart digging can provide useful and profitable insight (China may fit this idea now – I pay for actively managed Templeton developing market funds and have for 20 years, I also have Vanguard developing market index type fund – VWO). I think most investors should primarily use index funds (REITs, etc.) but I think the prospects for investors picking their own stocks may be better as more investing is based solely on index funds mass buying and selling.

I am worried about the price level of the overall market now. I am less worried about some stocks; this means I am more comfortable holding Apple, Google, Toyota, Abbie etc. (not so much – Amazon) than I am the S&P 500 right now.

Related: Trying to Beat the Stock Market – Lazy Golfer Portfolio Allocation

Volatile stocks with frequent news provide the opportunity to make money on large changes in price. Amazon is a company an Amazon that often makes headlines. Recently, they have been in the news quite a bit, and savvy binary options traders have been cleaning up.

Binary options are a type of option in which the payoff can take only two possible outcomes. The cash-or-nothing binary option pays some fixed amount of cash if the option expires in-the-money while the asset-or-nothing pays the value of the underlying security.

For example, a purchase is made of a binary cash-or-nothing call option on Amazon at $320 with a binary payoff of $1000. Then, if at the future maturity date, the stock is trading at or above $320, $1000 is received. If its stock is trading below $100, nothing is received. An investor could also sell a put where they would make a payoff if the conditions are met and have to payoff nothing if the conditions are not met.

Examples of big news in the recent past

Amazon Fire Cell Phone – Earlier this year, we watched as Jeff Bezos unveiled the new Amazon Fire 3-D cell phone. As happens in most cases when a company unveils a great new product, we saw this cell phone cause Amazon’s stock price to go through the roof. So, as a trader, seeing the unveiling happen first hand would indicate that the value of Amazon was going to rise, and give the trader unique opportunity to make trades on realistic expectations with this asset.

Jeff Bezos spending spree – The day following the unveiling of the Amazon Fire 3-D cell phone, we watched as Amazon’s stock price plummeted. Why? Well, investors were putting pressure on Amazon to stop the overwhelming spending spree they’ve been on investing in new products and fulfillment centers. And this continues the long term trend of Amazon delaying earnings to invest in the long term. The stock price has done very well, though under some pressure the last year. The level of spending was just too much for some investors.

Jeff Bezos announced that although he understands that the amount of spending is a bit overwhelming, he feels as though it’s necessary for long term production. In the same announcement, he explained that as a result of that spending, Amazon would be generating a loss for the quarter and most likely the next. Because investors don’t buy in on losses, this presented an opportunity to make successful “Put” trades.

Amazon unveils a book subscription service – A couple of weeks ago, Amazon announced a new, “unlimited” (though limited to participating publishers which leaves out many, probably most, popular books) eBook subscription that gave users access to hundreds of thousands of book titles. As a result, the following day we saw a decent increase in Amazon’s stock price. As with the Amazon Fire 3-D cell phone, this presented traders with an opportunity to make informed, successful trades.

Amazon’s Binary Options Candelstick Chart- Source: Yahoo Finance

Earnings reports – Earnings reports offer the ideal window to make some profits, and when Amazon  released its second quarter earnings report, the resulting down trend, was a binary options trader’s dream. Based on the investments into new products and fulfillment centers, investors expected a loss similar to the drop in net income in April 2011. However, they didn’t expect for losses to be so large. In their Q2 earnings report, Amazon posted a loss of $126 million. As a result, Friday brought a dramatic landslide to the Amazon stock chart with shares falling nearly $40 each.

Trading with the news can be very profitable

Although, we talk about Amazon, in this post – this strategy of trading with news, and following the trends that ensue can be applied to any stock. Every day, events happen, such as product launches, earning’s reports, changes to high level management, scandals, all these have an impact on the price of a stock, and if we are ready to trade as these events unfold in real-time, as traders we can make hay as the sun shines.

They key, is to have your finger on the pulse, stay abreast of daily events, and news stories that have a direct impact on stocks, and be ready to trade on the back of them.

Related: Selling Covered Call Options – Google to Let Workers Sell Options Online

This is another interesting portfolio choice. I have discussed my thoughts on portfolio choices several times. This one is again a bit bond heavy for my tastes. I like the global nature of this one. I like real estate focus – though as mentioned in previous articles how people factor in their personal real estate (home and investments) needs to be considered.

Related: Cockroach Portfolio – Lazy Golfer Portfolio – Investment Risk Matters Most as Part of a Portfolio, Rather than in Isolation – Looking for Dividend Stocks in the Current Extremely Low Interest Rate Environment

The situations have many differences, for example, China is a poor country growing rapidly, Japan was a rich country growing little (though in 1990 it showed more growth promise than today). Still this one of the more interesting pieces of data on how much a bubble China real estate has today. Japan suffered more than 2 decades of stagnation and one factor was the problems created by the real estate price bubble.

The global economic consequences of the extremely risky actions taken to bail out the failed too-big-too-fail banks including the massive quantitative easing are beyond anyones ability to really understand. We hope they won’t end badly that is all it amounts to. Noone can know how risky the actions to bail out the bankers is. The fact we not only bailed them out, but showered many billions of profit onto them (even after taking billions in fines for the numerous and continuing violations of law by those bailed out bankers), leaves me very worried.

It seems to me we have put enormous risk on and the main beneficiaries of the policies are the bankers that caused the mess and continue to violate laws without any consequences (other than taking a bit of the profit them make on illegal moves back sometimes).

I hope things work out. But I fear the extremely risky behavior by the central banks and politicians could end more badly than we can even imagine.

Related: Continuing to Nurture the Too-Big-To-Fail Eco-system – The Risks of Too Big to Fail Financial Institutions Have Only Gotten Worse – USA Congress Further Aids The Bankers Giving Those Politicians Piles of Cash and Risks Economic Calamity Again – Investment Options Are Much Less Comforting Than Normal These Days

I think sites like oDesk provide a potentially great way for people to lead productive and rewarding lives. They allow people far from rich countries to tap into the market demand in rich counties. They also allow people to have flexible work arrangements (if someone wants a part time job or to work from home that is fine).

These benefits are also true in the USA and other rich countries (even geography – there are many parts of the USA without great job markets, especially many rural areas). The biggest problem with rich country residents succeeding on something like oDesk is they need quite a bit more money than people from other countries to get by (especially in the USA with health care being so messed up). There are a great deal of very successful technology people on oDesk (and even just freelancing in other ways), but it is still a small group that is capable and lucky enough to pull in large paychecks (it isn’t only technology but that is the majority of high paying jobs I think on oDesk).

But in poor countries with still easily 2 billion and probably much more there is a huge supply of good workers. There is a demand for work to be done. oDesk does a decent job of matching these two but that process could use a great deal of improvement.

I think if I became mega rich one of the projects I would have would be to create an organization to help facilitate those interested in internet based jobs in poor countries to make a living. It takes hard work. Very good communication is one big key to success (I have repeatedly had problems with capable people just not really able to do what was expected in communications). I think a support structure to help with that and with project management would be very good. Also to help with building skills.

If I were in a different place financially (and I were good at marketing which I am not) I would think about creating a company to do this profitably. The hard part for someone in a rich country to do this is that either they have to take very little (basically do it as charity) or they have to take so much cash off the top that I think it makes it hard to build the business.

But building successful organizations that can grow and provide good jobs to those without many opportunities but who are willing to work is something I value. I did since I was a kid living in Nigeria (for a year). I didn’t see this solution then but the idea of economic well being and good jobs and a strong economy being the key driver to better lives has always been my vision.

This contrast to many that see giving cash and good to those in need as good charity. I realize sometimes that is what is needed – especially in emergencies. But the real powerful change comes from strong economy providing people the opportunity to have a great job.

I share Dr. Deming’s personal aim was to advance commerce, prosperity and peace.

Related: Commerce Takes More People Out of Poverty Than Aid – Investing in the Poorest of the Poor – I am a big fan of helping improve the economic lives of those in the world by harnessing appropriate technology and capitalism – A nonprofit in Queens taught people to write iPhone apps — and their incomes jumped from $15k to $72k

I realize some people see risk in what sites like oDesk make possible to create a market that means people can’t earn a decent living. I do actually see that risk and think it is real. I don’t think trying to block commerce because of this risk is an effective strategy. I do think many millions of people can be helped (and some will be hurt). I think we are better off trying to help those that want to work in such a way to do so.

I do worry that we may well not have decent work for people that are not interested in highly valuable skills and/or are not willing to work (just expect to be given the rich life many of those in places like the USA got to have the last 70 years without much effort). As long as we have corrupt politicians selling out the country to those giving them cash the richest 20% in the USA will have huge trust funds to live off, so they will be rich. Those that aren’t living off trust funds or inheriting huge windfalls will have risks to survive.

They are still economically super lucky to have been born in the USA so I don’t really feel very sorry for them. But yes, there are real risks to the easy riches that we have had (and even so many in the USA struggled even while we have the richest middle class the world has ever seen in the richest country the world ever saw). But it is going to be harder going forward (at least comparatively to the rest of the world contemporaneously) – compared to the struggles people had 100 years ago I am not at all sure it will be more difficult for the average kid born in 2010 than it was for the average kid born in 1910 (especially if average doesn’t mean white boy but everyone and both boys and girls).

The correct decision depends on your personal financial situation and your life expectancy. The social security payment increases are based on life expectancy for the entire population but if your life expectancy is significantly different that can change what option makes sense for you. If you live a short time you won’t make up for missing payments (the time while you delayed taking payments) with the increased monthly payment amount.

The “normal social security retirement age” is set in law and depends on when you were born. If you were born prior to 1938 it is 65 and if you are born after 1959 it is 67 (in between those dates it slowly increases. Those born in 1959 will reach the normal social security retirement age of 67 in 2026.

The social security retirement age has fallen far behind demographic trends – which is why social security deductions are so large today (it used to be social security payments for the vast majority of people did not last long at all – they died fairly quickly, that is no longer the case). The way to cope with this is either delay the retirement ago or increase the deductions. The USA has primarily increased the deductions, with a tiny adjustment of the retirement age (increasing it only 2 years over several decades). We would be better off if they moved back the normal retirement age at least another 3 to 5 years (for the payment portion – given the broken health care system in the USA retaining medicare ages as they are is wise).

In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month (6.7% annually) before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month (5% annually).

For delaying your payments after you have reached normal social security retirement age increases payments by 8% annually (there were lower amounts earlier but for people deciding today that is the figure to use).

Lets take a quick look at a simple example:

Social security increases the monthly payment each year by the calculated inflation rate – I am going to ignore that in the example (to make my life easier).

Lets say your normal retirement age is 65 and your calculated monthly payment was $1,000. If you start collecting at age 65, after 13 years you have received $156,000. If you delayed for 2 years and started collecting when you were 67 after 11 years of payments (so to the same age of 78) you have received $153,965 (and your monthly payment each month is 16% higher than under the original scenario – so the longer you live the more you make).

So in this example it takes a bit over 13 years to break even for delaying by 2 years (while in reality thing are a bit more complicated this is a decent estimate). The life expectancy of for a man in the USA at age 65 is 19 years and for a woman is 21 years. So on average people will make a great deal more by delaying the start of social security payments, given the current rules (Congress can change the rules so this may change in the future). If someone is sickly and unlikely to live to the standard life expectancy that may mean delaying the start of payments is not a wise move.

One of the great benefits of delaying the payments is that the higher payments until death addresses a big risk in retirement planning – outliving your savings. Since you may have hundreds of more dollars every month for decades that decreases the amount you have to dip into your retirement principle. Since we don’t know how long we will live, a higher monthly annuity payment will provide the most benefit at the time when you face the largest risk for retirement planning, that of outliving your savings. It provides a bit of insurance against outliving your savings – or at least pushes the date at which that happens further into the future.

Can you pass a Social Security test?

Related: How Much of Current Income to Save for Retirement – Top Nations for Retirement Security of Their Citizens (USA is 19th) – Save What You Can, Increase Savings as You Can Do So – 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Social Security (USA) Disability Insurance – Our Only Hope: Retiring Later

Take this 8 question social security quiz to test out your knowledge.

I don’t really agree with this but I think it is an interesting read. And I do agree the standard stock/bond/cash portfolio model is not good enough.

I would rather own real estate than gold. I doubt I would ever have more than 5% gold and only would suggest that if someone was really rich (so had money to put everywhere). Even then I imagine I would balance it with investments in other commodities.

One of the many problems with “stock” allocations is that doesn’t tell you enough. I think global exposure is wise (to some extent S&P 500 does this as many of those companies have huge international exposure – still I would go beyond that). Also I would be willing to take some stock in commodities type companies (oil and gas, mining, real estate, forests…) as a different bucket than “stocks” even though they are stocks.

And given the super low interest rates I see dividend paying stocks as an alternative to bonds.

The Cockroach Portfolio does suggest only government bonds (and is meant for the USA where those bonds are fairly sensible I think) but in the age of the internet many of my readers are global. It may well not make sense to have a huge portion of your portfolio in many countries bonds. And outside the USA I wouldn’t have such a large portion in USA bonds. And they don’t address the average maturity (at least in this article) – I would avoid longer maturities given the super low rates now. If rates were higher I would get some long term bonds.

View of Glacier National Park, from Bears Hump Trail in Waterton International Peace Park in Canada, by John Hunter

These adjustments mean I don’t have as simple a suggestion as the cockroach portfolio. But I think that is sensible. There is no one portfolio that makes sense. What portfolio is wise depends on many things.

I think something along the lines of this would make sense today for someone living in the USA (but I would vary it a fair bit depending on the person’s situation and it would change in different market conditions)

• 35% Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX)
• 15% Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX)
• 10% Vanguard emerging markets fund (VWO), or something similar
• 20% high quality “dividend aristocrat” type stocks
• 10% REIT Index Fund (VGSIX) or direct real estate ownership
• 5% bonds
• 5% cash

I would likely go a bit higher for real estate with direct ownership. As the portfolio was approaching the time withdrawals would be made (retirement) I would want real estate investments to be substantially cash flow positive (and leverage to be limited – hopefully under 50%). I would like primary residence to be without a mortgage or with a very small mortgage.

If I was drawing substantial income from the portfolio I would likely increase cash to at least 3 years of projected need (though even this gets a bit fuzzy as adjusting for expected interest and dividends makes sense to me).

I’m willing to include dividend stocks that don’t meet the dividend aristocrat rules but are similar: (ABBV, INTC even AAPL). I would consider including a bit in pipeline MLPs such as OKS (higher current yields but likely less growth).

Related: Lazy Golfer Portfolio Allocation – Sleep Well Fund Results – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – How to Protect Your Financial Health

Amazon reported earning that were once again very short on earnings given how successful the company has been. Net income increased to $239 million for the 4th quarter (which is by far Amazon’s most profitable quarter since it includes the Christmas buying season) from $97 million last year.

Amazon Prime costs $79 a year (in the USA) and provides free 2 day shipping and access to their streaming video content. Amazon doesn’t disclose the numbers of prime members (that I can find anyway) but educated guesses seem to say 20 million (or more). That would be $1.6 billion a year.

Amazon’s net income for the full year was $274 million. Fees for Prime customers were $1.6 billion (at 20 million members). Amazon is considering raising the Prime price to $99 or $129 a year (25-50%).

While not directly comparable to Costco it is similar. Both are running much of their business just to break even (or at a loss) and Costco manages to take membership fees as profit (along with a very tiny profit on everything else) while Amazon doesn’t even come close to running the rest of their business at break even.

Now you can look at the two fees and say it isn’t the same. Amazon has to pay for shipping on each of the purchases etc. Still it is an odd strategy of charing customers an annual fee and then providing them services almost like a co-op that runs at break even for members.

I really like lots of what Jeff Bezos does. He goes even farther than I do at prioritizing long term benefit over current profit. I can’t think of any other leader that does that and he isn’t really close to me in how far he goes.

Beyond that long term thinking he is much more sensible about financial figures than the extremely over simplified (and even often just wrong) ideas spouted by other CEOs and CFOs. The quarterly report release form the company starts with:

Bezos understand (and makes sure that the company explains) that operating cash flow is a much better measure in many ways than earnings. Bezos is willing to take many actions to bolster long term gains which often hurt current earnings (and also cash flow though he is less willing to drastically undermine cash flow).

Reading reports from Amazon over the years you get the feeling of reading reports from Warren Buffett. The thinking behind the reports both make is very rare among the rest of the senior leadership of our large corporation (who sadly take huge paychecks while providing mediocre leadership or often worse than mediocre).

I love the prospects for Amazon, as a company. I continue to be frustrated by the price of the stock – it is priced so highly it is difficult for me to justify buying. I do hold it in my paper sleep well portfolio, but I am definitely worried about the price. But I see very little else nearly as compelling and on balance find it an attractive, though risky, investment. I see Apple as an extremely good buy at these prices. I see Google more similar to Amazon – very nice prospects but also a very richly priced stock (though I think much more reasonably priced, all things considered, than Amazon).

Related: Amazon Keeps Spending, Sales Growing But Not Income – Google is Diluting Shareholder Equity – Another Great Quarter for Amazon (2007) – Is Google Overpriced? (2007)

Thankfully SEC rules forced disclosure of such financial games in the last few years. Still “Wall Street” often promotes the earnings which pretend though employee costs that are paid with stock instead of cash are not costs to the business.

Google is cash flow positive by billions every quarter. Yet they have issued over 1% more stock each year.

Outstanding share balances in millions of shares

This means Google has given away over 5.2% of a shareholder’s ownership from January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2013. If you owned 100 shares at the end of 2010 you owned .000315% of the company. At the end of the period your ownership had been diluted to .000300% of the company.

When the stock value is rising rapidly (as Google’s has) it proves to be much more costly than if the company had just paid cash in the first place. In Google’s case you would own 5% more of the company and the cash stockpile Google had would be a bit lower (Google had $56,523,000,000 in cash at the end of Sep 2013).

For companies that don’t have cash (startups) paying employees with stock options makes sense. When companies have the cash it is mainly a way to hide how much the company is giving away to executives and to provide fake earnings where only a portion of employee pay is treated as an expense and the rest is magically ignored making earnings seem higher.

Related: Apple’s Outstanding Shares Increased a Great Deal the Last Few Years, Diluting Shareholder Equity – Global Stock Market Capitalization from 2000 to 2012 – Investment Options Are Much More Confusing to Chose From Now – Google up 13% on Great Earnings Announcement (2011)

Since April of 2005 the portfolio Marketocracy calculated annualized rate or return is 8.2% (the S&P 500 annualized return for the period is 7.8%). Marketocracy subtracts the equivalent of 2% of assets annually to simulate management fees – as though the portfolio were a mutual fund. Without that fee the return beats the S&P 500 annual return by about 240 basis points annually (10.2% to 7.8%). And I think the 240 basis point “beat” of the S&P rate is really less than a fair calculation, as the 200 basis point “deduction” removes what would be assets that would be increasing.

In reviewing the data it seemed to me the returns for TDF and EMF were too low. In examining the Marketocracy site they seem to have failed to credit dividends paid since 2010 (which are substantial – over 15% of the current value has been paid in dividends that haven’t been credited). I have written Marketocracy about the apparent problem. If I am right, the total return for the portfolio likely will go up several tens of basis points, maybe – perhaps to a 10.5% return? And the returns for those 2 positions should increase substantially.

Since the last update I have added Abbvie (part of the former Abbot which was split into two companies in 2013). I will sell TDF from the fund (I include it in the table below, since I haven’t sold it all yet).

The current stocks, in order of return:

The current marketocracy results can be seen on the Sleep Well marketocracy portfolio page.

Related: 12 Stocks for 10 Years: January 2012 Update – May 2013 portfolio update – 12 Stocks for 10 Years, July 2009 Update

I make some adjustments to the stock holdings over time (selling of buying a bit of the stocks depending on large price movements – this rebalances and also lets me sell a bit if I think things are getting highly priced. So I have sold some Amazon and Google as they have increased greatly. These purchases and sales are fairly small (resulting in a annual turnover rate under 5%).

I will likely sell out the Tesco position this year (I would like to see a higher price before selling) and may sell PetroChina.

While I am very positive on the companies that I have set the largest holdings for I am less strongly positive on the rest of the stocks (compared the the top stocks now, and compared to the rest of the stocks 5 years ago). This is the reason for a much more unbalanced position size than at the beginning. I am uncomfortable with the price of Amazon but still very much like the company. if I had better candidates in the 2nd tier I would likely reduce the Amazon position size.

I would still consider replacing PetroChina and replacing or eliminating Pfizer. I like both sectors more than I like the companies themselves. Still as part of the portfolio I think they are valuable. I would like a bit more exposure to commodities but I haven’t found the right company to add to this (RYN can help some in the commodities area – they own large amounts of forest land).

I am not altogether thrilled with ABBV, it is very reliant on one huge drug that is losing patent protection (though how big the impact will be is debatable – for various reasons). The company is also not as cheaply priced as I would like, but given all the alternatives adding it makes more sense than not doing so.

In order to comply with the marketocracy diversification rules and deal with not being able to buy Tesco (in marketocracy) I own fairly small amounts of several other stocks in the portfolio (that are included in the marketocracy return). I only have: RYN and USG (less than of portfolio 1% each).

* In order to track performance created a marketocracy portfolio but had to make some minor adjustments (and marketocracy doesn’t allow Tesco to be purchased, though it is easily available as an ADR to anyone in the USA to buy in real life – it is based in England). The portfolio has 7% in cash (only 4% if you figure 3% of the portfolio is in Tesco but not shown in Marketocracy).
** Tesco had a purchase price of $22.55 on Dec 11th 2006 and has paid approximately 40 cents a year in dividends. The current price is $16.84.
*** as noted above TDF and EMF are likely showing lower than actual returns as large dividends from 2010-2013 are not being credited properly.