One problem with investing in mutual funds is potential tax bills. If the fund has invested well and say bought Google at $150 and then Google was at $700 (a few years ago) there is the potential tax liability of the $550 gain per share. So if funds have been successful (which is one reason you may want to invest in them) they often have had a large potential tax liability.
With an open end mutual fund the price is calculated each day based on the net asset value, which is fair but really the true value if there is a large potential tax liability is less than if there was none. So in reality you had to believe the management would outperform enough to make up for the extra taxes that would be owed.
Well, the drastic stock market decline over the last few years has turned this upside down and many mutual funds actual have tax losses that they have realized (which can be used to offset future capital gains). Say the fund had realized capital losses of $30,000,000 last year. Then if they have capital gains of $20,000,000 next year they can use the losses from last year and will not report any taxable capital gains. And the next year the first $10,000,000 in capital gains would be not table either. Business Week, had an article on this recently – Big Losers Can Be Big Tax Shelters
…
Yet it is Miller’s newer charge, Legg Mason Opportunity, which holds stocks of all sizes and can take short positions, that will prove to be the real tax haven. Morningstar pegs its losses at 285% of its $1.2 billion in assets.
…
There are other funds with returns so ugly and losses so large that it may not matter what their trading style is for many years: Fidelity Select Electronics (FSELX), -539%; MFS Core Equity A, -369%; Janus Worldwide (JAWWX), -304%; Vanguard U.S. Growth (VWUSX), -227%.
How does a fund have over 100% tax losses? The way I can think of is if they have a great deal of redemptions. If the fund shrinks in size from a $3 billion fund to a $300 million fund they could have a 50% realized capital loss (down to $750 million) but then another $450 million in redemptions). Now the $300 million has a $750 million capital loss or 250%.
Related: Shorting Using Inverse Funds – Lazy Portfolio Results – Does a Declining Stock Market Worry You? – Asset Allocations Make A Big Difference
Group of Rich Americans Sues UBS to Keep Names Secret in Tax Case
…
The lawsuit, which UBS described in an internal memo late Tuesday, stems from UBS’s agreement last week to turn over to federal authorities in Washington the names of 250 wealthy Americans suspected of using secret UBS offshore accounts and entities to evade taxes.
UBS reached a $780 million deferred-prosecution agreement to settle accusations that it used undisclosed offshore private banking services to help wealthy Americans evade taxes. But the bank is still under scrutiny by the Justice Department, which is seeking to force it to disclose the names of the 52,000 American clients it suspects may have evaded taxes.
So how many of these people will be serving time in jail do you think. Lets say for example, they ended up stealing $10,000 from the US government by evading taxes. Now UBS has to worry about the Swiss laws on disclosing information. But for the Americans all they are doing is trying to cover up a crime they committed. Do you think they will be punished for the crime in the first place? What about for trying to cover up the crime after the fact? The lack of moral fiber of so many rich in the USA is disheartening. I hope those that tried to steal from all the rest of us, and then tried to cover up their crimes, are thrown in jail at least as long as an average criminal that is young and poor that steals the amount they did and then tries to prevent witnesses from providing evidence to the Justice Department. And not in some country club jail either. But I doubt they will be. More rich people act ethically than those that don’t, but the number that are outrageously unethical is far too high.
Related: Super Spoiled Brats – Why Pay Taxes or be Honest – Estate Tax Repeal – CEOs Plundering Corporate Coffers
Feds Rethink Rules on Retirement Savings
Among the possible changes: allowing taxpayers to delay taking required withdrawals from their individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and other similar accounts this year — or at least reducing the amount that must be withdrawn. Also under consideration are various ways to provide tax relief for people who already have made their required withdrawals for this year.
This is silly. Everyone in the situation of having to make a withdrawal has know about the requirement for years. My guess is this has been the law for over 20 years. Yes, the stock market is down. Yes, being forced to sell now would be bad. And how does providing “tax relief” to those who already made required withdrawals make any sense? Why not just have the treasury send checks to every American, who had a loss on an investment this year, equal to the amount of their loss? (By the way this is sarcasm – they should not really do that). These people have lost any sense of what investing, planning, responsibly… are.
First, knowing you have required withdrawals from your IRA, you should not hold those assets in stock (I suppose you could have significant cash assets outside your IRA and chose to just use the next option). Second, you can buy the stock outside your IRA at the same minute you sell them in the IRA. What is the big deal: the cost should be about $20 in stock commission for each stock – you save that much each time you fill up your gas tank lately (compared to prices this summer). All that not having to withdraw funds does is let those wealthy enough not to need a small amount of their IRA or 401(k) savings by the time they are 70 1/2 to keep deferring taxes on their investment gains.
Therein lies one of the major problems. This year’s distributions are based on Dec. 31, 2007, levels — a time when market prices generally were far above today’s deeply depressed values. As a result, “millions of Americans are forced to withdraw larger-than-anticipated amounts from already-depleted retirement funds,” says David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP, an advocacy group that represents nearly 40 million older Americans.
What kind of 1984 newspeak is this? I mean this is absolutely ridicules. You have to withdraw the exact amount you knew on January 1st 2008. Nothing about that has changed in almost a year. How can the Wall Street Journal report this without pointing out the completely false claim.
Read more
The USA national debt decreased almost $1 billion yesterday. If it decreased by $1 billion dollars a day in just 10,526 days the USA government would be out of debt. That is just under 29 years, that doesn’t seem so bad. Unfortunately the decrease yesterday is not likely the start of a new trend (it is just daily variation).
In the last month the debt is up over $580 Billion. At that rate, well lets just say if that rate continued long we would be in even more serious trouble than we have been placed in by the amazingly irresponsible behavior of the politicians increasing taxes on our grandchildren (with massive spending they chose to fund by huge tax increases on our grandchildren) have been doing the last 5 years. In the last year they have spent $1.46 Trillion more than they paid for (which will have to be paid for by future taxes – although the recent decision to purchase $125 billion in bank stocks perhaps opens another option for the the government to start buying companies and use profits they make to pay off the debt they are taking on).
The current debt stands at $10,525,823,144,117. That is a bit over $10.5 Trillion.
Related: True Level of USA Federal Deficit – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – Washington Paying Out Money it Doesn’t Have
Federal Deficit To Double This Year
…
The budget picture is likely to grow even bleaker once government analysts factor in the anticipated costs of the Treasury Department’s decision last weekend to take over struggling mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It is no surprise those that spend what they don’t have personally elect those that do the same thing for the nation. But as those that spend money they don’t have eventually realize you have to become responsible at some point.
Related: More Government Waste – True Level of USA Federal Deficit – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren
Foreclosure Filings Continue to Rise
…
last week the Mortgage Bankers Association reported that about 2.47 percent of home mortgages were in foreclosure during the first quarter of the year, almost double the 1.28 percent rate of a year earlier, and the highest point since the group began compiling such figures in 1979. A Credit Suisse report this spring predicted that 6.5 million loans will fall into foreclosure over the next five years, reaching more than 8 percent of all U.S. homes.
There numbers really are astounding. How lame were the decisions of banks and mortgagees that nearly 1 in 40 mortgages are in default (and that number likely increasing in the next year to much more?
Related: Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record (Sep 2007) – Homes Entering Foreclosure at Record – Ignorance of Many Mortgage Holders
What’s the real federal deficit? by Dennis Cauchon, 2006
…
The audited financial statement – prepared by the Treasury Department – reveals a federal government in far worse financial shape than official budget reports indicate, a USA Today analysis found. The government has run a deficit of $2.9 trillion since 1997, according to the audited number. The official deficit since then is just $729 billion.
…
The new Medicare prescription-drug benefit alone would have added $8 trillion to the government’s audited deficit. That’s the amount the government would need today, set aside and earning interest, to pay for the tens of trillions of dollars the benefit will cost in future years.
Standard accounting concepts say that $8 trillion should be reported as an expense. Combined with other new liabilities and operating losses, the government would have reported an $11 trillion deficit in 2004 – about the size of the nation’s entire economy.
The federal government also would have had a $12.7 trillion deficit in 2000 because that was the first year that Social Security and Medicare reported broader measures of the programs’ unfunded liabilities. That created a one-time expense.
The continued attempts by politicians to distract from the huge taxes they are voting to place on our children and grandchildren is disheartening. And the continued actions that are the equivilent of getting another credit card when they spend so much that even the “official” books that they have exceeded the allowable total federal debt that is damaging the economy. They need to learn how to live within the current taxes they collect just as people need to learn to live within their earning. Either that fails to do so mortgages their future.
Related: Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – Washington’s Funny Accounting – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals and On For Our Grandchildren – Failed Leadership: Estate Tax Repeal
Half of Gen X Doesn’t Expect to Retire
…
“They are earning money and paying into Social Security and yet they fear they may never see the payback,” said Moloney. “They feel they deserve it, but it looks like a financial black hole to them right now.”
The government certainly is failing to pay for future obligations today instead choosing to raise taxes on the future. But Social Security itself is actually in better shape than most think. We really do need to move out the benefit payment date (when it began projected life expectancy was almost the same as the date payments would start – which would mean moving the retirement date more than 15 years later, I believe). Going that far is not needed but it should be moved back. But really social security is in good shape for 30 years or more. First, it isn’t going to go from good shape to failed in a day. And second, they will make adjustments as they have in the past to make it work (the adjustment they made in the last 15 years helped a great deal so now they can just add some additional delays in when it starts paying out… and extend the good condition of Social Security without too much trouble).
Medicare is the huge problem. The country either needs to stop paying an extra 50-80% for health care than other countries do (and thus reduce the cost of Medicare liabilities) or massively cut benefits or massively increase taxes. Likely a combination of all 3.
Read more
What Should You Do With a Check Out of the Blue?
The USA government is sending out checks to taxpayers in an effort to encourage spending which in turn will provide stimulus to the economy in the very short term. First, this is bad policy in my opinion. Second, if you support this policy the precondition is you run surpluses in order to pay for it when you want to carry out such a policy. They have not, instead they have run huge deficits. What they have chosen to do is spend huge amounts and have the taxes paid by the children and grandchildren of those the politicians are spending the money on today. I would support Keynesian government spending in a serious recession or depression – just not for a country already with enormous debts and in a very mild recession.
But ok, so the government chooses to spend your children’s taxes foolishly, what should you do now? This is very easy. Whatever is the wisest move for your personal financial situation for any windfall you receive, regardless of the source of that windfall. If all your savings needs are met there is nothing wrong with buying some toy. But most people need to pay off debt, build an emergency fund, save for retirement or something similar not get another toy. Of course would be nothing wrong with donating it Kiva, Trickle Up, the Concord Coalition or your favorite charity.
The politicians are acting like a 5 year old that wants a new toy. I can too get the new toy now :-O, Mommy you can use your credit card. So what if you already bought me so many toys you couldn’t afford by using your other credit cards and they won’t lend you any more money. Just get another one. Similar to how congress recently yet again increased the allowable federal debt limit to over $9,000,000,000,000.
The stimulus effect of spending is that if you actually purchase a new toy (say a TV), then the store needs to replace that TV so the factory makes another TV… The store, shipper, factory, supplier to the factory all pay staff to carry this out, those staff can buy new books, dishwasher… and the business may buy a new forklift or computer to keep up…
Read more
I think a country that is more than $500,000 in debt per household should not send out checks to taxpayers to try pretend they are doing something to help the economy. Just as I wouldn’t think some family with $20,000 in credit card debt should fix the problem by taking the family on a new credit card financed vacation. But if you are going to do so, then take Dan Ariely’s advice: Stimulus options should be tested first. His blog post on the topic, Do we know enough to give stimulus packages?
The next question, of course, is which delivery method to select. Here behavioral economics has been instructive as well. In particular, years of research have demonstrated over and over that our intuitions about the relative effectiveness of different approaches are often wrong. Given that the method of delivery could make a large difference, and given that our intuitions about their relative effectiveness could be wrong, what should we do?
One answer is to conduct an experiment, as this is the only method we have for testing what really works and what is likely to fail. In the same way that we force drug companies to test the efficacy of their drugs before rolling them onto the market, shouldn’t we ask the government to first test their ideas before they invest billions of dollars of our tax money on some stimulus packages?
Related: Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – Charge It to My Kids – Google: Experiment Quickly and Often