A Tender Proposition

canstockphoto10553708

Investment owners sometimes receive confusing propositions in dense documents. We are talking about tender offers. Let’s cut through the fog.

A tender offer is when a buyer would like to purchase something you own for a specified price. There are three common types. Clients, many of you may be receiving tender offers now, of the first type:

1. Companies issue stocks and bonds to meet their needs at the time of issue. If the situation changes, they may want to buy those securities back from the public. For example, a company short of liquidity may issue bonds to raise cash. If they later have a more economical way to borrow, or simply want to pay down debt, they might try to buy those bonds back.

2. Sometimes an investment organization or hedge fund offers to buy shares in an unaffiliated public company.

3. Companies have obligations to each stockholder. Whether the stockholder owns a million shares or one share, the cost of providing annual reports and tracking proxy votes is the same. So companies sometimes offer to buy the shares of small holders, usually under 100 shares. These offers are called ‘odd-lot tenders.’

As a rule of thumb, be cautious when a stranger wants to buy something from you. A client once told me about an antique dealer wanting to buy one of her possessions. She said, “I knew one thing when he made that offer—it was worth more than that, or he wouldn’t have wanted it.” This could apply to the first two kinds of tenders.

If you own a small number of shares, you are under no obligation to sell them back in an odd-lot tender. You have the right to keep on owning your shares. The simple alternative is to just sell your shares any day if you no longer want them.

Tender offers may take away flexibility. Owners commit (‘tender’) their holdings. Then weeks or months later, they learn whether or not the tender will actually be completed. In the interim, the holding cannot be sold in the market and no money is received.

Clients, if you have questions about an offer you receive, please email us or call. We think it our job to understand those offers, and be available to talk about your situation.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

Working Like a Dog

© Can Stock Photo / mikdam

I am happy as a clam, working like a dog. Where did those sayings come from?

Who knows whether clams are happy or not? “Working like a dog” does not actually seem to be too taxing. (My dog Bailey mainly sleeps, eats, goes on walks and plays—he spends very little time coaching effective investing behavior, his only real job.)

I am obsessed with my work. It gets a lot of my energy but in turn energizes me. My long-held goal of working to age 92 shapes my habits—I can’t work to age 92 unless I live to age 92. This has an impact on what I eat, physical activity, sleep habits, and everything else that bears on health and wellbeing.

This may have a key benefit for clients. At an age when some people are coasting toward retirement, we are striving to build for the decades ahead, focused on the future. Our widely recognized new media presence at http://www.228Main.com and related social media venues are examples of that focus.

Two key things over the past decade have forged our enterprise into what it is today. In the interest of sustainability (working to age 92), Cathy and I adopted a snowbird schedule in 2010—spending parts of the winter in a warmer place. A few years after that, family health issues began to impact my travel schedule.

The snowbirding led to a conscious process of figuring out our most important activities and paring back the extraneous. Talking to you, researching investments, and managing portfolios are those key activities.

The schedule challenges made a necessity of learning to delegate. An entrepreneur cannot build a reliable organization unless she or he is willing to find good people and entrust them with vital aspects of the business. This is difficult for many—but I had no choice.

Together, these factors enabled us to build a focused, effective organization to serve you and other wonderful people. By striving to invest only with those who are a good fit philosophically, we have the same story for everyone. The efficiencies of having everybody on the same page are enormous.

So yes, I am working like a dog. And swimming most days, walking every day, eating healthy, enjoying family (now including grandkids!), appreciating my surroundings, loving Beautiful Downtown Louisville, and of course, grateful to be trusted by you to help with your plans and planning.

Clients, if you would like to discuss this or any other topic, please email us or call.

Related reading:
1. About challenges making us stronger: https://228main.com/2016/12/12/kiln-fired-personalities
2. About focus: https://228main.com/2017/10/02/focus-people
3. About the investment philosophy we share: https://228main.com/2016/05/25/niche-market-of-the-mind


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

Working? Here’s Some Basics.

© Can Stock Photo / pressmaster

What has been the biggest factor in helping people end up financially sound in retirement?

In our opinion, it is the availability of retirement plans in the workplace. This article is a primer on the high points. If you are on the job, this may be key information for you.

Employer-sponsored retirement plans have a number of features that may help people build wealth. They go by different names (401k, SEP, SIMPLE, 457, TSA, 403b etc.) but generally share these features:

1. Once you sign up, you invest automatically every payday. It takes no effort or thought month to month—you put your asset-building on autopilot when you enroll.

2. The arithmetic of pre-tax retirement plans can be compelling. For some, for every $5 they contribute, their paychecks may only go down by $4. Taxable income goes down, so your income taxes go down. A potential tax break for the working person—imagine!

3. Some employers match your contributions to some extent. A fifty-cents on the dollar match means if you put in $5, your employer will add $2.50. That’s like a 50% return on Day One! (Employer contributions may be subject to vesting, so you might not keep the whole match unless you stay on the job for up to five years, for example.)

We are always happy to talk to you about your situation, and how you might use an employer plan to get you where you want to go. But here are a couple of rules of thumb. These are general pointers that may or may not fit you, but some have found them useful:

First, saving 10% of everything you ever make is a good way to start on a sound retirement. If you aren’t there and cannot contribute that much, ratchet up your savings rate by 1% a year if you can—every year. Some clients make a habit of putting raises (or half of them) into the plan, or increasing their contribution rate by 1% per year.

Second, if you are a long way from retirement, you can afford to take a long view with the investments you choose for the plan. Why take a short term view on money you probably won’t spend for many years, or even decades? But the choice is yours—most plans give you options.

Clients, call or email if you would like to talk about your situation or any other pertinent topic.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

This information is not intended to be a substitute for specific individualized tax advice. We suggest that you discuss your specific tax issues with a qualified tax advisor.

All investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

Higher Returns, or Minimize Taxes?

© Can Stock Photo / joebelanger

In the course of our research, we recently came across a survey of investors published by a large investment organization1. It contained an example of a technique that might be used to manipulate investors into a less-than-optimal path.

Would you rather minimize taxes, or achieve the highest investment returns? Many people might think that this is a straightforward question: the survey reported that 61% of baby boomers preferred to minimize taxes. In our opinion, it is indeed straightforward—just not in the way they think it is.

We pondered that question, and wondered why there was even a choice between minimizing taxes and going for higher returns. Generally, an investor comes out better off if she or he aims for the highest after-tax returns.

Peddlers of financial products know that if they can get a prospect to focus on taxes, then it doesn’t matter whether the investment is really any good or not. It merely needs to meet that very important objective of minimizing taxes. A tight focus on taxes takes the spotlight away from the actual investment and its performance.

We think a better approach is to include the potential impact of taxes in our investment decision-making. You may hate taxes, but it would make no sense to go for 1% tax free instead of 6% taxable (all other things being equal)—the higher rate would leave you better off even after you paid the tax.

Some of you are more concerned about income taxes than others. It doesn’t matter what your object is, we need to agree that seeking the highest after-tax returns is a more sensible goal than either minimizing taxes or achieving higher returns. In our reality-based approach, we can integrate both objectives to work towards a more sensible plan.

Each of you is free to make whatever decisions you would like to, with your money. (We never forget whose money it is.) If you bring it us, we are never going to focus on just minimizing taxes, or just focus on achieving high returns. That is a false choice, and a seller who presents that to you may be trying to manipulate you.

We seek to achieve the best after-tax returns—that is the path that potentially leaves you with the biggest bucket. No guarantees, of course. Clients, if you have questions about this or any other pertinent issue, please email us or call.

1 2016 U.S. Trust Insights on Wealth and Worth survey, U.S. Trust Bank of America Private Wealth Management


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

This information is not intended to be a substitute for specific individualized tax advice. We suggest that you discuss your specific situation with a qualified tax advisor.

This is a hypothetical example and is not representative of any specific situation. Your results will vary. The hypothetical rates of return used do not reflect the deduction of fees and charges inherent to investing.

All investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

I Was Wrong, and I Apologize

© Can Stock Photo / TanawatPontchour

Thirty-some years since I first became registered to work with securities, we have been doing business with some people for decades. Some of those, I knew before that—friends, people I admire. I disappointed at least one of those recently. I hate that it happened and I am sorry.

This essay is an attempt to minimize the chance of this happening again. Let me explain.

For many years, my practice included aspects that were like a debating society. I would propose the purchase or sale of an investment to a client, we would discuss it back and forth, and the client would make a decision to take action, or not. This is the old brokerage model of investing.

In recent years, there has been a lot less time for debate as more and more people have engaged me to manage investments as their fiduciary advisor. (This is in my capacity as an investment advisor representative of LPL Financial, a registered investment advisor.) The advisors of Leibman Financial Services collectively serve more than 200 accounts with over $50 million assets through LPL Financial, and the majority of our time needs to be devoted there.

The issue is that these investment advisory accounts hold us to a higher standard. We have all the obligations of the old brokerage arrangements, plus we are obligated to put your best interests first, monitor the investments and your situation over time, and manage everything to stay in line with your investment objective. We manage these accounts without prior debate before we take action to pursue your best interests.

The error I made was assuming a client was not suitable for the investment advisory arrangement. I did not think he would give me discretion to manage his account without debate. But I failed to do him the honor of describing it to him, and letting him make the decision. He was disappointed that he had not heard about the alternative sooner, when the subject came up. I had met our legal obligations, but not the higher standard to which we hold ourselves.

If you are a client with products at an insurance company or investment company outside of LPL, or pay commissions on brokerage transactions inside an LPL Financial account, our relationship is on the brokerage account model. There is nothing wrong with it if those products and that relationship addresses your needs. We are always happy to discuss your holdings and your situation—email us, or call.

If you wonder whether an advisory account might be right for you, please email us, or call. We want you to know the situation, and make an informed decision about the kind of relationship you would like to have going forward. We also need to assess whether we have a good fit with you philosophically—a requirement.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

All investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

Focus, people!

© Can Stock Photo / JohnKwan

We recently wrote about the meaning of money. Spoiler alert: we believe it may be a symbol of being worthwhile to the rest of society.

So today we are writing about the differences between entrepreneurs of middle class status, and those who have done better. Understand we are very big on being of service to our fellow humans, not so big on the pursuit of money for its own sake. We each define success in our own lives for our own selves. But there is a worthwhile lesson about being effective in our endeavors lurking in this topic.

Peter Schiff, author of Business Brilliant, identified in that book seven behaviors of highly successful entrepreneurs. Later he realized that just one trait dominated all the others. Its importance became apparent when he compared the behavior of less financially successful entrepreneurs to more successful entrepreneurs.

It turns out that, according to him, 45% of less successful entrepreneurs have no answer for the question, “Do you know what you are exceptionally good at that makes you money?” They believe they are excellent at six different things, on average. And 58% of them work to get better at things they are NOT exceptional at.

Meanwhile, 100% of more successful entrepreneurs know what they are exceptionally good at that makes money. They believe they are excellent at only two things, on average. And NONE of them work on their weaknesses; they spend all their time working with those things at which they excel.

When you think about the meaning of these three parameters, doesn’t it boil down to ‘focus?’ The more successful spend their energy on the two things at which they excel, because they know exactly how they are valuable to the rest of society. The less successful scatter their efforts across six things at which they believe they excel, plus they also spend time on their weaknesses.

It is no wonder that the group that consciously focuses more of their time on a narrower number of key things produces notable results. The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet.

Bringing this closer to home, we believe there are two things at which we excel. Communicating with you to understand your goals and devise plans of action to pursue those goals is one. Managing investments in accordance with those goals is the other. The two things work together and complement each other: your goals inform your investment strategy.

Furthermore, each member of our team has duties that mostly correspond to their personal areas of excellence. People working at tasks they enjoy and excel at are going to be happier than workers who go through the drudgery of work that they do not like. Life is too short to spend it doing things you do not enjoy!

We do not know if these insights are of use to you. At least they help explain what we are about. None of this guarantees anything to anyone. Clients, if you would like to talk about this or any other pertinent topic, please email us or call.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

All investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

A is A

© Can Stock Photo / hurricanehank

At the height of ancient Greek civilization, the philosopher Aristotle taught the Law of Identity. A is A. Everything has a single identity, not two or more, and two different things do not share the same identity. A is A. A dog is not a cat; an orange is not an orangutan, an olive is an olive.

One wonders what has been lost through the centuries, when considering Federal Reserve Bank policy. The Fed, as it is known, is charged with a dual mandate. It is supposed to promote maximum employment and stable prices.

If Aristotle were alive today, he might teach that stable prices are stable prices. This would be in accordance with the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is. Yet the Fed has adopted a 2% inflation target, supposedly in accordance with its mandate of price stability1.

At 2% inflation, a dollar today buys only 98 cents worth of goods next year and about 96 cents the year after. Prices would double every 35 years or so, under this inflation target. Over the course of a century, a dollar would shrink to about 12 cents in purchasing power. In what sense is this ‘price stability?’ It violates the simple precept that Aristotle taught 2,300 years ago.

One error some people make is presuming the things we can measure are important, and the things we cannot measure are unimportant. Higher dollar volumes of activity are presumed to be good. So when productivity or technological improvements reduce prices of things we purchase and use, we are obviously better off—but conventional economic statistics may indicate otherwise.

There are ramifications for us as investors. The threats to our prosperity from inflation may be discounted by the Federal Reserve. The advantages of technological progress are understated. We think this means we need to be more sensitive to the damage that future inflation might do to our wealth, and the opportunities presented by technological progress.

Clients, if you have any questions about this or any other pertinent topic, please email us or call.

1Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

The opinions expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of LPL Financial.

The economic forecasts set forth in this material may not develop as predicted and there can be no guarantee that strategies promoted will be successful.

This is a hypothetical example and is not representative of any specific investment. Your results may vary.

Clothes, Money, Wealth–Simplicity

© Can Stock Photo / daoleduc

When I graduated from college just before my 21st birthday and went into business, I dressed to appear more experienced than I was. Suit, tie, wing-tip shoes—you know what I’m talking about. As the years went by, ‘trying to look experienced’ ceased to be an issue, somehow.

Over time, my wardrobe evolved into a new kind of uniform. Doc Martens casual shoes, gold socks, khaki slacks, polo shirt. In winter, add a sweater. When something wears out, replace it with like kind. I might be spending about $150 or $200 per year on my business wardrobe these past many years.

One of the byproducts of this simplified wardrobe is pure efficiency. I spend no time working out what to wear. My socks are all the same color. Choice of slacks is easy: the clean ones. And the polo shirt I select each day is the one whose ‘turn’ it is. My conscious thoughts run more to how to grow your bucket, and not so much trying to match colors on my fashion plate.

Mark Zuckerburg, billionaire social media pioneer, is famous for wearing the same modest clothes every day. Steve Jobs, cofounder of Apple, had the same habit. Anybody who has seen television talent show personality Simon Cowell has noticed his ever-present trademark black T shirt. Many decades ago, scientist Albert Einstein owned a number of suits—all grey.

Some of these luminaries are on record with the notion that the simplicity of standard routines creates time for them—and time is money.

Friends, I am not promoting the idea that you should be as boring as I am, sartorially speaking. There is a different way that standard routines can replace conscious choice and enrich you.

By making your periodic investments automatic instead of the product of a deliberate, recurring decision, you accomplish two things. First, the investment actually happens on schedule, every time—it is automatic. And second, you spend no time working on it or thinking about it every month—and time is money.

This is the way 401(k) and other retirement plans work. We know people who signed up for them, paid no attention for some period of years, and were surprised to find out later that they had accumulated tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Roth IRA’s, college savings plans, and other forms of investment can be set up the same way. Automatic monthly investments may be drafted straight from your bank account, without the need for thought or action on your part.

Clients, if you would like to simplify more parts of your financial life, or talk about any other pertinent topic, please email us or call.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

All investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

The Roth IRA offers tax deferral on any earnings in the account. Withdrawals from the account may be tax free, as long as they are considered qualified. Limitations and restrictions may apply. Withdrawals prior to age 59 ½ or prior to the account being opened for 5 years, whichever is later, may result in a 10% IRS penalty tax. Future tax laws can change at any time and may impact the benefits of Roth IRAs. Their tax treatment may change.

The Meaning of Money

canstockphoto48284911

Is money the root of all evil? Or is it what makes the world go ‘round? What IS the meaning of money?

Most of us receive most of the money we will ever make in exchange for our efforts. Our labor, our knowledge, our skills may be sold to employers if we are workers. They may be sold to customers or clients if we are in business. For this reason, in large part, money is the residue of the sweat we make while providing value to others.

What could be more noble than this symbol of being worthwhile to the rest of society?

In this framework, a 401(k) balance at retirement may be the end result of a lifetime of effort. An inheritance might represent two or more lifetimes of hard work. What could be more worthy of our best efforts to preserve and extend it?

While its sources are of interest, the uses of money have come into sharp focus for me recently. For the most part, my material needs are few. But money has become a vital factor in securing the health and welfare of loved ones.

The recent severe weather has resulted in hardship, pain, suffering and sometimes death for those who could not avoid its effects, or afford backup systems to meet special health needs. Oxygen concentrators require electricity, which sometimes fails. Refrigeration is needed for some kinds of life-sustaining medicine. Mobility is required to avoid some dangerous situations. All of this takes money.

When the power failed, we had a backup generator. When the storm threatened, we could leave the area. When the oxygen concentrator failed, we had another source. All of these things take money. And we had it.

Cathy’s care for children and work in the corporate world produced some of it. My efforts to help people with their plans and investing made some of it. Being good stewards of the amounts we were able to save provided some of it. The money came from worthy efforts, and it does important and worthy things for us.

Is money (or more properly, the love of money) the root of all evil? I don’t think so. It may be the evidence of lives of service and thrift. Luck? Certainly good fortune plays a role. And ill fortune surely plays a role in some people not having much of the stuff. We each must come to our own understanding of the meaning of money. This is mine.

Clients, if you would like to talk about this or any other pertinent topic, please email us or call.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

Investing involves risks including possible loss of principal.

Political Risk Rising

© Can Stock Photo / razihusin

Long time readers know we are fairly neutral about the impact of politics on investing. Our American system of checks and balances has served us well through the decades. The worst fears of those who let politics govern their investments may have not come about.

At the root, however, politics can affect policy that has an impact on the economy and markets. We prefer public policy that enables the greatest number of people to engage in the greatest amount of productive endeavor and enjoy prosperity. This is not always what we get.

There are two things being talked about in Washington that are problematic, in our view. Checks and balances may see us through, or we may end up with policies that hurt our economy.

In theory, trade lets us get more for things we produce and pay less for things we use. America and the rest of the world are potentially better off for it. But there is a political desire to put tariffs in place against major trading partners, we believe primarily for the sake of putting tariffs in place. A narrow slice of people and companies might benefit, but the economy may be hurt overall.

If trade volumes are materially restricted, average family incomes and corporate earnings are likely to decline, and the economy and the stock market may not do as well as they could.

Another thing: if you have ancestors that came from Germany, Ireland, England, Italy, Poland, France, India, Scotland, Norway, or anywhere else, some people that were already here were opposed to those immigrant ancestors of yours. But we believe that America is more prosperous today, with higher average incomes, because of the legacy your ancestors and others left.

But on top of the desire to fix our immigration laws so they make sense and are enforced, there is a desire to cut the volume of legal immigration, possibly up to one half from recent levels1. In our mind there is little doubt that our future wealth, prosperity, and standing in the world will be impaired if this comes to pass. We’ve been enriched by the immigrant scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs and others who have come to America in accordance with immigration rules.

You can etch this in stone: we are firmly against cutting our nose off to spite our face. Those who advocate for less trade and less legal immigration are doing just that, in our opinion. We are optimistic that sooner or later, we will end up with good policy—we always have. But there could be some unnecessary turmoil before we get there.

We aren’t suggesting that big changes need to be made in portfolios to reflect the political threats. But we are looking for opportunities that are less sensitive to how these policies work out. Clients, if you would like to discuss these or any other pertinent issues, please email us or call.

1New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/trump-immigration.html


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

The opinions expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of LPL Financial.

All investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

No strategy assures success or protects against loss.