There Was An ETF For That

More tidbits today that I hope will be interesting. 

First, I sat in on another autocallable webinar from ProShares and something clicked. I've talked about feeling like I don't completely understand the risks with these. Kind of a repeat comment but I have a better understanding than I did. Autocallables generate yield from equity risk not risk taken in bond markets. 

That an autocallable yields 18% or 9% tells you that the 18% yielder will be more volatile and probably be riskier than the 9% yielder but the risk relates to equities going down a lot not yields going up a lot. There could be a second or third order effect from interest rates' influence on pricing volatility but the story is equity risk and volatility. The way most of them are structured, down a little isn't really a problem for the funds. At varying points of down a lot for equities, some or all of the distributions can be disrupted if the "barrier" level is breached. Down 35% becomes problematic for ProShares ACSP for example. 

If you use a covered call or put selling fund, you think about equity market risk, funds like JEPI or WTPI create yield from equity volatility and risk. In that way, autocallables do the same thing. Zoom in and you will see there are structural differences and I would say more complexity but as one webinar said, derivative income and autocallables are cousins. 

Some of these funds are very volatile and some not. As a generalization repeated from above, I would expect that the higher the yield, the more volatile but I am still working on these, trying to learn. Certainly ProShares ACSP which targets 18-19% is more volatile than CAIE yielding 14% which are both more volatile than JELM from Janus which targets a 9% yield. 

ACSP is brand new which is why the chart is so short. I said this the other day, a 9% yield is fantastic and for me, it's not worth burning my fingers trying to hold onto ACSP. To be clear, I don't own JELM anywhere, I'd like to see the market go through some adversity before considering JELM or any other less volatile autocallable fund. I will reiterate though that some pay ROC like ACSP and CAIE and some don't--pretty sure JELM will be ordinary income but please leave a comment if you know otherwise.

If we're talking about harnessing volatility (which we are), this chart is interesting. 

ANV is the GraniteShares Nvidia Autocallable ETF, so it is a single stock autocallable. NVDY is the YieldMax NVDA ETF, and then the common stock in yellow. NVDY "yields" 38% versus close to 14% of ordinary income for ANV. Fourteen percent is a fantastic yield. ANV hasn't deteriorated because the stock has gone up a good amount. ANV doesn't capture the common's volatility the way NVDY does.

Things have gone very well for ANV but I am still not sure that single stock autocallables are a good idea, just pointing out that these are not automatically NAV incinerators. The chart is also quite clear that buying ANV is not buying the common stock, there should be no expectation of any sort of significant upcapture, six months of trading tells you there might be zero upcapture. The fund owns a lot of different autocallables on NVDA but in some sort of hideous decline for the common, eventually ANV would start to go down with the common. 

Yesterday we took a look at a paper from AQR about protecting a portfolio against inflation. There was a reference in there to long/short quality equities. AQR has mentioned that a few times and at some point I said there wasn't really a way to access that effect in an ETF or mutual fund and there still isn't as far as I know but there used to be. It closed a few years ago but QMJ was the Direxion Quality Minus Junk ETF. I guess the fund was ahead of its time. 

Corey Hoffstein posted a fun article on Twitter that compared and contrasted adding buffer funds to a portfolio versus managed futures and concluding there is room for both. I took it as a prompt to play around with a few different things related to combining buffers, managed futures as well as PPFIX which is a client holding that sells puts that are very far out of the money such that the fund is a horizontal line that tilts upward. The reason to include PPFIX is that Corey talked about buffers being equities with an option overlay on top. That's probably correct but I don't really think of them that way.

I use BJUL in these backtests because I believe it is the oldest buffer fund so we get the longest backtest. None of these ideas helped much during the various fast declines along the way but did help quite a bit in 2022. 

Buffers and managed futures as presented is an interesting combo that I will try to dig more into in future posts. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Whatever Keeps You Invested

Quick hits today.

AQR has a paper with some ideas about how to protect against inflation.

They involve leveraging up by 15% as you can see. I replicated the three ideas with URTH for global equities, IEF for bonds, STIP for US TIPS, ARCIX for commodities and DBMFsim for trend following. Portfolio 5 mimics AQR's Portfolio 2 but eliminates the leverage by reducing IEF from 19.2% to 4.2%.

They all outperformed 60/40 but an interesting observation is how little differentiation there has been from year to year with a couple of exceptions including 2022 when inflation first flared up. It's remarkable actually. 

Man Institute wrote about buffer funds. The TLDR is that they do help (work the way they are supposed to) on the way down and still help part of the way up as the market recovers but then gradually fall behind plain vanilla equities. 

The article's conclusion supports their 100% Equities/100% Managed Futures ETF that has symbol MATE.

The results are adjusted for inflation so the CAGR numbers are CPI plus whatever the result. The first three funds are obviously not market cap weighted, they all have a defensive element to their respective strategies and the volatility and beta numbers bear that out versus SPY and the MATE replication in Portfolio 5. Looking back, SPY was CPI plus 10% which is great. Will it be that strong going forward? Who knows but if SPY does half as well over the next eight years, cool, but BJUL, JHEQX and USMV very likely will not do that well. Once that is fully understood and accepted, they are not likely to capture the full gains of the stock market, if the lower volatility profile they offer make it easier to stay invested then go for it. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Regret Waiting To Happen

In response to yesterday's post about Matt Tuttle's take on the Permanent Portfolio, a reader Tweeted that his preferred version is to allocate 1/3 each to ReturnStacked Global Stocks and US Bonds (RSSB), gold and KMLM which is a managed futures ETF. RSSB is 100/100 so the mix has four quadrants, each at 33 1/3%.

A few days ago we looked at a similar portfolio to what the reader suggested that used PSLDX which is a much older 100/100, domestic equities and long bonds. Then I removed the bonds, just equities and the results were better so that was my first thought today, peel out the bonds and what does that do?

To be clear, Portfolios 1 and 2 are equally weighted between those three funds.

I took PRPFX out to declutter the drawdown chart. In the bigger events, both 1 and 2 went down less but you can see a long stretch of meandering as both gold and managed futures struggled through much the 2010's. There were also a few very difficult individual years in there too. In 2013, Portfolio 1 was down 4.59%, Portfolio 2 was down 0.99% while VBAIX was up just over 18%.

If we shorten up the original backtest to go back to KMLM's actual inception, the results for Portfolio 2 look a little better versus Portfolio 1.

The improvement is likely attributable to managed futures and gold doing much better in this decade versus the previous decade. If we just look at the 2010's, the idea would have been almost impossible to stick with.

After gold peaked in 2011 it trended lower for awhile and became more of an afterthought. Managed futures was not something that too many people even knew about. In fund form back then, managed futures never was, let alone becoming an afterthought. I stumbled into managed futures by accident in 2007 and bought RYMFX, then came AQMIX in what I believe was 2010 and the a few others in 2013/2014. I stuck with RYMFX for quite a while but that was much easier at 3% or so versus 1/3 or 1/4 of a portfolio.

Owning this portfolio would be very difficult the next time gold and managed futures both struggle. It happened in the 2010's so it can happen again. There's a lot to be said for quadrant-like sleeves but going so big is regret waiting to happen.

We haven't isolated it out this way before, looking at just the 2010's. Having some gold and having some managed futures is a good idea for portfolio robustness but at some point it is too much because the risks/vulnerabilities overlap some. The risks/vulnerabilities are not identical, but there is a lot of overlap. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

A New Quadrant Portfolio

Matt Tuttle from Tuttle Capital/T-Rex was profiled talking about a Permanent Portfolio-inspired update to the 60/40 portfolio that Tuttle says is 60-70 years old implying it needs to update to navigate modern realities of a different world and vastly broader fund/strategy choices.

The four, equally weighted quadrants from Matt are stocks, "beyond bonds" which includes pre-merger SPACs and property & casualty insurers, debasement trades like gold and Bitcoin and finally tail risk which Matt defined at managed futures and short term government bonds like T-bills. 

For stocks, I just used SPY, Copilot said merger arb is the best proxy for pre-merger SPACs, Chubb (CB) for P&C, for debasement I put 20% in gold and 5% in silver and for tail risk I put 12.5% in managed futures and 12.5% in T-bills. I did not use Bitcoin for debasement to leave out any potentially unrepeatable result.

The return of the Tuttle Quadrants is close to the Permanent Portfolio (PRPFX) with less volatility and the backtest obviously looks quite a bit better than 60/40.

Matt has written a couple of times about P&C companies in this context, his theory seems like it more relates to the operating business and risk transfer than how the stocks actually behave because using the Invesco KBW Property & Casualty Insurance ETF (KBWP) as a proxy, the space looks nothing like fixed income but you may draw a different conclusion. I also do not know whether pre-merger SPACs actually look like merger arbitrage, Copilot offered that, so grain of salt that idea.

The first lookback allows for a long period of study by using the Merger Fund. This next one swaps out the Merger Fund and adds a SPAC ETF that has symbol SPCK and gives us almost six years. The second look back is reasonably consistent with the first one. 

Anyone so interested can replicate the concept pretty easily but I wouldn't make any forward looking assumptions about returns. As if often the case, I think the volatility numbers can stand up and if bonds with duration continue to do poorly then this mix has a pretty good shot of continuing to outperform. To the extent P&C companies are or are not bonds proxies, both Chubb and KBWP are negatively correlated to IEF and TLT. 

It might not be visible on the chart though but there is a lot of differentiation of returns between the Tuttle Quadrant and the others. In the first back test, Tuttle quadrant was best performer in eight out of 27 full and partial years and 6 times it was the worst with four of those six coming since 2019. The updated version using SPCK fared a little better on that score though.

One takeaway is that like me, I don't think Matt is a fan of bonds with duration which leads us to this.

I would venture to say that the 30 day SEC yield is closer to the yield that investors will get. The portion highlighted by Ben is if all the bonds are held to maturity. I've never owned AGG but I don't think that is what AGG does but please leave a comment if I am wrong about that. 

If you have fixed income, what are you trying to do? Some want to offset equity volatility, some want yield and some want a combo of both. Whatever someone is hoping to get out of AGG or BND for that matter, there are ways to get it with less volatility and more yield. 

BOXX replicates T-bills but pays no interest so it is tax efficient. The price accretes at the rate of whatever T-bills are yielding. ACBAX is the investor class shares of the Pioneer Cat Bond Fund. It's the class A shares but self-directed investors should be able to buy it without the load at Fidelity or Schwab but ask them first. 

The 75/25 combo is structured for total return with a little yield. If the T-bill ETF BIL is swapped in for BOXX then the total return CAGR was 6.36%, the yield was 5.64% versus 3.87% for AGG and the volatility dropped a tick to 1.76%. 

There is no need to take on AGG's volatility and interest rate risk to get 5.XX%.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Always Read The Comments

The Wall Street Journal profiled several people/couples who relocated states seeking to optimize their retirements financially and maybe enhance their quality of life too. These were not profiles of people in financial need. The stories were people who read the Wall Street Journal so they aren't representative of society at large. That's a gift link so you can click through if you're interested.

There are obviously tax differences in many areas. On of the couples profiled moved from Peoria, Illinois to Oro Valley, AZ which is just north of Tucson. Property taxes in Oro Valley are about 1/4 what they are in Peoria. The article says that state income tax in Arizona is half that of Illinois, 2.5% versus 5%. A commenter said that Illinois doesn't tax Roth conversions and the they should have done conversions before they left Illinois.  

It's not for me to say what sort of role lower taxes should have in deciding to change states, I just so happened to land in a low tax state that I enjoy at a young age. It is important to fully assess the tax differences though and be informed before pulling the trigger. Maybe it is low on the priority list so it might just be information gathering and that's ok but take the time to learn. The article made it sound like Florida is not a low tax state despite there being no income tax. I don't know but Gemini says it is a higher tax state for lower earners for generally being regressive. I know that Oregon has generally high taxes despite no sales tax. So there can be tradeoffs, one tax is low or zero while another is relatively high.   

The comments were more interesting than the article but the article itself is worth reading. There were of course comments about red states versus blue states. Having that be a determining factor for any life decision is lost on me. I think Arizona is considered a purple state or at least it has been recently. Prescott is in a very red county and Tucson is a very blue city. If someone can't leave political influences like this out of their lifestyle choices ok, I might be out over my skis on that one but leave politics out of investing, the domestic equity market goes up under both parties. 

There were a lot of comments about poor healthcare versus good healthcare in various places. Prescott has lousy healthcare but it's pretty good in Tucson with Phoenix being better. Being healthy is a very high priority for me and we are two hours from Phoenix so is that close proximity to good healthcare? That depends on who you ask but I think people need to sort this out for their personal priorities but also a have realistic assessment of their health. 

Many comments made staying close to family as the top priority which certainly makes sense. A sentiment I think it related to staying near family, a reader mentioned renting a place in the Caribbean every year for the month of February and someone said something similar about getting a VRBO for a few weeks every winter. Presumably these people live where it is cold so they are able to take a chunk out of the winter for not much money related to buying a house and can be near family the vast majority of the time. I think that is a great idea and for me it relates to moving to another country. I have no desire to leave the US but I love the idea of "living" in another country for a few months. There's a handful of places where I'd want to do that if our life circumstance allowed. For now, fire chief and animal rescue president doesn't really allow for that.

It was amusing to read comments from people who I don't think realize what is going on in Arizona. In expressing negative comments about the summers in Phoenix and other lower desert areas, I don't think people realize that a meaningful portion of the state is at very high elevation, with pine trees, usually cool summer temperatures and meaningful snow accumulation. 

There are several states that have this sort of weather divergence of cooler, high elevations and hotter, lower elevations to create a seasonal arbitrage. Nevada has this effect between Reno and other points north down to the Las Vegas area, California obviously but cost of living is there is rough, and there are a few others that may not be as extreme as Flagstaff versus Yuma. The point of this paragraph is about potentially staying close to family depending on where you live but it probably doesn't help much for Minnesota or Wisconsin. 

Mark Baker on Twitter has a theory that resonates with me that it is important for successful aging to have variation in our lives with weather and changing seasons being a simple example. A little more complex is stress variation that comes with exercising. Too much homogeneity, too much comfort leads to being less adaptable. There's research out there that supports the theory and as I said I believe in it. 

Since we are swimming in these waters a little bit, it is not our intention to pack up from Prescott and stay in Tucson for four months, but check back on that when we're in our 90's. There were several reasons that drove buying the Tucson house, we love the city, it's like Phoenix in the 80's, maybe the 70's. If there was ever a wildfire catastrophe in Walker, we would have a place to go. Less dramatically, Walker has been evacuated twice for fires in the last nine years. I stay of course but the first evacuation my wife took the dogs to her parents house in Phoenix for the week and that sucked for her. The second time she took the took the dogs to United Animal Friends ranch property and stayed in a shed which also sucked. Some hotels allow dogs yes, but five? 

Maybe we will want or need to leave Walker at some point and if that ever happens, it will be much easier to do, we will have a place that will already be paid for. And if that never happens then we'll just have a second place to getaway to, it's a form of optionality. For now we go for about a week every month, including the winters, although I didn't really go down much during our fire season, just three nights in May. 

With articles like the one we're talking about, I usually say read the comments, always read the comments. The idea there is that I believe we can learn from the experiences and observations of people we don't know. There are smart comments we can learn from and some remarkably stupid comments too that can help us figure out what not to do. This is why I share some of our details, maybe readers can pull something or positive from what we're doing and if anyone pulls anything negative, that's ok too. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Make Sure You Have The Correct Numbers In Your Planning

Investopedia via Yahoo Finance took a look at how much money people need to have saved for a comfortable retirement with your home paid off versus not, being single or married and depending on what state you are in. 

A mortgage-free couple needs between $700,000 and $1.18 million, $870,000 as median number, depending on the state with Arkansas and North Dakota at the low end and New York and New Jersey at the high end. Actually the only still has a mortgage retirement number they included was the $1.46 million estimate from Northwest Mutual that everyone wrote about a couple of months ago when it came out. 

Most of the article was as useless as that last paragraph but there were a couple interesting tidbits. One was that in 1980, only 13% of homeowners 65 and older had a mortgage versus 36% as of 2024. And I thought this graphic was useful.

We've articulated what the table displays many times as has probably every site that explores retirement math. The single/couple columns, ok but whatever your marital situation what are your complete expenses? What are monthly expenses, what are your annual/semi annual expenses like property tax and certain types of insurance? Do you track so granularly to factor in oil changes (not a bad idea but we don't) or maybe haircuts (my $20/mo at Great Clips seems a little unnecessary)? Do you pad in an amount for larger, unexpected items like a veterinary bill or something like tires? Whatever your process, just make sure it's thorough. 

We just looked at Social Security. The SSA wants us to know our numbers. Then decide if you think it is prudent to assume a reduction in your payout and to be thorough, reduce it by what you expect to pay for Medicare Part B.

That process is what is captured in the table. If there is a gap, can you cover it somehow from some sort of planned earned income, rental income or from an investment portfolio? 

At some point in our 50's it probably becomes reasonable to start to frame out what a gap might look like unless someone is hell bent to retire at 50 then they need visibility at a very young age and need to do some math (AI can do this for you) on what their Social Security will look like if they don't get 35 years of earned income in before they stop working. 

The annual Social Security report everyone gets notes that the dollar amount assumes a full career duration, if someone stops at 50 then that won't qualify for full benefits. The 35 highest earnings years will include quite a few zeros or if someone actually has earned income starting at 15, a few very low earning years. I wouldn't try to discourage anyone from retiring early if that is what they want but as per the above table, a reduced SS payout due to a shorter working career means needing more saved. Planning, based on the wrong numbers could be catastrophic. 

As a matter of personal philosophy, I don't want to rely on just two things, SS and my IRA account. The first two ideas I think most people would come up with for additional income streams is some sort of post retirement gig like monetizing a volunteer endeavor or turning a hobby into an income stream and the other one is rental income. All the better if you can come up with others that work for you. 

I actually think of a bridging strategy as being a separate income stream. We've written about this quite a bit lately. This could just be a taxable account that built up over the years or maybe there is some sort of event that funds an account for bridging like maybe the sale of an investment property or some sort of options vesting from an employer. 

The way we have framed this out in recent posts, this is a different strategy than the 60/40 or 70/30 that might be in the typical IRA account. If leaving this sort of windfall (house sale or options vesting or just years of accumulation) in cash would last for eight years, could a higher yielding bridging strategy stretch that for ten years until maybe when RMDs start? That's the equation. Leaving an IRA alone for ten years can reasonably see the IRA invested 60/40 come close to doubling.

It's a little sloppy but I tried to color code rolling ten year periods for most of this century. The ten years numbers show solid growth. The worst time to invest in this century would have been at the start of 2000 and even then, the cumulative growth for ten years would have been 34%.

I understand that this much work won't appeal to everyone but like many aspects of life, the more we put into retirement planning, the more we will get out of it. 

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.

Create Your Own Solution

The Washington Post says that "Republicans say it is time to raise taxes" to try to fix Social Security. By raise taxes, the primary implication is increasing or eliminating the cap, the level of income where people stopping having to pay FICA each year. The article goes on to mention considerations for means testing and various other sorts of ideas like raising ages for eligibility and anything else you've seen mentioned. 

Quite a few years ago, I blogged a few times that I thought people born before a certain year, I guessed 1975, would not have to confront benefit cuts in the context of what is now an expected 22% cut in 2032. That assessment appears to be incorrect. If Congress never tackles/solves the issue then I think we'd all be facing that 22% cut (the exact percentage and year has been a little bit of a moving target). 

What role will/does Social Security play in your financial picture? There's some mental accounting in the different ways people think about that answer. For some clients and plenty of commenters at places like WSJ and Barron's, it is more of an afterthought.

If things go as planned for my wife and me for when we take it (70 and she would be 64) and if it is reduced by 22%, in today's dollars it would be $5213/mo which exceeds our fixed expenses. The mental accounting for us is that the $5213 would be the first dollars we spend. If we still have rental income at that point then that income would contribute to our month to month living. Our accumulated savings would be for fixing things, buying the occasional big thing (my Tundra is 20 years old and will need to be replaced at some point), traveling and any other one-off unbudgetable expenses that come up.

I also brought up the idea of means testing a long time ago which as I mentioned is in the article. Who knows what that would look like, my comments on that were if means testing happens, it would come down to much lower levels of income and wealth than we might think or at least we should prepare for that. 

Our unreduced amount at 70/64 would be $6604 in today's dollars. We are not loaded but we are plenty comfortable. As a very aggressive means testing scenario that came down to our level of income/wealth, what would happen if $6604 was instead $3302? Yeah, that's aggressive but what if it shakes out that way? It's easy to quantify and then assess. Actually managing something like that might be more difficult of course but the dollar and cents assessment, just open a spreadsheet. $3304 would still be a meaningful contributor to our month to month expenses but we would need to rely on our savings more, not a catastrophe.

If the country is as unprepared for retirement as the media portrays, then solutions need to be found, people need to find their own solutions. The Wall Street Journal wrote that Boomers Are Moving Into Retirement Communities Alongside Their Parents. Some of the profiles in the article are people moving into the same community but some others are actually living with a parent as roommates, splitting expenses. From the standpoint of a financially challenged retirement, splitting expense with a family manner is a solution even if it's not Plan A for too many people. Five or ten years of spending less (half?) seems financially productive. 

Another solution that we haven't talked about in a while is tiny houses.

You can see the one above costs $72,000 and the one below is $36,000. 

They are more like much nicer manufactured homes than what most people think of for manufactured housing. You can go find modular_houses on Instragram to see the more, they are very nice and also a huge upgrade to what most tiny houses looked like ten years ago. The typical scenario for these is usually leasing a spot in a community or putting one of these on your own parcel. If you know otherwise, please leave a comment and I don't know about permitting one of these onto parcels, that's probably different across jurisdictions. 

Again, this may not be Plan A for too many people but in the context of serious financial challenges for retirement, a clean, new house that is paid for where everything inside works because it is new is a pretty good outcome.

All of this is about preparing in case whatever you have in mind for your retirement, your Plan A, does not work out as expected. Expecting fair outcomes (from the government) is bound to end up in disappointment. We are all here now, living our lives while the problem continues to go unfixed. Maybe they will fix it, logic says that one way or another they will but what if they don't or what if you are ground zero for everything that is unfair about what they come up? 

Ditto our busted healthcare system.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein reflect our judgment and opinions as of the date of writing and are subject to change at any time without notice. They are not intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice or a recommended course of action in any given situation.