How the tax bill made the next recession much more painful

today blog photoIf the stock market rally was a party, someone would be wondering if the punch bowl should be taken away. The tax bill, instead, has refilled the bowl to the brim. Party fun goes on, and the coming hangover has just gotten worse.

Shortly after the bill passed, Walmart, AT&T, Comcast and many other companies announced $1,000 bonuses to hundreds of thousands of employees. And this is peanuts compared to the large and permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate corporations get. The breaks extend to a mountain of profits accumulated abroad and a variety of loopholes that may lower taxes even further when they bring them back.

Corporate America was already flush with cash. The extra pile courtesy of the tax bill will spur some marginal increase in business investment and wages (as the $1,000 bonuses show), but the historical relationship between taxes and economic activity suggests that this effect is bound to be small.

Far more importantly, the extra money will accelerate stock buybacks. Data by the US Federal Reserve shows that corporate repurchases of stock have been a major source of demand for equities and arguably the most important factor in pushing stocks higher in recent years. Because it operated under the radar of individual investors, general belief in the soundness of the bull market never caught on. But now the tax cut is in place, and people are increasingly aware that offshore money will mostly go to dividends and repurchases. This is bringing a lot of investors in, pushing stocks even higher.

The tax cut, therefore, not only will have some marginal effect on economic activity, but also a hugely positive impact on the demand and supply of stocks. This makes it without a doubt a positive for the stock market. So what is not to like?

In our view, the tax cut comes exactly at the wrong time.

Back in the aftermath of the financial crisis the world desperately needed a fiscal shot in the arm – lower taxes, higher spending, or both. But politicians in the US and Europe, claiming concern by high levels of debt, declared that austerity was the only acceptable way to fight the crisis and denied the world of this medicine.

This was an enormous policy error. Without any fiscal help, central bankers were forced to engineer a global recovery through aggressive monetary loosening, at the cost of severe distortions such as zero (or negative) interest rates, massive asset inflation, and a huge accumulation of private debt.

But monetary authorities accomplished their goal. The world is firmly in growth territory, the US is at full employment, and inflation has stayed low. Not only we came out in pretty good shape, but conditions are now ideal for dealing with those distortions created by “unconventional” policies.

The tax bill, however, injects a sharp fiscal stimulus that not only is unnecessary at this time but also creates the opposite problem. If the economy speeds up too much or inflation starts rising, central bankers could be forced to raise rates too quickly to keep things under control. This is dangerous in a world with high indebtedness. And once again, fiscal and monetary policies will be at odds.

Even if inflation stays low and the economy does not overheat, the tax cut is bound to increase levels of public debt by at least $1TN over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Tax Policy Center. This will leave even less room for deploying fiscal tools (i.e. higher spending and/or even lower taxes) to fight the next recession when it comes.

This is a serious issue. While things look good right now, the business cycle is not dead. The current expansion has been running for 104 months straight, and we are well positioned to break the 120-month all-time record. When the streak ends, the size of outstanding public and private debt are very likely to be much larger than in 2008.

And it is a good bet that, unless the world’s political landscape changes radically, politicians will again be horrified by levels of debt and refuse to stimulate the economy through fiscal means, just as they refused during the last crisis. Monetary authorities will have no choice but loosening policy way too much, and the cycle will start all over again from a more extreme point of indebtedness.

Thus the tax bill has quite certainly, and unnecessarily, made future downturns far more painful than they needed to be. But when people party they don’t think about hangovers, especially when everybody was served another round. Higher stock prices in the short term are likely. What may happen later will not be as fun.

——————-

Raul cropped for facebookRaul Elizalde is the Founder, President, and Chief Investment Officer of Path Financial, LLC. He may be reached at 941.350.7904 or raul@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

How to Handle the Flash Crash of 2018

path flash crashAfter a meteoric rise, the stock market lost more than 6% in only two days. Why did this happen, and where do we go from here?

At the close of Monday, February 5 2018, the S&P 500 gave up more than all the year’s gains. Put in perspective this is not a large move: the index is roughly back to where it was just a couple of months before. Also, there are no clear fundamental reasons behind the decline: both the economy and corporate earnings are strong, unemployment is low, and the global economy is in good shape.

Some reasons behind the sharp fall are most likely technical, such as the high levels of margin debt, elevated P/E ratios, side-effects brought about by the purchase of insurance by some market participants, and so on. These kind of factors rarely portend a large, structural move to the downside.

There are, however, some fundamental weaknesses in the system. The most important is the enormous increase in private sector debt that both households and non-financial corporations have accumulated in the last few years. When and if interest rates rise too much or beyond a certain threshold, a much more serious credit-driven problem can materialize and evolve into a full-fledged crisis that could profoundly affect markets. The quick rise in interest rates last week may therefore have something to do with the stock market move, but we think that rates are not yet close to trigger widespread credit problems.

As we described in a recent newsletter, the recent tax cut is another reason for concern. This is because coming at a time of full employment it can cause the economy to overheat and inflation to climb, driving the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary policy. This could trigger the kind of credit crisis we fear.

Additionally, the tax cut is likely to create a large increase of public debt, which would limit options to fight the next inevitable recession and thus turn a normal deceleration of the economy into a more serious downturn.

We believe, however, that we are not yet at the edge of recession or a negative credit event. The swift market fall seems due, instead, to the kind of technical factors that we mentioned earlier. If so, it could be useful to explore what happened in similar situations in the past when stocks had technically-driven two- or three-day declines of more than 6-7%.

We looked at the history of the S&P 500 since its inception and we identified nine such instances, from the “Kennedy Slide” of 1962 to the China-driven volatility of August 2015. We did not include the Crash of 2008 because it was not a mere technical decline but the result of serious fundamental concerns about the viability of the banking system. While technical factors could have exacerbated the 2008-2009 market rout, they were clearly not the cause.
path image for post
In all these instances we observed that after a few days, weeks or months the market recovered virtually all the lost ground. While the market fell more than 6% twice during the bear market of 2000-2003, it also found full relief soon after, even if it eventually resumed its downward march.

In conclusion, it seems that it rarely pays to sell immediately after a sharp two- or three-day move. Waiting for markets to stabilize instead appears to be a better strategy, because prices eventually tend to rebound even if they keep falling later on. This appears to be the case especially after climbing for a while, as can be seen in the charts of 1987, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2011 and 2015.

Even though we are concerned about the longer-term market outlook due to the stretched credit conditions, we think that investors who want to reduce their exposure to risk assets will not have to wait long before the market reaches a better point if they want to sell.

——————-

Raul cropped for facebookRaul Elizalde is the Founder, President, and Chief Investment Officer of Path Financial, LLC. He may be reached at 941.350.7904 or raul@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Huge change in market conditions and what it means for fund fees

newsletter imageFees charged by fund managers have come under attack, and this is especially true for “active” funds that try to beat an index. In recent years, they have struggled to perform better than much-cheaper “passive” funds that simply match their benchmarks, so their higher fees have been harder to justify.

From this, some observers have concluded that active management has proven to be pointless and all investment in the future will be passive – that is, nobody will even try to beat a benchmark anymore. This is a wild exaggeration, to say the least. Active management will have its moment in the sun again, and, as we will see, that moment may be coming soon.

Critics also accuse active managers of barely deviating from their benchmarks anymore. If that is true, they provide little, if any, added value or diversification, and therefore they are charging too much for a job they are not even performing.

There is some validity to the claim that active managers have not been very “active” in recent years. But there is more to this than meets the eye.

We measured the correlation between some popular large-cap mutual funds and the S&P 500, and found credible evidence that after the financial crisis “active” funds indeed became more “passive”, i.e. more correlated with the index. The group we studied, which includes funds large and small, clearly provided much less diversification or additional value over the S&P 500 from 2008 to today.

graph one

But it may be incorrect to conclude that managers have simply become too lazy to do their job. A deeper look at market dynamics suggests that scaling back their efforts to outperform the market was a rational response to a significant change in market conditions.

When we looked at the characteristics of this group over 20 years, we found that regardless of size, the funds least correlated with their benchmarks performed better than the ones that followed their benchmarks more closely. In other words, the ones that were more “active” reaped the largest returns.

But the last 9 years of so show a very different picture: the closer those funds matched the index, the better they performed. Trying to produce returns different from the index was not a successful strategy. What changed?

graph two

The simplest explanation, and the one that much of the financial media has embraced, is that managers have indeed gone lazy or “lost their touch.” In our view, it is quite unlikely that a whole industry of professionals could have somehow become incompetent almost overnight.

The more likely explanation is that a change in market dynamics made it much more difficult for them to beat their benchmarks. If this is so, then we need answers to three questions: what kind of change took place; did managers respond to that change correctly; and is that change temporary or permanent. The answers to these questions yield a much more favorable picture of active managers than the financial media has been willing to paint.

After the financial crisis, individual stock price changes became highly synchronized, making it very hard to identify which stocks would deliver above-average returns without increasing portfolio risk beyond prudent levels. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case.

graph three

Trying to squeeze extra returns from assets that move close together is a losing strategy. Margins are slim, and whatever a manager may be able to extract is likely to be wiped out by trading costs, behavioral biases, and mistakes. In such an environment, the rational response for a professional portfolio manager is to embrace the benchmark. Interpreting this as a sign of laziness or ineptitude is too harsh. In our view, active managers came to a realistic admission that they cannot beat the market through stock-picking when stock correlation goes through the roof.

The opposite is true when correlation drops. When the spread between outperforming and underperforming stocks widens, the reward for choosing the “right” basket of assets is much higher. Leaving aside the much-debated question of whether it is actually possible to identify such basket, the fact is that in low-correlation markets, such basket in principle exists and its potential payoff is much higher.

A high-correlation environment became prevalent after the financial crisis, but it is finally coming to an end. In the last few months, inter-asset correlations have dropped noticeably and, remarkably, the group of funds we studied has itself become less correlated with the index. Active management seems to have been doing its job all along – decoupling with the index when correlations were low and hugging the index when correlations were high.

The decline in inter-asset correlations has important consequences. First, it argues against the premise that in the future all investing is destined to become passive (i.e. merely index-following). As stock picking becomes once again a likely source of excess returns, the attraction of active funds will grow. Second, it bodes well for the market as a whole. Lower correlation is usually accompanied by a drop in volatility, which is a key component in bringing back the retail demand for equities, which has been weak in the wake of the financial crisis. All this supports our view that the mid- to long-term outlook for risky assets such as stocks has significantly improved, and that the bull market is far from over.

What now?

We are a Registered Investment Advisor held to a fiduciary standard of care. We believe that our portfolio management process, focused on measuring and managing risk, can be very effective at creating a sensible balance between risk and return, partly by measuring financial and investment conditions often and adjusting portfolios through a well-defined process. We implement this process for our clients and we tailor it for their specific circumstances, and we always put their interests first. That means we do not profit from transactions or by selling any products. Our only compensation is based on the assets we manage, which goes a long way of aligning our interests with yours. We can also help you evaluate your current goals and establish an investment plan aiming at achieving steady, long-term returns while managing downside risk.

You can download our report describing our investment methods and goals, or contact us if you would like to know more about how Path Financial’s investment process can work for you. We’ll be happy to set up a confidential meeting to discuss your path to financial success. Contact Path Financial here.

——————-

Raul cropped for facebookRaul Elizalde is the Founder, President, and Chief Investment Officer of Path Financial, LLC. He may be reached at 941.350.7904 or raul@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

How Personal Biases, Past Mistakes Can Block Investment Growth

By: Oxana Saunders

today imageOne of the biggest challenges related to managing our money is figuring out how to preserve and grow our capital. These decisions are often influenced by personal biases and past financial mistakes or bad experiences we might have had. They can lead us to avoid investing in financial markets and only focusing on capital preservation by keeping money in savings accounts or CDs. This type of bias also leads to failure to realize the power of compounding interest and what it means for our investments long-terms.

The article from online magazine The Balance, linked below, elaborates on these issues.

If you are struggling to overcome negative biases associated with investing, please call us for a free consultation. We can walk you through investment strategies that may help you overcome simple obstacles that get in the way of your investments.

the balance
Overcoming a Major Retirement Planning Hurdle: Present Bias

——————-

Oxana Saunders Vice President Path FinancialOxana Saunders is the Vice President of Path Financial, LLC. She may be reached at 941.894.2571 or oxana@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Falling number of shares a key factor behind the market rally

By: Raul Elizalde
today's photoWhen a stock pays a dividend rate higher than the interest at which the company can borrow money, it makes sense for that company to issue debt and buy back its own stock. This is exactly what happened as interest rates fell to historic lows. We believe that the retirement of equities is a key factor in the stock market rally, making them look “expensive” when compared to traditional measures of value, but not when considering their shrinking supply.

We measured changes in the number of outstanding shares of about 350 stocks with an aggregate market capitalization of $17.4 trillion (the total market is currently around $28 trillion). We found that since the beginning of 2011, the number of shares dropped by about 8%. If those shares had not been retired, this group would have a $1.7 trillion larger market capitalization. This extrapolates to a $2.8 trillion shortfall for the total market of US equities due to corporate buybacks.

image 1This estimation is remarkably similar to the $3.0 trillion retired equities calculated by the Federal Reserve. In addition, the Fed tallies the value of shares retired due to mergers and acquisitions, which adds up to another $2.3 trillion, for a total of $5.3 trillion in that period. This was only partially offset by $2.9 trillion of new issues coming to market. On balance, therefore, corporate America retired $2.4 trillion of equities value, which is on par with the GDP of the United Kingdom.

image 2This has vast implications. Stock prices go up disproportionately to the number of shares retired, meaning that a 1% reduction in supply causes a price appreciation much larger than 1%. More precisely, the marginal change in price due to the marginal change in supply is very high. This effect is not easy to isolate and measure, but it is undoubtedly present, and we believe that it is an important factor behind the market rally.

It also helps explain why equities seem expensive against traditional measures of value, such as P/E ratios. A corporation finds value in buying its own stock if it reduces its cost of capital, regardless of what those indicators show. The fact that top management compensation is often linked to the price of their stock may also play a role in a company’s decision to repurchase stock.

As long as this activity continues, the market will continue to seem “expensive”, and it may become more so if the Trump administration’s attempts to reduce the corporate tax rate eventually succeed.

Many US corporations with profitable global operations have not brought back those funds because they are subject to taxation once they come in. According to Moody’s, non-financial US companies hold close to $2 trillion abroad. If a corporate tax cut persuades companies to bring back their overseas profits, the likelihood is that they will be used to repurchase company stock. It is quite doubtful, as proponents of the tax cut argue, that they will be invested in their respective lines of businesses. Given that businesses have easy access to historically cheap credit, money sitting abroad does not seem to be a hindrance to financing any investments that seem promising.

Most recently, both our numbers and the Fed’s numbers show a slight decline in the pace of equity retirement. It could be “noise”, or it could be due to the modest interest rate rise of late last year.

It is reasonable to assume that if interest rates or equity prices go up much further, the economic benefits of retiring shares will end. The danger of higher rates is small, in our view, because it is difficult for the Fed to justify lifting rates much more when inflation has been falling further and further away from its target. As much as the Fed wants to “normalize” monetary policy, hiking rates when inflation is falling is risky.

On the other hand, earnings-per-share have been climbing, both on a trailing and (especially) on a forward basis. Moreover, Europe looks stronger and global GDP projections have improved. These fundamental factors support higher equity prices everywhere, regardless of the impact of corporate demand for equities.

These fundamental factors could make equities seem less expensive in the medium term when compared to traditional measures of revenue and earnings, and could well spur a new wave of demand from retail investors who, because of low interest rates, have few other places to go for returns. The market rally will end one day, but the combination of corporate demand, improving fundamentals, benign outlook for rates and a potential for growing retail demand are pushing that day further into the future.

What now?
We are a Registered Investment Advisor held to a fiduciary standard of care. We believe that our portfolio management process, focused on measuring and managing risk, can be very effective at creating a sensible balance between risk and return, partly by measuring financial and investment conditions often and adjusting portfolios through a well-defined process. We implement this process for our clients and we tailor it for their specific circumstances, and we always put their interests first. That means we do not profit from transactions or by selling any products. Our only compensation is based on the assets we manage, which goes a long way of aligning our interests with yours. We can also help you evaluate your current goals and establish an investment plan aiming at achieving steady, long-term returns while managing downside risk. You can download our report describing our investment methods and goals, or contact us if you would like to know more about how Path Financial’s investment process can work for you. We’ll be happy to set up a confidential meeting to discuss your path to financial success. Read more.

——————-

Raul cropped for facebookRaul Elizalde is the Founder, President, and Chief Investment Officer of Path Financial, LLC. He may be reached at 941.350.7904 or raul@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

10 Things You Should Know about Social Security

By: Oxana Saunders

coins and plants growingAs we think about retirement planning, the big part of it for most Americans is Social Security. It could be quite difficult to navigate all the rules associated with Social Security especially if you are trying to maximize your monthly payments. It gets even more confusing if you continue to work part time or have other sources of income.

Recent changes to Social Security rules certainly did not make it any easier. Below is a link to Kiplinger’s easy-to-understand Social Security guide that can help you educate yourself on what benefits you are entitled to and when.

kiplinger 10 Things You Must Know About Social Security

If you are in the process of retirement planning and are not clear on how to optimize your Social Security payments within your current financial state, contact us for a free consultation.

——————-

Oxana Saunders Vice President Path FinancialOxana Saunders is the Vice President of Path Financial, LLC. She may be reached at 941.894.2571 or oxana@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Natural Disasters and Investing Mistakes to Avoid

By: Oxana Saunders

Stock Photo: Hurricane Wilma Satellite Photo

It’s been a few difficult and stressful weeks for many people related to natural disasters like hurricane Harvey and Irma as well as earthquakes in several parts of the globe.

As we begin to return to normalcy and continue to help those in need, naturally, we consider the impact of natural disasters on our investments.

None of these natural disasters bode well for owning too much real estate especially in the affected regions. As some of us may start to reevaluate the viability of our real estate investments, we often come up with the questions such as: “What’s the alternative? Where do I start? What mistakes to avoid?”

The article linked below may help with getting the answers to some of these questions.

If you are starting to think about alternatives to your real estate investments, call us for a free consultation.

6 Investing Mistakes New Investors Should Avoid

6 Investing Mistakes New Investors Should Avoid

——————-

Stock Photo: Hurricane Wilma Satellite Photo

Oxana Saunders is the Vice President of Path Financial, LLC. She may be reached at 941.894.2571 or oxana@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Financial Professionals: who is the right person for you?

By: Oxana Saunders

image courtesy of Wikipedia

image courtesy of Wikipedia

As I tell people what I do for a living, I’ve come to realize that few understand the difference among various financial professionals. I cannot blame them. Our industry has adopted ambiguous titles such as “financial advisor,” “wealth advisor,” and “financial planner,” none of which are properly defined.

Strictly speaking, there are only two categories requiring a license and regulatory oversight: “Investment Advisor Representatives (IARs),” and “Registered Representatives (RRs).” The main difference is that IARs must put their interests before yours, while RRs do not have to.

IARs work for Registered Investment Advisors such as Path Financial and are widely considered to have few conflicts of interests with the clients they advise. On the other hand, RRs work for Broker-Dealers and recent regulatory initiatives specifically address the fact that their advice is often in conflict with their clients’ interests. (Click here to read Path Financial President Raul Elizalde’s March 2017 editorial in the Sarasota Herald Tribune on this topic.)

Understanding the difference between both is very important when deciding who is best suited to your particular goals. The Forbes article linked below expands on describing the different kinds of financial professionals, and describes how each are compensated.

forbes logo image

Differences Between Stockbrokers, Investment Advisors And Financial Planners

——————-

Oxana Saunders Vice President Path FinancialOxana Saunders is the Vice President of Path Financial, LLC. She may be reached at 941.894.2571 or oxana@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Changes in the settlements rules and how they may affect you

By: Oxana Saunders

Image courtesy of ThinkAdvisor.com

Image courtesy of ThinkAdvisor.com

Beginning September 5, 2017, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will require the financial industry to shorten a standard settlement cycle for most securities to two business days from three. The SEC’s amendment is intended to reduce counterparty risk, systematic risk, and improve capital efficiencies.

If you often purchase stocks because of their dividend, then you should pay particularly close attention to these changes.

Starting September 7th, the ex-dividend date will be set one business day prior to the record date (instead of two originally), and therefore you would need to purchase the stock by September 5th.

Below is the link to a ThinkAdvisor.com article that provides more details on how your investments may be affected.

think advisor logo
Are You Ready for T-2?

——————-

Oxana Saunders Vice President Path FinancialOxana Saunders is the Vice President of Path Financial, LLC. She may be reached at 941.894.2571 or oxana@pathfinancial.net.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Do you need stocks in your portfolio?

rollercoasterMost financial professionals would tell investors not to focus on matching or beating market indices, but rather on making sure that they stay on track to meet their financial goals.

Some investors push back against this advice, perhaps thinking that it is an excuse advisors have for not being able to beat the market. Yet, the advice is sound. While some investors need full exposure to equities, others do not need to take that much risk and some would be much better off having no exposure to stocks at all.

How much risk one takes depends on personal circumstances. Unfortunately, investors are bombarded with 24/7 stock recommendations, and they become more receptive to them when the market has been strong and steady as it has been in the last few years. While bull markets make people feel more confident taking on risk, relying on your level of confidence to decide how much risk to take is the wrong way to pursue your financial objectives. The risk inherent in the stock market is high, and it should be handled with care.

Consider a 75-yr old widow (i.e. without a significant other, for simplicity) who wants to make sure that her $2.2mm in savings will be enough to pay for $100,000 of yearly expenses for the rest of her life. As that rate, she will spend $2mm by the time she reaches 95, leaving $200,000 to spare. Probably her best bet is to invest those savings in short-term, high-quality fixed income products to protect them against inflation. This ultra-low-risk strategy would be aligned with her goal, which is to minimize the chance of running out of money. It would have the important benefit of being highly predictable and likely devoid of unpleasant surprises.

What about a 75-year old single man who has the same expenditures but $1.5mm in the bank? Spending $100,000 per year will deplete his savings in 15 years, or sooner if he spends more due to inflation. Because there is 100% certainty that he will run out of money way before he reaches 95, he needs the extra return of stocks to make his portfolio last.

How much stock exposure does the less-wealthy investor need?

One way of answering that question is by simulating sequences of stock market returns and examining how his portfolio would fare under each sequence. This can give a sense of how his situation can be improved.

Without stocks, his portfolio will inexorably shrink by $100,000 per year. Because stocks are volatile, adding them to the portfolio will make it less predictable. The higher the proportion of stocks, the more it will depart from that steady declining path. To illustrate this, we ran a few possible ways his portfolio can depart from the no-stock scenario (see first graph).

portfolio paths 50% stocks

Adding stocks clearly makes it possible for this retiree to stretch his portfolio past year 20. But it can also make his portfolio run out of money sooner than 15 years, or subject it to a terrible start such as a 25% decline in the very first year.

How would he react to a bad start? If his tolerance for risk is low, he may close out his positions right away, book a loss, and end up worse off than before. Every investor should consider his or her risk tolerance carefully with the help of a professional.

Things can go very wrong when the volatility of stocks is not properly understood. Imagine that the widow in the first example, even though she has plenty of savings and little need to invest, becomes convinced that she is “leaving money on the table” by not keeping up with a rising stock market. She decides (or is encouraged) to deploy all her portfolio in an S&P 500 index fund.

portfolio paths 100% stocks

While her final portfolio could potentially be much bigger than without any exposure to stocks, she now has a small but very real chance that she could run out of money – a scenario that, before switching to stocks, she was virtually assured not to face (see second graph). In exchange for the chance of having more money at the end of her life (when it is least useful) she introduced the risk of being wiped out sooner, or experiencing distressing early losses that could prompt her to close out positions in a panic and lock her out of her goal.

It is tempting to invest in stocks when they seem to carry little risk. Investors should not rely on forecasts; instead, they should examine their own situations, understand their tolerance for risk, and develop an appreciation for what could go wrong with their investment strategies.

What now?

We are a Registered Investment Advisor held to a fiduciary standard of care. We believe that our portfolio management process, focused on measuring and managing risk, can be very effective at creating a sensible balance between risk and return, partly by measuring financial and investment conditions often and adjusting portfolios through a well-defined process. We implement this process for our clients and we tailor it for their specific circumstances, and we always put their interests first. That means we do not profit from transactions or by selling any products. Our only compensation is based on the assets we manage, which goes a long way of aligning our interests with yours. We can also help you evaluate your current goals and establish an investment plan aiming at achieving steady, long-term returns while managing downside risk. You can download our report describing our investment methods and goals, or contact us if you would like to know more about how Path Financial’s investment process can work for you. We’ll be happy to set up a confidential meeting to discuss your path to financial success. Read more.

facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather