Posts

Cash Value in Life Insurance

In the first installment of my life insurance series, I outlined the primary differences between term, whole, and universal life insurance. Generally, whole and universal life build cash value and term does not. While the primary purpose of life insurance is to provide money to replace income in the event of premature death, it is the existence of cash value that can provide unique planning opportunities to the policy owner. In this piece, I will provide a general overview of how cash value and policy loans against cash value are treated from a tax perspective. In order to get an idea of how cash value insurance can work for you, it’s helpful to familiarize yourself with some general terms and rules associated with it. This overview should not be interpreted or construed as tax advice or specific advice regarding how to best use you own life insurance.

 

Tax Treatment of Cash Values (Non-MEC)

Cash values that accumulate in a life insurance policy grow tax deferred. Additionally, cash withdrawals are treated on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. This means that withdrawals up to your cost basis are tax-free. Your cost basis is the total amount of premiums you paid minus any dividends and any tax-free withdrawals that were made. Amounts in excess of cost basis are taxed as income. This tax treatment allows for opportunities to use the cash accumulations for various financial planning strategies. For example, if you have $200K accumulated in the cash value account of your policy, $100K of which is cost basis, you may be able to take out (depending on your policy) $100K before you use up your basis.  This is tax-free money that can be used to supplement retirement income or contribute to tuition costs.

 

Policy Loans (Non-MEC)

Policy loans use the cash value as collateral for the borrowed amount, and are usually not taxable. This is the case even if you borrow more than the premiums you have paid in. These types of loans are not taxed as long as the policy is in force and are a popular way of leveraging accumulated cash. Interest on policy loans is not tax deductible.

 

Modified Endowment Contract (MEC)

In order to get the favorable treatment described above the policy must qualify as a non – MEC. Prior to the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) owners of cash value life insurance could put large amounts of cash in their policies and shelter the growth from taxation. DEFRA established for the first time a legal definition of life insurance. If a policy does not conform to this definition, it is deemed a Modified Endowment Contract (MEC) and technically not a life insurance policy. MEC rules placed limits on the borrowing or withdrawal of cash from policies on a tax-free basis. Also, if the premium payments made into the cash value of the policy exceed certain limits during the first seven years of the policy, it will be reclassified as a MEC. Under MEC rules, policy loans are taxable, and withdrawals may be taxed or even penalized. MEC rules apply to contracts issued after June of 1988 (as there was some grandfathering of existing contracts). These special tax rules are very complex and you should consult with your advisor to best understand how these rules may or may not apply to you.

 

Review Your Policy

The unique tax treatment and relative flexibility of cash value life insurance allow, within limits, for opportunities to use funds for a variety of financial planning objectives. Using accumulated cash to supplement retirement income or fund educational expenses are examples of common strategies. The key is to understand your policy and the details of how it can work for you. The first step is to locate your policy and most recent statement, and have these reviewed by someone who can explain the details and nuances.

Our Next Installment: The role of life insurance as a way of providing protection, liquidity, and leverage for estate planning strategies.

 

Dwight Davenport

Principal, Vodia Capital, LLC

Volatility can be a Tricky Thing

This time it took only 10 trading days. Last time, in November, it took 30 days, and over the summer it took 44 days. In each case, this is the amount of time it took for the Dow Jones Industrial Average to regain all the losses from its stumble. (If you have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, they talk about this whipsaw volatility in depth:  http://goo.gl/zpamFw)

While the first half of December is typically a time of selling in the stock market for tax reasons, and the second half usually sees a rally of around 2%, the sharp volatility we experienced has been increasing as the year goes on. One explanation is the lack of market-beating returns by mutual fund managers: 85% of which have failed to beat the market this year.  What we saw in the rally last week is a rush to get some last minute “alpha” in the hopes of catching up.

Another large pool of equity managers is the hedge fund community. Depending on which index you use, they are up as a group by only 2% this year (according to Bloomberg), to aggregate losses in most categories (hedgefundresearch.com). Either way, that is a large pile of money looking to explain why they have not made much money this year.

We were spoiled with a rapid rise in US stocks the past few years. That rise is causing significant fractures in the institutional money world. Going forward, we are likely to see increased volatility like we saw in December. Keep in mind, during 2008, we saw single-day stock market losses that equaled the entire market gains from the first 9-months of this year (8 percent in each direction)…  Volatility can be a tricky thing.

 

David Matias

Managing Principal
Vodia Capital, LLC
 

Demystifying Life Insurance

Life insurance can provide exponential financial leverage to families and individuals in a variety of circumstances and planning scenarios. It can be used to simply replace income in the event of the death of an income earner, to provide cash to an estate for tax settlement, to fund business succession or continuation plans. This précis is the first in a short series that will attempt to demystify the life insurance world and shed light on some powerful strategies.

Very often clients ask us to review, explain, and make recommendations regarding their life insurance. Our clients’ questions run the gamut from how much should be purchased to how it might be used in complicated estate planning scenarios. The place to start is the three basic types of life insurance:

  • Term
  • Universal Life
  • Whole Life

Term insurance operates as the name implies. One pays an annual premium over the course of some term of years to be awarded a certain amount upon the death of the insured. One-year renewable, five, ten and, twenty-year terms are pretty standard term insurance options. Term insurance does not build cash value.

Universal Life (UL) and Variable Universal Life (VUL) are variants of a type of insurance known collectively as “universal life” and is a bit more complicated.

UL has term insurance and cash value features that are bundled together under one policy. It is considered to be a “permanent” policy because excess premiums are paid and credited to the cash value. In a typical UL policy the cash value is credited with a fixed interest rate for a set period (usually one year). UL policies can be flexible in terms of the amount in excess premiums that can be paid into the policy. These excess amounts are subject to limits set by the IRS.

VUL is very similar to UL except the cash value account consists of variable sub-accounts. These “sub-accounts” usually shadow a publicly traded mutual fund. The term “variable” generally refers to the fact that the underlying investment will fluctuate in value. Almost any type of publicly traded mutual fund can be held in a VUL. The idea is that the cash values can build more quickly because they are being invested.

Because cash values grow tax deferred and withdrawals (if they are allowed) may receive favorable tax treatment both ULs and VULs can be used creatively in a variety of financial planning scenarios. Using universal life to help pay educational expenses or provide income in retirement are examples. I will explain more on insurance strategies based on ULs and VULs in my next installment of this series.

The third category is Whole Life insurance. Whole Life is considered to be a true permanent policy as it provides death benefit coverage for the “whole” life of the insured. There are basically two types of whole life policies: “participating” and “non-participating”.

In a non-participating contract all policy values are established at issuance. This means that death benefit, cash values, and premiums are pre-set.

In a participating contract the policy owner shares in any excess profits the company makes or the company may refund any overages in premium and will return these back to the policy. These are called dividends and there are many ways in which they can be used. Choosing the correct dividend option is important because it can affect the long-term performance of the policy.

Life insurance and its uses is a very broad topic. There are many important factors that need to be accounted for when considering using life insurance as a financial strategy. These include the financial strength of the underwriting company, the performance of the underlying assets, the underwriters’ claims experience, and fees to name a few. This brief introduction is designed to help explain some basic insurance types and terminology. In future installments of this series I will dig deeper into some very powerful and interesting strategies and explore how, with careful planning, life insurance can be used to build integral advantages into a family’s financial circumstances. I am always available for questions and/or discussion in the meantime.

 

Dwight Davenport

Principal, Vodia Capital, LLC

Apple vs. Google – A lesson in buy-and-hold

The story of Apple stock over the past two years is a great lesson in why you pick your companies and stick with them.  Despite the fact that Apple had tremendous earnings and generates more cash than any other company, the stock price hit a large decline starting at the end of 2012 through the middle of 2013.  The reasons cited in the press were many – that they lost their mojo, Samsung and Google Android was going to replace the iPhone, that Tim Cook didn’t know how to innovate.  Despite all this, each quarter they continued to grow their top line revenue and maintain phenomenal profit margins.

Today, Samsung is reeling from razor-thin profit margins in the low-end phone market, and Android struggles with platform issues (each phone manufacturer has their own version and few users stay current with the latest software releases).  Now with a roster of new phones and mobile devices on an improved iOS, Apple continues to dominate the high-end, high-profit market.

And the stock price reflects it.  To compare Apple to Google (who had a tremendous 2013), the lesson is clear.  For 2014, Apple has posted a 33% gain versus a loss for Google.  For the past two years, Apple also beat Google, 64% versus 58%.  And over the past three years, it is Apple 110% to Google’s 73%.  Go back further and the difference widens dramatically.  Invest in Samsung during this period, and you would have lost money.

Not that investing in Google was a bad idea.  But the last thing you want to do is chase returns…. dumping Apple in the rout of 2012/2013 and switching to Google – versus just holding on – would have generated lower returns.  Timed wrong, and you could have lost money.  Add to an existing Apple position based on the fundamentals during the volatility, however, would kick up your returns dramatically.

Chasing stock returns – and buying into the hype – can be a dangerous strategy.  Instead, fundamental investing is picking your stocks based on the value the company generates – and avoiding the temptation to follow the herd.

David Matias

2014 IRA Update – Required minimum distributions (RMDs)

Starting at age 70 1/2, Traditional IRA account holders are required by law to withdraw a portion of assets each year as a distribution. It’s important to note that in most cases RMDs only apply to traditional IRAs, not their Roth IRA counterparts.

These required minimum distributions (RMDs) must start by April 1st of the year after you turn 70 1/2. After that, all RMDs must be made by December 31st of that year.

For example, if you turned 70 1/2 in 2014, you have until April 1st, 2015 to take your first distribution and December 31st, 2015 to take your next one. There are significant penalties for not taking your RMD during the correct time-frame, including potentially having the non-distributed portion taxed at 50%.

The RMD amount is determined based on the account holder’s age, the IRA’s previous year balance, and a withdrawal factor, set by the IRS, that is primarily based on life expectancy. TD Ameritrade has a calculator that can help you predict your next RMD.

If you have multiple IRAs held at different institutions, you’ll want to make sure there is a coordinated effort to determine the total RMD amount for all of your accounts.

If you’re a Vodia Capital client, we will be contacting you over the next few weeks to help make sure your distribution is completed accurately and on time.

 

Please do not hesitate  to contact us if you have any questions.

 

Marcus Green

Good Economic News

There has been a spate of good economic news over the past week: GDP in the third quarter of 2014 was 3.5%, and jobs growth continues to be steady at over 265,000 per month for the entire year. The GDP number is particularly encouraging, given the 4.6% growth in the second quarter. Keep in mind that we need at least 2% to buffer the economy from outside shocks, and it has been a long while since we sustained anything close to 4% on average.

The jobs number, while encouraging, doesn’t address the participation rate which is now down to 62.7%, the lowest since 1978. That is bad news for a sustained economic recovery as fewer people are participating and wealth continues to be concentrated. For a consumption-based economy to maintain robust growth, all need to experience an increase in wealth to increase spending.

But the flip side to the labor participation figure – from a markets perspective – is that the Fed is likely to continue a very accommodative monetary policy. If there is a real increase in jobs and participation combined, the US economy could be on a good footing for many years ahead.

David B. Matias

Market Update: July 2014

If you’ve seen the news over the past two weeks, you’ll have noticed there is much joy in the U.S. financial picture. The Dow has reached an all-time high of 17,000, unemployment dropped again in June to 6.1% after 280,000 new jobs were created, and fear levels, as measured by the various “fear indices,” are at lows that have not been seen more than once a decade. Stocks are up another 8% for this year, on top of last year’s meteoric rise, and bonds, which were assumed to be poised for a significant decline, are, in fact, up this year by 4%. There is no shortage of good news when it comes to investing.

The risks and realities, however, are very different. The U.S. economy actually contracted, for the first part of this year; long-term unemployment is still at levels never seen in the modern U.S. economy; and the level of global conflict has risen to a level not seen since the 1970s. Globally, sustained growth is still in doubt: Europe has still failed to extract itself from a recession and risks deflation, Asia is looking for that “soft landing” of slowing the asset bubbles without cratering the economy, and wealth inequality is beyond comprehension.

We are in fact, looking at a tale of two minds. One mind believes in the ability of stocks to rise in any situation; the other mind is on constant alert for the next set of bad news that could impact the global balance.

If we stick to home, and take a closer look at the U.S. economy, we can get a better picture of how the goods news we are used to seeing in asset prices is still ahead of the good news we need about overall economic recovery.

 

All major asset classes have shown similar growth in 2014 thus far, indicating a “risk-on” market mentality as investors seek returns through greater risk taking. While not matching last year’s performance in equities, the consistency of returns in unique.

All major asset classes have shown similar growth in 2014 thus far, indicating a “risk-on” market mentality as investors seek returns through greater risk taking. While not matching last year’s performance in equities, the consistency of returns in unique.

 

Markets – Equities

On the bright side, markets continue their rise after a rocky start to the year. Last year’s meteoric upswing in equities was quickly met with a harsh pause in January, as stock prices closed out that month down 6%. What could have been a further rout of markets was, it appears, a retesting of market levels and a chance for some to take risk off the table. With the market more than doubling since the lows of 2009, it is not unusual for an entire group of investors to take a breather and turn those gains into cash thereby protecting themselves again sudden declines.

By the end of Q1, the markets regained their equilibrium, and demonstrated a slight gain for the year. That gain of just a few percent was tenuous for the next few weeks until May and June, when equities reached new highs and are now posting 8% gains for the S&P 500.

Interestingly, in this rally, the gains have been in the larger valuation companies, not growth firms. Specifically, large and mid-cap value companies have gained 8% and 11% respectively, while small-caps are doing only a fraction of that at 2-4%. This difference reflects an interesting change from the dot-com rally of the 1990s – investors are looking for some substantiation of the company’s stock price, not just a whiff of promise that the firm might make enormous profits later. Although this is not a strict trend, it points to some sanity in the current rally.

Markets – Fixed Income

As opposed to stocks, whose rise was almost universally projected at the beginning of the year – albeit to varying degrees – bonds were supposed to fall. I did not read a single prediction that bonds would rise in 2014; naysayers pointed to the Fed’s reduction in quantitative easing and rising interest rates. Instead, rates have stayed level or gone down, with bonds up across the board.

While the average bond market return of 4% YTD (8% annualized) is impressive in any environment, the composition is even more interesting. High-yield bonds (non-investment grade corporates), have some of the lowest spreads to treasuries in recent history, posting a 5.5% gain for the year, while thirty-year U.S. treasuries posted a 14% gain this year. The compression of spreads on high-yield is an indicator of the continued economic recovery, amid predictions that corporate defaults will be extremely low. These phenomena are consistent with the complacency we have seen in the equity markets. The explanation I’ve heard on the treasuries is a little more complicated, but in short, there are simply not enough bonds to go around. Institutional investors, who need these risk-free bonds to hedge portfolios and meet investment mandates, demand them while the available supply dwindles.

All these dynamics are reflective of the accommodative monetary policies of our central bank, the Fed, as well as the global central banks. The Fed grew their balance sheet by $3.5 trillion from 2008 to today – all of that representing “new money” in the banking system. Around the globe, the figures are similar in size. From that new money, and the Fed’s use of it to purchase bonds in the market, we have seen rates down and prices up.

The downside of this stimulus is difficult to predict. The Fed will stop printing new money in the fall, as anticipated, yet we have not seen any of the market reaction that we might have expected. Notably, inflation has remained negligible. The fear four years ago was that inflation would run to extreme levels and hamper the recovery; now, we are now faced with the opposite problem. We need some inflation to stimulate consumption (encouraging buyers today, when things are less expensive), yet global developed markets have seen flat prices and the US inflation index is under 2%.

The immediate impact is on retirement planning. In effect, if you wish to invest your money risk- free for the next ten years, the spread between income and inflation is nearly zero. Your money, in terms of real dollars, will not grow. This can have a potentially devastating impact over the coming years as the economy returns to historical averages for these measures. Namely, some areas of price inflation hit ordinary people very hard – food prices, for example. In fact, food prices have risen steadily over the past few years with some basics, such as meats, seeing 15-20% annual price increases. Yet food is not counted in the inflation gauge (called non-core CPI), and hence we are left to feel the impact without acknowledging the problem.

Economy

The perverse dynamic of inflation is best understood in the context of the jobs market. As we continue to remind folks, the measure of jobs health used by the media is misleading. Unemployment does not reflect the jobs participation rate, ignoring those who have simply left the market. Instead, we look at total employment as a percent of the population, as you’ll see below. While the trend has been encouraging, it shows only marginal improvement from the end of the recession five years ago.

An equally disturbing trend is the long-term unemployed. As you can see from the chart below, those unemployed for 27 weeks or longer as a portion of the total unemployed population spiked to levels never seen before. And while the trend has brought that level down from 1-in-2 unemployed to 1-in-3, it is still well above historical levels.

 

Long-term unemployed (27 weeks or greater) as a percentage of total unemployed. We reached levels (45%) double the long-term average, and have not employed most of these workers in the recovery thus far. While the level has dropped to 33%, we still have an unprecedented problem.

Long-term unemployed (27 weeks or greater) as a percentage of total unemployed. We reached levels (45%) double the long-term average, and have not employed most of these workers in the recovery thus far. While the level has dropped to 33%, we still have an unprecedented problem.

 

The impact is devastating on the economy and on people. There has been a wave of forced retirees, folks who were at the prime of their career with vast experience and education who simply cannot find suitable work. This has also fed the inflation dynamic mentioned above – people are unwilling to switch jobs for fear of losing theirs. With fewer employed folks job-hunting, this puts a damper on wage increase and ultimately lowers the cost of labor for firms. Labor costs, being one of the major components of inflation, have helped to tamper inflation as measured by the government. Yet, while wages remain flat, basic costs such as food and fuel continue to rise, creating an impact on Americans’ daily lives.

As we look at the other aspects of the U.S. economy, the message is equally mixed. We are seeing a renaissance in energy, with U.S. reserves and production of natural gas and crude exceeding even the wildest estimates from just five years ago. Yet energy prices continue to climb as global conflict creates uncertainty and the cost of refining keeps prices high on gasoline and heating oil.

Another paradoxical phenomenon is general economic growth. Consumer confidence, the general measure of how likely people are going to spend, is back to its long-term average and touching levels not seen since the Great Recession began. Yet, GDP, the measure of production, and by inference, consumption, contracted in the first quarter by -2.9%, again the first time since the Great Recession ended. Although much of that contraction has been blamed on the bitter winter, it is still a reduction in the economy that requires a steep recovery.

 

GDP quarter-over-quarter annualized change from 2000-2014. While we have shown steady growth since 2009, Q1 saw a -3% decline. Q2 numbers, due out shortly, will test the assumption of a sustained economic recovery.

GDP quarter-over-quarter annualized change from 2000-2014. While we have shown steady growth since 2009, Q1 saw a -3% decline. Q2 numbers, due out shortly, will test the assumption of a sustained economic recovery.

 

Global Conflict and Perception

One of my earliest lessons learned as a student of international relations was the damning relationship between the economy and global conflict. As discussed in the Wall Street Journal (“An Arc of Instability Unseen Since the ‘70s,” July 14, 2014), we are facing the most challenging set of circumstances we have witnessed since the late 1970s and the height of the Cold War. There are two civil wars that have the potential to spill over into U.S. interests (Syria and Iraq); Afghanistan is facing an electoral crisis; Russia is promoting ethnic strife in Ukraine after invading Crimea; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is heating up with little signs of easing. In short, we are seeing some of the worst conflicts of our generation peak at roughly the same time.

[Note: This article was being finalized as a Malaysian Airlines passenger jet was shot down over the Ukraine, emphasizing just how volatile these conflicts have become]

I am loathe to make any sort of political commentary, but each and every one of these conflicts has the potential to draw the U.S. back into an armed conflict, even during a time when the US has resoundingly shown little interest in engagement. This perception – that the U.S. will not engage to resolve conflict – has created the adverse effect of increasing the belligerence of rogue actors. It is a perverse situation that echoes through the history of nation-state politics: perceived weakness breeds conflict, while the threat of might promotes peace. The impact on our economy is unmistakable. Put succinctly, what happens abroad can destroy our recovery at home.

These conflicts are developing rapidly against a backdrop of pressing global issues that are damaging our ability to grow. From climate change and viral outbreaks to food scarcity, we are facing a growing global series of challenges that will require a coordinated and intelligent response. Yet the denial is palpable. For instance, rising sea levels have put major roads in Miami under water during regular tide surges, a trend that will continue to engulf the city in sea water in the coming years. Yet real estate prices continue to climb in the city, development is robust, and elected politicians continue to deny there is a problem.

The math is undeniable: the economy will suffer and our quality of life will be threatened. To combat the rising tides in South Beach, the city of Miami has already committed $1.4 billion to shoring up the roads. That is money spent to stem a problem, money that could have been better used to invest in a technology or build up our educational system. We are increasingly short sighted as a society as the world quite literally “heats up.”

As a parting thought, I offer this last chart, which shows the fear gauge on the S&P 500, a broad measure taken from the futures market that shows how stock traders view the short-term future. A lower number indicates a perception of calm and rising markets, a higher number indicates rocky or down markets. For reference, the index bottoms out at 10 during strong bull markets, and peaks at 80 during market calamities such as 2008, with an average level of 20. In the past two weeks, VIX has hovered between 10 and 12. Perception of financial risk, at this moment in time, is the lowest it has ever been. Are we putting our heads in the sand? And what will the consequences of our denial be?

 

VIX from 1990 to 2014. At only three times in the past 24 years has the VIX reached a low of 10 – a level that shows perception of financial risk is at its lowest possible. Once in 1993, another in early 2007, and today.

VIX from 1990 to 2014. At only three times in the past 24 years has the VIX reached a low of 10 – a level that shows perception of financial risk is at its lowest possible. Once in 1993, another in early 2007, and today.

 

As I am fond of saying, perception is reality. Today, the markets perceive low risk and rising assets ahead. That perception, however, will be fragile as broader issues take root in daily life. And as perception changes, so will the financial risks that we all face.

I want investors to be aware that although some things are stabilizing, we live in destabilizing times. It is this balancing act of perception against reality that drives our portfolio composition. We have seen that managed volatility in our portfolios, while capturing growth from a variety of asset classes and strategies, leads to stable returns over the long haul. Put another way, these portfolios are designed as an all-weather strategy, a welcome approach when the line between perception and reality becomes blurred.

Rest assured that we at Vodia are keeping abreast of current issues in order to keep our investors informed and our assets as protected as possible. We remain optimistic, and realistic.

It is our job to monitor the world and manage the portfolios. It is your job to enjoy the summer.

Regards,

David B. Matias, CPA
Managing Principal