Bothered by your investment returns? You may be looking at them wrong – The Globe and Mail
The investing disappointments of last year have made a return appearance in early 2023.
Bonds and bond funds have given up their gains in January, and stocks have lost momentum. We won’t see a clear up or down market trend emerge until there’s more confidence that inflation is easing enough to project a path for lower interest rates. Meantime, prepare for some unpleasantness in your monthly investment statements.
Rona Birenbaum, a Toronto-based financial planner and founder of Caring for Clients, has been dealing with clients asking pointed questions about their portfolios ever since 2022 statements were issued several weeks ago. She’s found a few areas where she’s been able to calm clients with some context about their results.
One of these areas is frustration about the value of investments in a portfolio falling below the book value. It’s quite common for investing account statements to show these numbers side by side, which suggests book value is some kind of a benchmark for comparing how you’re doing.
That would be wrong. “Book value is a figure for tax purposes only,” Ms. Birenbaum said. “It’s not designed to help you understand the performance of your investments.”
Book value sounds like the original amount you paid for your investments. But what it really reflects is the original invested amount plus reinvested distributions of income, dividends and capital gains from your mutual fund holdings. “Every time you get a distribution, your book value goes up,” Ms. Birenbaum said.
Book value is also relevant to investors using a non-registered dividend reinvestment plan, or DRIP. The book value for stocks in a DRIP will be purchase price plus reinvested dividends.
What’s the point of book value, also known as book cost? When you sell an investment in a non-registered account, your capital gain or loss is your selling price minus book value.
Using book value to assess your investing results is a mistake because it can result in the false impression that you’ve lost money. The market value of your investments could be higher than the purchase price, but below the book value. For a better comparison of current market value, check out the annual investing performance report your investment firm issued earlier this year. It’s sure to be archived online if you didn’t see it.
Ms. Birenbaum said bond funds offer a particularly tough comparison between book value and market value right now. These funds make regular distributions of interest, so book value will increase every year if the distributions are reinvested.
But in 2022, the market value of bond funds fell as interest rates moved higher. The background here is that the price of bond funds moves in the opposite direction of rates. Bonds did rebound in January, but they’ve given up those gains recently on concern that interest rates may yet have to rise to cool down inflation.
Another source of frustration for investors is that even their longer-term results have taken a hit. Ms. Birenbaum looked at one balanced fund where the average annual three-year return to the end of 2021 was 8.9 per cent and the three-year annualized return to the end of last year was 4.2 per cent. “These numbers are bouncing around like crazy,” she said. “I haven’t seen variability in compound returns like this in a long time.”
Seeing your longer-term results worsen is frustrating, but things can change quickly. Strong market returns in January meant that same balanced fund was up 5.8 per cent for the three years to Jan. 31.
A mistake people make in assessing their short- and long-term results is comparing them haphazardly to other investments that did better. Ms. Birenbaum cited the example of a client who noted that his globally diversified portfolio was down over a 12-month period while the S&P/TSX index was up. The correct point of comparison is a mix of Canadian, U.S. and international benchmarks.
One more issue in comparing returns is that results contained in annual investment reports are shown on a money-weighted basis, which factors in money flowing in and out of the account as well as the performance of underlying assets.
If you sell an investment that later rebounds, you could end up with worse results than the funds you own, Ms. Birenbaum explained. “You only getting a return on the money you have at work.”
Are you a young Canadian with money on your mind? To set yourself up for success and steer clear of costly mistakes, listen to our award-winning Stress Test podcast.
Some investment firms not adhering to new conflict of interest rules, regulatory review concludes – The Globe and Mail
Some Canadian wealth management firms are not adhering to new conflict-of-interest rules, particularly when selling their own proprietary products, according to a new compliance report by an industry watchdog.
In a report released this week, the New Self-Regulatory Organization of Canada revealed that while a number of investment dealers have implemented strong controls to “identify, disclose and address” conflicts in the best interest of their clients, there are still a “few common weaknesses” involving various aspects of the conflict-of-interest rules that began in 2021.
One such weakness is that solely providing disclosure to a client does not satisfy the rules and investment dealers must implement controls to address the conflict in the client’s best interest.
While the rule applies to any type of conflict – such as third-party compensation, product recommendation, sales incentives – the New SRO review identified specific gaps by investment dealers in controls to address conflicts associated with the sale of proprietary products.
The New SRO is the amalgamation of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA).
The new rules, known as client focused reforms or CFRs, came into effect in June, 2021, and were intended to address conflict-of-interest concerns in certain situations – for instance, if an adviser’s compensation is linked to selling an institution’s proprietary products.
But the rule reforms also brought unintended consequences when several of Canada’s largest banks halted sales of third-party investment products from their financial planning arms in 2021. Certain banks shifted to only offering their own proprietary mutual funds, and clients working with financial planners are no longer able to purchase independent funds in their investment portfolios.
Shortly after, both IIROC and the MFDA, along with the Canadian Securities Administrators, launched an industry-wide compliance sweep to determine how the new rules were being implemented by investment firms – including the Big Six banks.
This involves examining conflicts associated with proprietary products and restrictions related to a firm’s product shelf.
In addition to deficiencies with proprietary products, the New SRO also found firms did not always disclose all three components of the conflict of interest to clients: the nature and extent of the conflict; the potential impact and risk that a conflict could pose to the client; and how the conflict of interest has been, or will be, addressed by the investment dealer.
And some investment firms did not adequately document their assessment of conflicts to provide evidence to regulators that they are addressing the conflict in the best interest of the client.
IIROC declined to comment on whether the review included examining the product shelves of bank-owned discount brokerages that have come under scrutiny by the industry for blocking do-it-yourself investors from purchasing low-risk cash exchange-traded funds.
The New SRO said the separate joint report – which will be released at future date – will more provide more details of the “deficiencies” identified across all investment dealers and platforms as well as some best practices observed during the sweep.
The sweep is independent of another review conducted last year by the Ontario Securities Commission on the product offerings of Canada’s largest banks. Ontario Finance Minister Peter Bethlenfalvy launched that review after he had concerns about financial institutions halting sales or “unduly” restricting sales of third-party investment funds.
The OSC submitted recommendations to him on Feb. 28, 2022. The report has not yet been released to the public. Last month, a spokesperson for the Finance Minister told The Globe and Mail that Mr. Bethlenfalvy is still reviewing the OSC’s recommendations, more than a year later.
Wall Street is thirsty for its next big investment opportunity: The West's vanishing water – CNN
Situated in the Sonoran Desert near the Arizona-California border is the tiny rural town of Cibola – home to roughly 300 people, depending on the season.
Life here depends almost entirely on the Colorado River, which nourishes thirsty crops like cotton and alfalfa, sustains a nearby wildlife refuge and allows visitors to enjoy boating and other recreation.
It’s a place few Americans are likely to have heard of, which made it all the more surprising when investment firm Greenstone Management Partners bought nearly 500 acres of land here. On its website, Greenstone says its “goal is to advance water transactions that benefit both the public good and private enterprise.”
But critics accuse Greenstone – a subsidiary of the East Coast financial services conglomerate MassMutual – of trying to profit off Cibola’s most precious and limited resource: water. And it comes at a time when Arizona’s allocation of Colorado River water is being slashed amid a decadeslong megadrought.
“These companies aren’t buying up plots of land because they want to farm here and be a part of the community, they’re buying up land here for the water rights,” said Holly Irwin, a Cibola resident and La Paz County district supervisor.
Those water rights could soon benefit Queen Creek, Arizona, a growing Phoenix suburb about 200 miles away. Last September, the town approved the transfer of a $27 million purchase of Colorado River water from Greenstone’s properties in Cibola, though the deal is now mired in a lawsuit filed by La Paz, Mohave and Yuma counties against the federal Bureau of Reclamation for signing off on the water transfer.
The Bureau of Reclamation referred all lawsuit questions to the Department of Justice, which did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.
In a court-filed response to the counties’ lawsuit, DOJ attorneys argued that Reclamation’s environmental assessment “fully satisfied” the National Environmental Policy Act. It convincingly demonstrated that the transfer would not result in any significant impacts to the environment: at most, it will result in a trivial reduction (for less than half the year) in the flows in one stretch of the Lower Colorado River.”
After hearing arguments from the counties’ attorneys and DOJ attorneys on Wednesday, US District Judge Michael Liburdi said he will make a ruling on the lawsuit in late April.
“Greenstone is going to make millions at the expense of what it’s going to do to our communities in the future and the precedence it’s going to set,” said Irwin. “We are in the midst of an extreme drought, our communities need this water. At some point, the state has a responsibility to protect the people that are here and to protect our water and not cater to those that are buying property for the water rights to make millions off of it to benefit metropolitan areas.”
Grady Gammage, an attorney representing Greenstone, told CNN in a statement that its “proposal was recommended for approval by the Arizona Department of Water Resources after extensive hearing and comment” and “has no impact on the potential of cities along the river to grow.
“As property owners, my clients hold a water right,” Gammage said. “This is the same as all the farmers along the river, who hold land that has been irrigated, in most cases for over 100 years. That water right is valuable property, which can be transferred. It’s like buying and selling land, except that, Colorado River water can only be transferred if it goes through an extensive review process at both the State and Federal Levels. Any proposed transfer is independently analyzed.”
In neighboring Mohave County, Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter describes what he sees as a battle for the future of Colorado River communities, adding that a number of East Coast investment firms have been trying to get in on the action.
“These companies are actually pretty savvy in that they come out West, purchase and pick up cheap rural agricultural land, they sit on it for a little while and then they’re trying to sell the water,” Lingenfelter said. “I don’t think that they should be allowed to profiteer off of Arizona’s finite resources … If they’re coming after a portion of our only water supply on the river for many of our communities, we have to fight it.”
It’s not just Arizona. East Coast firms have bought up thousands of acres of irrigated land across the Southwest, local officials told CNN. Water Asset Management, a New York-based investment firm, has become one of the biggest players in the field, with purchases in Arizona, California, Colorado and Nevada as well as pending deals in New Mexico and Texas.
Water Asset Management president Matt Diserio has called water in the United States “a trillion-dollar market opportunity,” and said he started the company “on the core belief that scarce clean water is the resource defining this century, much like plentiful, cheap dirty oil defined the last century.”
Water Asset Management describes its mission online as “investing in companies and assets that ensure water quality and availability.”
“Water Asset Management is proud of our investments in production agriculture and water in the American West,” company COO Marc Robert told CNN via email. “In the face of record shortages on the Colorado River, we have voluntarily answered urgent and repeated calls to conserve water. Moreover, we will continue to manage our assets in a manner that contributes to solutions to water scarcity and work actively to promote conservation.”
Andy Mueller, the general manager of the Colorado River District Water District, disagrees, describing Water Asset Management and other East Coast investment firms as “drought profiteers.”
“They’re trying to suck the very lifeblood out of these communities for their own financial benefit,” Mueller said.
Water Asset Management owns at least 3,000 acres in Western Colorado’s Grand Valley, where Mueller works to protect Colorado’s share of the river. He said the full scale of the land grab is difficult to track because investment firms use different names to disguise ownership.
“Water Asset Management has engaged in a number of different purchase methods to keep their transactions unknown to many of the local jurisdictions,” Mueller said. “It’s a very unpopular move to come from New York and invest in irrigated agriculture with the intent to dry it up and watch it blow away.”
The investment firm did not respond to CNN’s question about allegations it hides its land ownership by using names other than Water Asset Management. In property searches on county assessor websites in Mohave County and Mesa County in Colorado, no results were found when CNN searched for properties with the name Water Asset Management as the listed owner.
CNN found multiple properties in both counties under various names, such as WPI Hulet Farm AZ LLC, WPI II-GV6 Farm CO LLC and WPI-919 Farm AZ LLC, all of which have a mailing address that match the address for Water Asset Management’s headquarters in New York City.
Under a pilot program, the federal government has dedicated $125 million in drought-relief funds to pay Colorado River farmers and ranchers to conserve water by fallowing their land. The feds are also readying additional funding for short-term fallowing. Some are worried that outside investment firms could profit from such a program.
“That’s where I think we start to see this investment speculation, when these outside landholders get big dollars to grow nothing,” said Kerry Donovan, a rancher in Eagle County, Colorado, who tried to strengthen Colorado’s anti-speculation laws during her time as a state senator. “These companies don’t have the passion to grow crops, they have a passion to make money. It’s a very different land management mindset.”
Donovan now runs her family’s 400-acre Copper Bar Ranch, where she raises highland cattle along with her husband and two dogs. Like other farmers and ranchers in the state, she worries about how Wall Street will influence their future.
“It’s not their land, it’s not their legacy – it’s their bottom line,” Donovan said. “For me it’s personal because it’s my family’s land that we are fighting to preserve … and that could be in jeopardy when New York comes to play.
“One day they will sell that water off, which means the land would go out of agriculture production,” Donovan continued. “And they’ll sell when water is worth the most, which is when we have the least of it.”
UBS set for talks with Michael Klein to terminate Credit Suisse investment bank deal
March 21 (Reuters) – UBS (UBSG.S) is set to enter talks with Michael Klein to terminate a deal that would have seen the Wall Street dealmaker take control of much of Credit Suisse’s (CSGN.S) investment bank, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday.
UBS on Sunday agreed to buy rival Swiss bank Credit Suisse for 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.23 billion) in stock and agreed to assume up to 5 billion francs ($5.4 billion) in losses, in a shotgun merger engineered by Swiss authorities to avoid more market-shaking turmoil in global banking.
Klein, a veteran dealmaker, was merging his eponymous advisory boutique into Credit Suisse’s investment banking operations to create CS First Boston as a standalone business which he would have led from New York.
UBS has now assigned a legal team to examine how to void the contract Credit Suisse signed with Klein in the cheapest way possible, according to the FT report, which cited people with direct knowledge of the matter.
“We assume he (Klein) is cherry picking. The deal was done when the selling bank had a gun held to its head and we are no longer in that position,” a person close to UBS said, according to the report.
UBS and Credit Suisse declined to comment, while Klein could not be immediately reached for comment.
Micro galleries highlighting MMIWG stories aim to reconcile through knowledge and art – CBC.ca
Twenty-six organizations call for MSI for migrant workers in Nova Scotia
NOVA Chemicals sets bold ESG aspirations to lead the plastics circular economy – Financial Post
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Search for life on Mars accelerates as new bodies of water found below planet’s surface
Tech18 hours ago
Developer release candidates for tvOS 16.4 & watchOS 9.4 are out
Investment20 hours ago
UBS set for talks with Michael Klein to terminate Credit Suisse investment bank deal
News14 hours ago
The Losani Family Foundation celebrates 10 years of giving back
Art17 hours ago
Daniel Sundahl creates memorial portraits for fallen EPS officers
Economy19 hours ago
Why We Shouldn’t Expect the Russian Economy to Collapse Tomorrow
Business19 hours ago
Nordstrom liquidation sales underwhelm Canadians as most items marked down 5 per cent
Health19 hours ago
Report calls for restricting marketing to kids in grocery stores, restaurants
Tech20 hours ago
Google Opens Up Access to Bard AI Chatbot