Investment

Opinion | The Perfect Retirement Investment Nobody Wants, Part 2 – The New York Times

Published

4 weeks ago

February 25, 2023

Megan Johnson

Readers were intrigued by my newsletter last Friday, “The Perfect Retirement Investment Nobody Wants.” It was about a concept, never realized, for a hybrid product combining long-term care insurance with an immediate annuity — a stream of monthly payments that begins right away and lasts as long as you live.

Some readers said such policies already exist. Not exactly, as I’ll explain. Others wanted to know when or where they could buy one. Nowhere right now. Many wrote about the challenges of trying to protect themselves and their families from the vicissitudes of either ill health or such good health that they outlive their savings.

The idea that appeared in a 2001 article by the economist Mark Warshawsky and two other scholars is that insurers could charge less for long-term care insurance and annuities by combining them, because the risks to the insurer would partly offset each other: If customers needed lots of long-term care early on in the policy, they probably wouldn’t live long enough to get a lot of annuity payments. If they lived long enough to suck up lots of annuity payments, it’s probably because they hadn’t needed much long-term care early in retirement. Insurers could offer the two protections together more cheaply than each one separately because of the offsetting risks — the hedge, in finance lingo.

In their vision, the premium for the hybrid coverage would be paid in full upfront and benefits could never be cut. People who were certified as needing long-term care would get a guaranteed bump-up in their monthly annuity rather than having to seek reimbursement for individual expenses such as nursing care.

I’ll share excerpts from emails I got about the plan and then give you some additional thoughts from Warshawsky and other experts.

Henning Sieverts of Norwich, England: “It’s a smart insight, but as formulated, never accessible to the bulk of any population. Most people have neither the wealth nor the income even to consider buying into such a scheme. The public sector, with or without involving not-for-profit social enterprises, is entirely capable of it efficiently and responsibly.”

Rebecca Bartlett of Brattleboro, Vt.: “Wow! As a recent retiree who tried a crystal ball, tea leaves and entrails and (probably) failed to make the right decisions on annuities and Medicare, I think the U.S. government is the right organization to enact the Warshawsky plan. That’s what government is for: to feed us our greens.”

Ethan Schwartz of New York City: “Savers may have a rational reason for not liking longevity annuities: The returns they offer are pretty skimpy. Today, the annual investment return on a longevity annuity that begins payments to a couple at age 80 is only 5.8 percent, and that’s only if one of them lives to age 100.”

Jim Pisula of Fort Collins, Colo.: “The insurance companies are their own worst enemies — the products are laden with fat commissions so agents push them heavily, they’re difficult to compare one against another, they require big chunks of money to start with, and they’re illiquid.”

Tom Wilson of Berlin, Md.: “I have long-term care insurance and so do my sister and a number of my friends. In each case, the insurance company has come back long after we initially purchased the insurance and either raised the rates or reduced the benefits. It’s like making a bet with someone and having them change the terms of the wager or the stakes retroactively.”

Henry Pashkow of Philadelphia: “I like broccoli and brussels sprouts, but I don’t like the insurance policies. Is this rational? Not to a rational economist (if there are any). But that’s me.”

All of those are valid points. People feel annuities and long-term care insurance are unnecessarily expensive. They worry that the insurers won’t be around to pay when they need the money. Some admit that they probably ought to have coverage, but for whatever reason don’t.

Cost is a particular concern. Only about one-third of households could afford a policy along the lines of the one in the 2001 article, assuming they could not tap more than half of the equity in their homes to pay for it, according to a 2007 article by Brenda Spillman and Christopher Murtaugh for the Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Spillman and Murtaugh were Warshawsky’s co-authors on the 2001 article.

Warshawsky told me that he heard from a lot of people after my newsletter came out, but not, alas, any insurers who wanted to offer the policy. I asked him about Spillman and Murtaugh’s piece, which he had not read. He said he wasn’t sure that the joint product would be as unaffordable as they estimated, though he did email me later that it would not be “suitable for low-income retirees who are covered by Social Security for the annuity and Medicaid for long-term care.”

I also asked Warshawsky about Rebecca Bartlett’s idea that the federal government should offer such a product. He said it would be hard to keep it from being politicized, with segments of the population fighting over who should be subsidized. “It would be great to introduce it in the private sector first and see if it works,” he said.

As for Ethan Schwartz’s argument that the return on annuities isn’t good, Warshawsky cited research by himself and others that found that plain-vanilla annuities — at least those that pay out immediately, rather than later in life — do pay a fair return based on expected longevity. “It’s not what you would get in the stock market,” he said. “These are like bond returns.”

Scott Olson, an insurance broker on Camano Island, Wash., who specializes in long-term care insurance, told me in an interview that several companies in addition to the one I mentioned, OneAmerica, offer hybrids of long-term care insurance and annuities. But as my article explained, the existing policies don’t have the natural hedge that’s built into the Warshawsky-Spillman-Murtaugh concept.

Likewise, some readers cited policies that combine life insurance with long-term care insurance. Those don’t have a natural hedge, either. The risks to the insurer are all loaded on one outcome: that the person will get sick and die young.

Long-term care insurance (coupled with longevity protection) is “an absolutely critical part of retirement planning,” but until recently it hasn’t been sufficiently available because many insurers that sold long-term care as a stand-alone product lost money by underpricing it, Chuck Goldman, a financial services adviser in Swampscott, Mass., told me. The number of long-term care policies sold annually fell more than 90 percent, to 57,000 in 2018 from 754,000 in 2002, according to a Treasury Department survey.

“There isn’t enough competition to make companies deliver the best products they can,” Goldman said. That clearly needs to change.

The Readers Write (About Other Things, Too)

I have a computer science background and spent many years with the ill-fated congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Regarding your newsletter on the regulation of artificial intelligence, I worry that, in the absence of an organization like the O.T.A., we are letting so-called “autonomous applications,” like Teslas, be made commercially available without really assessing their safety or looking at the broader social and policy questions. The trucking industry is talking about autonomous 18-wheelers barreling down our freeways, for God’s sake. Technologists, economists, psychologists, social scientists and ethicists need to put their expertise together. And, as you point out, it needs to be an international effort. Learning on the fly can be hazardous to our health.

Fred Weingarten
Annapolis, Md.

Quote of the Day

“Once the N.H.S. arrived, if you were poor and you got sick, you weren’t on your own anymore. You were in a crowded waiting room full of other sick people.”

— “Cunk on Britain,” Episode 4: “Twentieth-Century Shocks” (2018)

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Investment

Peter Hall: Why companies should invest now, even if a recession is coming – Financial Post

Published

8 hours ago

March 26, 2023

Megan Johnson

This section is

by HSBC

Canada has underinvested since the financial crisis and is now over-using labour to make up for it

CFOs are looking to conserve cash, but they should be investing instead, argues Peter Hall. Photo by Brent Lewin/Bloomberg

The first in a three-part series on why now is the time for companies to invest.

Investing in big, new industrial projects right now might seem asinine to business strategists. Higher interest rates have everyone fixated on recession — not whether there will be one, but when and how deep.

The prospect of a prolonged banking crisis piles on considerable risk. History suggests that these conditions cause business investment to dry up, remaining arid until it’s clear the economy has legs. At times like these, CFOs are supposed to be closing the vault to all visionary spendthrifts, conserving cash to survive the the big bad.

But is that really where the economy is at?

Visionaries might counter that demand is where it should be, and that our current problem sits squarely with tight supply. Ergo, we need more industrial capacity to make sure that production can meet demand.

Even if they’re right, that’s no easy feat — getting a building up usually takes more than a year from start to finish, sometimes several. More machinery is a quicker fix, if you can find a place to put it; but it is more than likely tied up in the supply chain snarls that it would be attempting to rectify. So, how can this possibly be an ‘investment moment’?

Since business investment in physical assets shouldn’t be, and on balance rarely is, a knee-jerk reaction to an instant development, then there must be good structural or longer-term reasons for this being an “investment moment.” It turns out there are not just one or two good reasons. In fact, there are enough that airing them requires more than a stand-alone article, which is why this will be the first of three on the subject. So, where do we start?

Let’s first consider the possibility that we have underinvested since the global financial crisis (GFC). Most would agree that the global economy has on balance spit out sub-par growth since 2008, not really generating a convincing recovery. Then consider the bubble of activity that preceded the crash back in 2008. There was arguably a lot of pre-GFC investment to support the unsustainable level of production, excess that had to be re-absorbed before a true, new investment cycle could begin. Since that pre-event bubble was so huge, investment didn’t really need to ramp up for years — in fact, long enough that business in general might misinterpret it as a structural change, to a low-investment “new normal.”

Drag that on for long enough, and when the economy is finally ready to ramp up, business capacity is years behind. There is a good chance that our post-COVID recovery is discovering just that. Suddenly, we need the capacity, but we can’t get there right away. The result? Inflation that’s not a temporary blip, as we were promised, but a nagging problem that in the absence of a supply-side fix, has us artificially suppressing demand. If this is true, monetary policy ought to be seen as a temporary rein, buying time for business to boost capacity. If they can handle the higher borrowing costs, that is.

If that seems like a stretch, consider that in Canada, business investment as a share of gross domestic product has been well below the long-term average for years — and that at a time of suppressed global growth. More importantly for global capacity, U.S. business investment as a share of GDP took a long time to recover post-GFC, and has not yet returned to pre-GFC levels. The case seems compelling: there’s a need for a significant rise in business investment to support the global economy’s present and future demands.

A second and related point is that we appear to be over-using labour. It makes sense — when caught short, it’s far easier to add workers than to add plants and equipment (assuming the two are reasonably substitutable). Then, when it becomes apparent that labour is getting tight, business panics, and over-hires; better to have a healthy buffer of workers than to run lean and risk losing enough head count that lines or even whole operations get shut down.

This is far more visible than the investment situation. Everyone knows we have record-low unemployment in most OECD nations. In Canada, there is a higher number of employees for each unit of GDP, a feature of the post-GFC period. Compared with the long-term trend, a crude calculation has us employing 700,000 to 800,000 excess workers. Cut that in half, and it’s still huge.

The flip side of this is labour productivity, which has swooned in recent years. The remedy isn’t to replace all of these workers with robots. But clearly we have a critical labour shortage, and business is generally desperate for remedies. Higher business investment would relieve this pressure, and free up workers for those other parts of the economy where tight labour supply is severely constraining output.

Labour constraints aren’t likely to improve. A third argument for higher investment is our structurally skinny demographic situation. Many are hailing Canada’s outsized immigration influx in 2022 as a cure to this chronic ill. Not so fast; immigration numbers were boosted last year by 607,782 non-permanent residents (we typically receive about 26,000), abetted by Ukrainians fleeing the war. We can’t (nor should we) count on similar future surges, unless we can be assured that it is possible to boost Canada’s regular immigrant intakes.

There are plans to increase immigration to 500,000 per year; we’ve struggled in the past to get that number much above 300,000. I have argued elsewhere that as attractive as Canada is, there is increased competition from other population-constrained high-income countries; and increased competition from faster growth and the attendant opportunities in the home country.

A key means of securing our future is increasing capital’s contribution to output — which as a bonus, generally improves productivity. This is just a start — there are at least six more key reasons to hail this point in time as an investment moment. If the CFOs were twitchy after reading the first paragraph, they will now be in a full-blown sweat. This article’s three factors are reason enough to begin thinking about keeping the coffers open, and the dust off the blueprints. To be continued.

Peter Hall is chief executive of Econosphere Inc. and a former chief economist at Export Development Canada.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notifications—you will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Join the Conversation

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Investment

Billionaire Barry Sternlicht Is Heavily Invested in This 15%-Yielding Dividend Stock for Steady Income Growth – Yahoo Finance

Published

9 hours ago

March 26, 2023

Megan Johnson

Following multiple recent bank collapses, some on Wall Street estimated the Fed would step back from its by-now customary rate hikes when it convened to discuss its monetary policy last week. That did not happen, however, and Fed chair Jerome Powell announced another 0.25 percentage point rate increase.

One prominent investor thinks that was unnecessary and counterproductive.

“Obviously he (Fed Chair Jerome Powell) didn’t need to do what he did,” billionaire Barry Sternlicht said, likening the act to “using a steamroller to get the price of milk down two cents, to kill a small fly.”

With regional banks already under severe pressure, Sternlicht, the co-founder and CEO of Starwood Capital, a hedge fund that oversees over $100 billion, believes the latest rate hike could potentially cause more damage to banks.

While Sternlicht is worried about the latest increase’s impact on the economy, going by one of his picks, he appears well-prepared to withstand any more rate hikes.

Sternlicht is invested heavily in MFA Financial (MFA), a dividend stock yielding a monster 15%.

MFA is structured as a REIT, a class of company’s long known for their high-yielding dividends. MFA’s portfolio is composed mainly of residential whole loans, residential and commercial real estate securities, and MSR-related assets.

As of the end of last year, MFA’s investment portfolio totaled $8 billion, although that declined from $8.3 billion at the end of 4Q21. Elsewhere in Q4, net interest income dropped by 20.7% from $70.15 million in the same period a year ago to $55.65 million. That said, at $0.48, adj. EP increased meaningfully from the $0.08 generated in 4Q21, and came in well ahead of the $0.30 forecast.

Of course, the most appealing aspect here is that sky-high yield. The quarterly dividend payout currently stands at $0.35, generating a yield of 15.3%.

That is no doubt attractive to Sternlicht, which has allocated 68% of his portfolio to his MFA holdings; he currently owns 10,638,539 shares worth $97.13 million.

Sternlicht is not the only one showing confidence in this name. Stephen Laws, an analyst at Raymond James, holds a positive outlook for MFA. His optimism is based on “selective new investments, conservative leverage, strong portfolio returns, and shares trading at ~80% of economic book value.”

“Given our outlook for attractive portfolio returns, an increased focus on business purpose loans, and the current valuation relative to our target, we believe the risk-reward is compelling,” the 5-star analyst further added.

As such, Laws rates MFA shares an Outperform (i.e. Buy) along with a $12.5 price target. This suggests the shares will climb 37% higher over the coming months. (To watch Laws’ track record, click here)

The Street’s average target is a little under Laws’ objective; at $12.33, the figure makes room for one-year returns of 35%. Rating wise, based on 2 Buys and 1 Hold, the analyst consensus rates the stock a Moderate Buy. (See MFA stock forecast)

To find good ideas for dividend stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks’ Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks’ equity insights.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analyst. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Investment

First Republic Bank Stock: Why I Am Sticking To My Investment (NYSE:FRC)

Published

19 hours ago

March 26, 2023

Megan Johnson

Anne Czichos

A couple of things have happened to First Republic Bank (NYSE:FRC) since I submitted a contrarian call to buy the community bank’s shares about two weeks ago. FRC stock has whiplashed ever since and the bank has seen significant deposit outflows in the days following the bank failure of Silicon Valley Bank. A series of 8K disclosures were meant to reassure investors that First Republic Bank has sufficient liquidity to manage a heightened level of deposit outflows, but investors have chosen to bet against the bank and they clearly expect the worst to happen. I continue to believe that First Republic Bank is not at risk of going out of business and that the common stock potentially offers very risk-tolerant investors triple-digit return potential!

Risk control and asymmetric upside potential

To account for extraordinarily high levels of volatility in the financial market, I have chosen to take a very small position in First Republic Bank: FRC accounts for just about 1.05% of my investment portfolio which chiefly consists of non-financial stocks. Given the asymmetric risk profile that I see with brutalized community banks, I believe investors could earn multiples of their investment here… if fears subside and confidence returns to the community banking sector. However, there is a chance that First Republic Bank might be shut down or be forced to do a highly dilutive capital raise which would likely seriously impair the remaining value of the equity. Therefore, investors must recognize that there is the potential to lose the entire investment if things turn south.

Liquidity update, estimated deposit outflows and 8K disclosures

Since my last call to consider FRC in the midst of the banking bloodbath, shares of First Republic have revalued lower by about 60%. However, the bank has made a number of 8K disclosures throughout the banking crisis that were meant to inform investors about the strategic actions the community bank has been taking.

It all started with an 8K disclosure dated March 12, 2023 in which First Republic Bank announced that it secured additional liquidity from the Federal Reserve Bank and JPMorgan Chase & Co which brought its unused liquidity to a massive $70B. Undoubtedly, huge deposit outflows forced the company to bolster its cash position.

Just days later, on March 16, 2023, First Republic Bank announced that eleven lenders banded together and deposited a combined $30B into the bank (8K source) in order to signal confidence in First Republic Bank’s liquidity situation. This move also failed to calm investors and the lender’s shares have continued to sell off since.

Additionally, last week, First Republic Bank announced that a number of executives have agreed to reduce their annual bonuses to zero for 2023 while others have forfeited vesting all performance-based incentives (Source). The latest 8K, dated March 22, 2023, was meant to instill confidence in the bank yet again and align shareholder and executive interests. Since shares continued to fall last week, it is safe to say that the latest measures have not yet had a positive effect on investor sentiment.

FRC’s business banking business and recent news about deposit outflows

What was First Republic Bank’s strength before the crisis, its banking business, has become its major weakness. The bank’s focus on venture banking — taking in deposits from venture capital-backed companies and making loans to them — has revealed an unforeseen vulnerability after Silicon Valley Bank shut its doors. The key problem with SVB was not deteriorating credit quality, but rather that the bank was forced to liquidate its bond portfolio at a significant loss in order to fund deposit outflows. Most banks now have unrealized investment losses, according to JP Morgan, including First Republic Bank… which is not a big issue of these assets don’t have to be sold. Additionally, FRC’s capital position is not necessarily much worse than those of other community banks.

A potential solution to the crisis

Since First Republic Bank has a considerable focus on business clients — 63% of its deposits came from its venture banking business which are at a higher risk of leaving the bank due to the FDIC’s $250,000 insurance limit — the bank has seen considerable deposit outflows. The bank said in its 8K disclosure for March 16, 2023 that “daily deposit outflows have slowed considerably” which is also what U.S. officials have remarked on lately. About 79% of First Republic Bank’s deposits were uninsured as of the end of FY 2022. Before the crisis, First Republic Bank’s business deposits were growing steadily and according to the bank’s Q4’22 update, the bank had exceptionally good credit quality, too.

However, my guess is that the bank will sell a portion of its loan book in order to raise cash which would the best solution for First Republic Bank, and certainly preferable over an equity raise. The bank owned $166.9B in loans at the end of the December-quarter which mostly were collateralized by real estate. I can see FRC selling a portion of its loans at a fair price to larger banks in a big to shore up its balance sheet.

First Republic: Deposit losses and impact on valuation

First Republic Bank is by far the worst performing community bank, largely due to its high percentage (79%) of uninsured deposits and the need to raise $30B in additional deposits from other companies.

It is impossible to know precisely at this point how many deposits First Republic Bank has lost, but the Wall Street Journal, citing insiders, said the bank has lost about half of its deposit base, which would calculate to about $70B.

This means that FRC is also going to report at a significant decline in its book value in Q1’23. First Republic Bank reported a book value of $75.38 at the end of FY 2022. Assuming a 50% decline in book value, chiefly due to deposit outflows and a shrinking balance sheet resulting from the crisis in the financial sector, FRC may report a BV around $37-38 per-share at the end of the first-quarter. Of course, more aggressive assumptions about deposit losses would translate into even higher book value declines. A, say, 60% decrease in cash/deposits implies, roughly speaking, a 60% decline in book value… which could put the Q1’23 BV closer to $30 per-share. Since First Republic Bank’s shares are trading at $12.36, the valuation implies an 84% discount to BV. If deposits indeed declined by 60%, then the valuation may more accurately reflect a 59% discount to book value.

FRC offers by far the biggest book value discount and therefore also has the highest perceived risk. However, fear clearly is present here and investors may overestimate the decline of FRC’s deposit base.

Risks with First Republic Bank

If deposit outflows continue, the big banks might decide that it is a better idea to convert the $30B in deposits into equity, which of course would heavily dilute shareholders. First Republic Bank has enough liquidity, in my opinion, through the Bank Term Funding Program, the FED’s discount window and other banks, so I don’t believe the bank couldn’t fund incremental deposit withdrawals. What would change my mind about FRC is if the company would have to liquidate (a portion of) its bond holding portfolio and realize losses, or if the bank would do a dilutive equity offering.

Final thoughts

First Republic Bank remains a high-risk, high-potential rebound stock in the community banking market, despite the stock being down dramatically since I took my initially position more than a week ago. The reason why I am sticking to my guns here is that I consider it highly unlikely that the FED will allow fear and panic to spread in the financial market as it has learned the lessons from 2008 financial crisis. This lesson is that failing to provide a liquidity backstop will eventually lead to a crisis much bigger, much harder to control and much more expensive than the initial, forceful intervention. First Republic Bank likely has suffered very considerable deposit outflows since I last covered the stock, but recent liquidity measures have proven to support the bank while deposit outflows appear to have stabilized lately. With the stock now trading at an 84% discount to book value, I believe investors continue to face a very attractive trading opportunity!

Source link