Tag Archives: chicago

How I Created My Portfolio Over A Lifetime – Part VII

Summary Introduction and series overview. What I put into my taxable accounts. What I put into my tax-deferred accounts. How I deal with foreign stock dividend withholding. Summary. Back to Part VI Introduction and Series Overview This series is meant to be an explanation of how I constructed my own portfolio. More importantly, it I hope to explain how I learned to invest over time, mostly through trial and error, learning from successes and failures. Each individual investor has different needs and a different level of risk tolerance. At 66, my tolerance is pretty low. The purpose of writing this series is to provide others with an example from which each one could, if they so choose, use as a guide to develop their own approach to investing. You may not choose to follow my methods but you may be able to understand how I developed mine and proceed from there. The first article in this series is worth the time to read based upon some of the many comments made by readers, as it provides what many would consider an overview of a unique approach to investing. Part II introduced readers to the questions that should be answered before determining assets to buy. I spent a good deal of that article explaining investing horizons, including an explanation of my own, to hopefully provoke readers to consider how they would answer those same questions. Once an individual or couple has determined the future needs for which they want to provide, he/she can quantify their goals. If the goals seem unreachable, then either the retirement age needs to be pushed further into the future or the goals need to become attainable. I then explained my approach to allocating between difference asset classes and summarized by listing my approximate percentage allocations as they currently stand in Parts III and III a. Part IV was an explanation of why I shy away from using ETFs and something akin to an anatomy of a flash crash. In Part V I explained the hardest lesson about investing that I have had to learn: why holding cash is not a bad thing at certain times. Part VI was an explanation of why and how I sell long-held positions. In this article I will address some of the decisions investors should consider that concern taxes on gains and dividends. I will admit that I am not an expert on taxes. Even though I am a CPA (retired), I was focused on the corporate side and financial statements. I avoided preparing taxes for anyone outside of family, so my experience in the area is more akin to that of an average investor. If readers have more advice or tips to include in the comment section, I encourage leaving comments to share sage advice with others. This is not intended to be a treatise on tax planning; rather some simple-to-follow advice that could help some investors avoid the occasional unnecessary tax bill or loss of irretrievable withheld taxes. What I put into my taxable accounts I start off with an investment I have absolutely no intention of selling ever, and that will have no capital gains: municipal bonds. These securities have long been a stalwart of retirees looking for federal tax-free income. These securities are also targeted by those in higher income brackets. Historically, municipal bonds have enjoyed a very low default rate averaging just 2.7 defaults per year from 1970-2009. During that 40-year span, only five general obligation [GO] bonds have defaulted amounting to only about seven percent of total municipal bond defaults. Most municipal bond defaults historically occurred in issues supporting healthcare and housing projects (73 percent of all defaults). How times have changed! Since the financial crisis, we need to do more homework on selecting municipal bonds. The total number of municipal bonds rated by Moody’s in 2011 was about 17,700. But, even then, the majority of municipal bonds were rated A3 or better by Moody’s. By the end of 2013, Moody’s was rating approximately 2,000 fewer municipal bond issues. The overall default rate has risen from .01 percent prior to 2007 to .03 percent since then; still a very low rate. But a trend is emerging according to Moody’s. Headlines have covered many of the concerns about major municipal bond defaults like Harrisburg, PA, Stockton, CA, Jefferson County, AL, and Detroit, MI. Puerto Rico is in trouble now and both Chicago and the State of Illinois are raising concerns in the headlines. I have some simple rules to avoid municipal bond defaults and I hope readers can add to my list in the comments. I avoid GO issues in cities, counties and states where the pensions are funded below 75 percent. Here is a list of states with underfunded pension plans from Bloomberg (as of December 31, 2013). Another site that appears to be more up-to-date and comprehensive (including funding by individual plan) can be found here . If you want to look up distressed pension plans of local governments you can easily “Google” (search) for what you want to know. I searched for Pennsylvania (because I know there are many problems in local pensions there) and got this link about 562 of the local municipality pension plans being underfunded by $7.7 billion. That equates to 46 percent of the locally administered pension plan in the state! This does not include all underfunded plan, just the ones considered in distress. The point is that we need to be very selective when buying GO bonds and do a little due diligence. I prefer revenue bonds backed by a sustainable stream of revenue such as a toll road or airport. But even then, I take a long, hard look at the financial history and projected financials to make sure that revenues have been covering debt service obligations fully after operating expenses as well as fully funding the required sinking fund for the eventual debt repayment. That information should be available in a prospectus for the issue. You should also be able to get research reports and a prospectus from your brokerage, usually online. I only buy municipal bonds rated “A3” (by Moody’s) or better and only when I can secure a yield of at least five percent per year to maturity. Those are my rules. Adjust them as you see fit to suit your needs or make your own. With all the talk about underfunding of public pensions and with the unspoken problem of underfunded post-retirement benefits (think health insurance) by many issuers of municipal bonds, I expect some more major defaults coming in the future. When a Chicago or State defaults on one or more issues we will see rates rise again giving the patient investor another opportunity to lock in above average rates. I do not plan on providing that much detail about each investment category in this article but felt that municipal bonds tend to get ignored so I thought it might be helpful to provide more information. I did not begin to buy municipal bonds until my early 60s as I began looking for solid yield with tax avoidance benefits. Next, I also hold some stocks in taxable accounts. It depends upon where I have cash available (taxable or tax-deferred accounts) and what type of equity I am buying as to which account I use for the purchase. This is important because you can let several percentage points slip away to taxes if you do not plan ahead. Foreign stocks will generally go into my taxable account so that I can get either a refund of withheld taxes or a tax credit on my tax return. It all depends on the bilateral agreement between the U.S. and the country where the company is based. I will get into this later on in the article.**** High quality domestic or foreign companies that tend to do better than the overall market in downturns and have a long history of increasing dividends with no dividend cuts can go in either account depending on where I have cash available. I do not worry so much about the capital gains tax on these holdings because I intend to keep them forever. Dividend income is taxed at a relatively low rate currently, but that could change. I tend to put more of these securities into my tax-deferred accounts because of the potential for the dividend and capital gains taxes to be increased in the future. One thing that most investors do not think about is that as long as one has some earned income he/she is usually able to contribute shares instead of cash to an IRA account (especially Roth IRA) each year. If the tax laws change and tax on dividends increases too much I plan on using this method to move some shares each year to tax-deferred accounts to lower my tax bill. For me, anything over a 20 percent tax rate on dividends will prompt some movement to my wife’s or my Roth IRA accounts. All rental real estate properties are held as taxable investments. One could put real estate into a Roth IRA, but the tax advantages are significant already without taking that step. The only time it can get expensive tax-wise is when one decides to sell a property. Well, it also gets somewhat expensive when the mortgage gets paid down and the property is fully depreciated, but there is a way around paying the taxes. Admittedly, I have not yet done this but one could enter into a like exchange to purchase another rental property of greater value and defer the capital gain. An example would be to trade a single family residential rental property for either a larger, more expensive single family property or for a multi-family property up to four units. More than four units may not be considered a like exchange, if I recall correctly when I was looking into this a few years ago. The value of exchange is limited to the equity in each property. If the equity held by each party is nearly equal, there would be little or no capital gain involved. One party is looking for current income while the other (buyer of the larger property) is looking for future income and, thus, more current leverage and tax deductions. This strategy is worthwhile for those who get started in real estate early in life and get to the point where too much positive income is being generated from a property. One can also trade one residential property for two or three single family residences, each with lower equity built up, so that the total of the equity on both sides of the trade is nearly equal. But this requires more time inspecting and verifying expenses for each property as well as more time to manage. But it is an option for those interested in sticking to single-family properties. Of course, I also hold all my precious metals in taxable form. It can be added to an IRA, but because there is no income, I do not choose to go that route. Finally, I also hold cash and VFIIX in both types of accounts. What I put into my tax-deferred accounts My tax-deferred account may hold some corporate bonds of companies that I expect to be around long after I am gone. Currently, I do not hold any bonds, corporate or government (other than VFIIX). When I do buy bonds (and I will again when interest rates are higher), I stick with investment grade bonds issued by companies that I know and understand. I prefer rates much higher than have been available since before 2008. My cut off is seven percent. I realize that such a high rate may seem crazy in the current interest rate environment, but that should explain why I do not have any right now. There is nothing available of quality anywhere near that rate at this time. Once again, I will be patient and pick up the bargains when availability improves. I do not expect that to occur unless there is a general financial crisis or inflation rears its head again. The reason I hold bonds, especially long-term bonds, in my tax-deferred accounts is that the income is taxed at my personal income tax rate. That rate is not very high currently, but I expect it to go up instead of down, so I am trying to do the prudent thing. When I was fully employed and earned an above average wage this was far more important. As to inflation relative to equity values, a little is good for stocks but too much is a killer. The same holds true for bonds. Sustained inflation above five percent will cause long-term interest rates to rise to levels where investors may be able to capture quality issues yielding eight percent or more. Locking in a long-term yield above eight percent is something which every investor needs to take advantage of. I do not expect such an environment for several more years here in the U.S. But I do believe we will see it again before too long as the deflationary pressures begin to lift as the millennial generation hits its earnings potential stride sometime in the mid-2020s. If I am still writing when the time comes, I will be sure to provide my viewpoint about when interest rates seem to be hitting a top. Basically, the Fed stops raising the discount rate and inflation begins to taper slightly when the top has been reached. I may not get the top but I will definitely be loading up shortly after it has been achieved. Even if rates go a little higher, I will refrain from crying tears of regret as I will have my eight percent or more each year to console me. Treasuries fit the same profile as corporate bonds but I prefer corporate bonds over Treasury bonds for the higher yield, assuming the relationship remains in the future. I doubt that we will see another period like the one we had in the 80s when 30-year Treasury bonds hit 15 percent. But with all the debt around, who knows? If Treasuries were to get near that level again, I would need to reconsider and weigh the options. Foreign sovereign bonds are an asset I would only hold in my tax-deferred account. The reason is two-fold: while I might be giving up some withholding of interest in some cases, the relative currency values [FX] and current income tax issue outweigh that consideration, in my opinion. Of course, I would want to do my due diligence on the withholding issue to make sure I was not stepping into something egregiously unfair first. But consider the impact on FX on Japanese bonds. As the US$ increases in value (over 100 percent in the last few years), the value of a yen-denominated bond fall precipitously on a US$ basis. The FX part of the equation can be the biggest benefit of investing in foreign bonds. I also do not like to pay income tax on interest if I can avoid it. Foreign sovereign bonds issued by creditworthy nations can be a boon to your portfolio for a couple of reasons. First, you may be able to earn a higher interest rate on the bonds as many countries generally hold interest rates higher than the U.S. That is because of the implied safety of the U.S. sovereign bonds relative to most other sovereign bonds. Another reason is that it adds more diversity to a portfolio since there is generally less correlation between US bonds and equities relative to foreign bonds. Finally, and this is my favorite part, the FX gains can be huge. Be careful, though, now is not the time to buy foreign sovereign bonds because the US$ is still gaining in strength relative to most other currencies. When the US$ hits a high and begins to fall again relative to other currencies, it behooves us to seek out the countries with both higher yields and faster growing economies (without high debt burdens) for potentially outsized future gains. If interest rates are high and beginning to fall in that country, then can earn three ways: gains from principal value of bonds rising as interest rates fall, locked in high interest rates and gains from changes in relative values of currencies. Such circumstances do not come often, but when it happens, you want to be in the mix with at least a small portion of your portfolio. Finally, I only hold these securities in my tax-deferred accounts because of the volatility of the FX. These are investments that may do well for several years at a time, but there is a cyclicality to investing in this area and one must be ready to sell when the environment begins to change. Because I expect to be taking gains and not holding to maturity I like to avoid taxes, especially on the gains which can be substantial. Stocks of companies that I plan to hold forever, those quality companies that have an established record of growing revenues, earnings and dividends (especially dividends) can usually go into my tax-deferred accounts. As I pointed out in the previous section, it depends on where I have the cash available when I spot a great bargain. I prefer to keep these issues in my tax-deferred accounts for tax reasons even though the tax rate on dividends is low now; the rate tends to move over time, so I prefer to keep the income out of reach of our dear uncle Sam. Some folks like to keep royalty trusts and limited partnership units in a taxable account to avoid going over the limit on “income earned from other than normal business.” There is a limit of $1,000 that can be earned in tax-deferred account per individual in a year without becoming taxable. An investor needs to keep this in mind and look at previous K-1 schedules from a company (usually limited partnership or trust) to get a sense of how much income is likely to be distributed for each share annually that falls into this category. It does not take long to make that investigation and do the math. The information can usually be found under the “investors” tab on the company website as “tax treatment of distributions.” I do not own any such shares/units presently but have in the past. I did very well owning Canadian royalty trusts before the government north of the border decided to change how distributions were taxed. I sold as soon as I read what was being proposed and did not wait for the law to be voted on. It hurt because my monthly distributions from those units were about $1,900. The nice part was that a portion of each distribution was considered return of capital and free from taxes. The distributions were also considered qualified dividends then, too. I held those units in my taxable account because the effective rate on the distributions was only about ten percent. But then, I do my own taxes, so I do not have to pay an accountant to file each K-1 for me. That can cost a pretty penny (or about $80 per K-1). So, if you only want to own a hundred units and you have your taxes prepared professionally, you may save money by either holding the units in a tax-deferred account or just telling the preparer to declare the full amount as taxable income instead of filing the K-1. Here is a link to an example of how the math can work depending on your incremental tax rate. The example is about half way down the page. If annual distributions from a single K-1 total less than $1,000, it might be cheaper to pay tax on the whole amount instead of paying your preparer. The blog I linked is not the definitive answer to the question of where should I hold this type of security. The answer lies in the answers to these questions: How much of the asset do you want to own? What is your tax rate? Do you pay a preparer to file your taxes? Then do the math. It seems complicated but it really is not. And the yields can be very good. The point is that an investor could conceivably own these types of securities in either taxable or tax-deferred accounts. It depends of the answers and the math as to which is better. How I deal with foreign stock dividend withholding In a nutshell: it depends upon the bilateral tax treaty between the U.S. and the nation in which the foreign company resides. Here is a link to the IRS page with links to all the current tax treaties with foreign governments. I apologize that the treaty language is in legal jargon and may be difficult to understand. When you click on a country it brings up the original treaty document. Scroll down to the articles list and find articles that cover dividends (usually article ten) or royalties (usually article 12) if you are considering a royalty trust). First, look for the rate at which the countries have agreed to tax dividends, often 15 percent, but may be higher. Then look within the section titled “relief from double taxation” for information about refunds and/or tax credits. Some developed countries have a form to apply for a refund of withheld taxes. Often, the best you can hope for is to report the withheld tax on your filed return and then receive a tax credit equal to the difference between what you paid and what you would have paid if the dividend had been paid and taxed in the U.S. When the tax withheld is below what our tax rate is, you may find you owe additional taxes to the U.S if held in a taxable account. What you want to be certain of is that you will be able to avoid being taxed at more than the prevailing U.S. rate. In the end, by holding such securities in a taxable account, you are able to keep the tax rate down to the dividend tax rate in the U.S. One thing to remember is that if the tax rate is lower than the U.S. tax rate, you can actually keep more of your dividend by owning it in a tax-deferred account. Do your homework and save some money from the tax man every year you hold the stock. If you are a long-term investor and buy a high quality dividend paying foreign stock the savings could add up over the decades to a very nice sum. Summary This article is intended as an explanation of what I have learned from my own experience and how I plan to avoid taxes. In some cases, I find that there is no clear-cut definition of what is best without doing a little homework. I am not a tax expert nor is any of the information included in this article meant to be advice other than to provide some perspective for other investors. If any readers have better source of information links, especially for the foreign tax treaty information (in plain English), please leave a comment with those links. Any reader that has a different perspective on how to avoid or defer taxes on investments and is willing to share that information is welcome and encouraged to do so. We can all learn from each other here on SA. For convenience to readers new to this series, I have created an instablog, ” How I Created My Own Portfolio Over A Lifetime ,” with links to all the articles of this series. I will usually add a link to the blog for each new article within a day of it being published. As always I welcome comments and questions and will do my best to provide details and answers. This is one of the best aspects of the SA community. We can learn from each other and share our perspectives so that other readers can benefit from the comprehensive knowledge and experience represented here.

Resilient Consumer? Not During The Manufacturing Retreat And Corporate Revenue Recession

Is the 70% consumer so resilient that he/she can overcome a global slowdown, a stagnant domestic manufacturing segment and a domestic revenue recession. Six of the regional Fed surveys – New York (Empire), Philadelphia, Kansas City, Dallas, Chicago and Philly – show economic contraction in manufacturing. The expected revenue for the S&P 500 for the third quarter is headed for a third straight quarterly decline at 3.3%; the 4th quarter should show a 1.4% decline to make it four in a row. Concerned investors started punishing foreign stocks and emerging market equities in May. The primary reason? Many feared the adverse effects of declining economic growth around the globe as well as the related declines in world trade. By June, risk-averse investors began selling U.S. high yield bonds as well as U.S. small cap assets. A significant shift away from lower quality debt issuers troubled yield seekers, particularly in the energy arena. Meanwhile, the overvaluation of smaller companies in the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA: IWM ) prompted tactical asset allocators to lower their risk exposure. All four of the canaries (i.e., commodities, high yield bonds, small cap U.S. stocks, foreign equities) in the investment mines had stopped singing by the time the financial markets reached July and early August. I discussed the risk-off phenomenon in August 13th’s ” The Four Canaries Have Stopped Serenading.” What had largely gone unnoticed by market watchers, however? The declines were accelerating. And in some cases, such as commodities in the PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF (NYSEARCA: DBC ), investors were witnessing an across-the-board collapse. The cut vocal chords for the canaries notwithstanding, there have been scores of warning signs for the present downtrend in popular U.S benchmarks like the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrials. Key credit spreads were widening, such as those between intermediate-term treasury bonds and riskier corporate bonds in funds like the iShares Baa-Ba Rated Corporate Bond ETF (BATS: QLTB ) or the SPDR Barclays Capital High Yield Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: JNK ). Stock market internals were weakening considerably. In fact, the percentage of S&P 500 stocks in a technical uptrend had fallen below 50% and the NYSE Advance-Decline Line (A/D) had dropped below a 200-day moving average for the first time since the euro-zone’s July 2011 crisis. (See Remember July 2011? The Stock Market’s Advance-Decline Line (A/D) Remembers. ) Equally compelling, any reasonable consideration of fundamental valuation pointed to an eventual reversion to the mean; that is, when earnings or sales at corporations are rising, one might be willing to pay an extraordinary premium for growth. On the other hand, when revenue is drying up and profits per share fall flat – or when a global economy is stagnating or trending toward contraction – investors should anticipate prices to fall back toward historical norms. Indeed, this is why 10-year projections for total returns on benchmarks like the S&P 500 have been noticeably grim. Anticipating the August-September volatility – initial freefall, “dead feline bounce” and present retest of the correction lows – has been the easy part. When fundamental valuations are hitting extremes, technicals are deteriorating, sales are contracting and economic hardships are mounting, sensible risk managers reduce some of their vulnerability to loss. It is the reason for my compilation of warning indicators (prior to the downturn) in Market Top? 15 Warning Signs . Anticipating what the Federal Reserve will do next is a different story entirely. The remarkably low cost of capital as provided by central banks worldwide is what caused the investing community to dismiss ridiculous valuations and dismal market internals up until the recent correction. Now Fed chairwoman Yellen has explicitly acknowledged that the U.S. is not an island unto itself. The fact that half of the developed world in Europe, Asia, Canada, Australia are staring down recessions – the reality that many important emerging market nations are already there – has not slipped by members of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC). Unfortunately, the Fed’s problem with respect to raising or not raising borrowing costs does not end with economic weakness abroad. With 0.3% year-over-year inflation in July, the Fed’s 2% inflation target has been pushed off until 2018. With 0.2% year over year wage growth (or lack thereof), the Fed’s hope that consumer spending can save the day looks like wishful thinking. For that matter, as I demonstrated in 13 Economic Charts That Wall Street Doesn’t Want You To See , consumer spending has dropped on a year-over-year basis for 4 consecutive months as well as six of the last eight. Perhaps ironically, I continue to receive messages and notes from those who insist that the U.S. consumer is in fine shape. Even if he/she is stumbling around at the moment, he/she is consistently resilient, they’ve argued. I would counter that three-and-a-half decades of U.S. consumer resilience is directly related to lower and lower borrowing costs. Without the almighty 10-year yield moving lower and lower, families that have been hampered by declining median household income depend entirely on lower interest rates for their future well-being. Even with lower rates, perma-bulls and economic apologists will tell you that housing is in great shape. With homeownership rates now back to 1967? They’ll tell you that autos are in great shape. On the back of subprime auto loans with auto assemblies at a four-and-a-half year low? Wealthy people and foreign buyers have bought second properties, which have priced out first-time homebuyers. More renters than ever have seen their discretionary income slide alongside rocketing rents. And the only thing we’re going to hang our U.S. hat on is unqualified borrowers who cannot get into a house, but can get into a Jetta? (Yes, I intended the Volkswagen reference.) I am little stunned when I see people ignoring year-over-year declines in retail sales as well as the lowest consumer confidence readings in a year to proclaim that “everything is awesome.” If everything were great, the U.S. economy would not have required $3.75 trillion in QE or $7.5 trillion in deficit spending since the end of the recession. The Fed would not have needed 6-months to prepare investors for tapering of QE3 and another 10 months to end it; they would not have needed yet another year to get to the point where they’re still not comfortable with a token quarter point hike. The U.S. consumer requires ultra-low rates to get by, and that’s a sad reality with multi-faceted consequences. In my mind, it gets worse. Those who commonly fall back on the notion that 70% of the economy is driven by consumer activity seem to ignore the other 30% entirely. Manufacturing is falling apart. Year-over-year durable goods new orders? Down for seven consecutive months. Worse yet, six of the regional Fed surveys – New York (Empire), Philadelphia, Kansas City, Dallas, Chicago and Philly – show economic contraction in manufacturing. Does the 30% of our economy that represents the beleaguered manufacturing segment no longer matter? Is the 70% consumer so resilient that he/she can overcome a global slowdown, a stagnant domestic manufacturing segment and a domestic revenue recession? Investors who do not want to pay attention to the technical, fundamental or macro-economic warning signs may wish to pay attention the micro-economic, corporate sales erosion. As Peter Griffin of the Family Guy Sitcom might say, “Oh, did you not hear the word?” Simply stated, the expected revenue for the S&P 500 for the third quarter is headed for a third straight quarterly decline at 3.3%; the 4th quarter should show a 1.4% decline to make it four in a row. The Dow Industrials? They’ve experienced lower sales for even more consecutive quarters. Beware, perma-bulls would like to blame this all on the energy sector. Should we then ignore the ongoing declines in industrials, materials, utilities, info tech ex Apple? If we strip out energy, do we get to strip out the over-sized contribution of revenue gains by the health care sector? There’s an old saying that goes, “You can’t making chicken salad out of chicken caca.” Here’s the bottom line. Moderate growth/income investors who have been emulating my tactical asset allocation at Pacific Park Financial, Inc., understand why we will continue to maintain our lower risk profile of 50% equity (mostly large-cap domestic), 25% bond (mostly investment grade) and 25% cash/cash equivalents. We are leaving in place the lower-than-typical profile for moderates that we put in place during the June-July period. When market internals improve alongside fundamentals, we would look to return to the target allocation for moderate growth/income of 65%-70% stock (e.g., large, small, foreign, domestic) and 30% income (e.g., investment grade, high yield, short, long, etc.). For now, though, we are comfortable with lower risk equity holdings. Some of those holdings include the Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLP ), the iShares MSCI USA Minimum Volatility ETF (NYSEARCA: USMV ) , the iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (NYSEARCA: IWS ) and the Vanguard High Dividend Yield ETF (NYSEARCA: VYM ).

Shooting Hoops With Peter Lynch And The Gurus

Many funds focus exclusively on one particular type of stock, such as large-cap value picks. But different types of stocks come in and out of favor in the market over time. Allowing your portfolio free range to go wherever the best values are at a particular time can enhance your long-term returns. The 2015-16 NBA season is fast approaching, and many teams are getting ready to show off the off-season changes they made in hopes of shoring up their weaknesses and improving their squads. Take the Toronto Raptors. Last year, the Raptors scored the fourth most points in the NBA, but gave up the 18th most points. Advanced metrics showed an even wider gap, indicating that Toronto had the third most efficient offense in the league, but the eighth least efficient defense, according to ESPN. Not surprisingly, the Raptors have made several moves in the off-season to try to bolster their defense. The name of the game, of course, is balance. In basketball, just as in any other sport, you are not going to get too far if your team has several weaknesses that counterbalance its strengths. So you of course want a mix of players whose skills complement each other. Building a team of only big, strong centers or only small, lightning-quick point guards would give you certain strengths in certain situations, yes. But it would also both limit the pool of talent from which you could choose, and leave you with some major weak spots in certain aspects of the game. Unfortunately, when it comes to picking stocks, that’s just what a lot of fund managers – and the investors who buy their funds – do. Many funds will focus only on a specific “style-box” category – large-cap value stocks, for example – filling the fund primarily or entirely with just that type of stock. To be sure, style boxes serve a purpose, particularly for institutional investors, who often are required to put a certain portion of their portfolios into certain categories of stocks. But for individual investors, I think style-box investing significantly eats away at returns. Why? Because, much as with basketball players, good stocks come in all different styles and sizes; focusing on one style and size simply limits your opportunities to find winners. Sometimes, for example, the small-cap growth area of the market may be offering the most attractive values; other times, mid-cap value plays may feature the best opportunities. Why not allow yourself to go where the best opportunities are, regardless of size and growth/value distinctions? In addition, much like basketball players, the size and style of a stock often means that it will perform better in certain situations than others. Sometimes, for example, large-cap value stocks will go out of favor, and a portfolio that is focused only on them will get hit hard. A portfolio that includes stocks of various sizes and styles, however, has some natural hedges built in that should smooth out returns – making it more likely you’ll stick with it over the long haul. This “free-range” approach is what I do with my Validea Hot List portfolio, which looks for consensus from all of my Guru Strategies (each of which is based on the approach of a different investing great) when choosing stocks. At any given time, the portfolio could be tilted towards smaller stocks or larger stocks, growth-oriented picks or value plays. The strategy has paid off, with a 10-stock version of the Hot List more than doubling the S&P 500 since its July 15, 2003 inception, and a 20-stock version nearly doubling the index. What sort of stocks is this approach on right now? Here’s a look at a handful of picks that are in my 10- and/or 20-stock portfolios. The Travelers Companies, Inc. (NYSE: TRV ) : Minnesota-based Travelers ($31 billion market cap) provides property casualty insurance for auto, home, and business. The 162-year-old company does business in the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Brazil. Travelers’ mix of solid growth and reasonable value helps it earn strong interest from my Peter Lynch-based strategy. Its 17% long-term earnings per share growth rate (I use an average of the three-, four-, and five-year EPS figures) and high sales ($27 billion over the past year) make it a “stalwart” according to the Lynch approach – the kind of large, steady firm that Lynch found offered protection during downturns or recessions. To find growth stocks selling on the cheap, Lynch famously used the P/E-to-Growth ratio, adjusting the “growth” portion of the equation to include dividend yield for stalwarts, since they often pay solid dividends; yield-adjusted P/E/Gs below 1.0 are acceptable to my Lynch-based model, with those below 0.5 the best case. When we divide Travelers’ 9.2 P/E by the sum of its growth rate and dividend yield (2.4%), we get a yield-adjusted P/E/G of 0.43 – a sign that it’s a bargain. South State Corporation (NASDAQ: SSB ) : South State provides retail and commercial banking services, mortgage lending services, trust and investment services, and consumer finance loans. It serves customers and conducts its business from about 130 financial centers in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. South State ($2 billion market cap) is a smallish mid-cap growth stock that gets strong interest from my Martin Zweig-based model. It likes the firm’s long-term EPS growth (17%) and long-term sales growth (22%). It also likes that recent EPS growth has been even better, coming in at 38% in the most recent quarter (vs. the year-ago quarter). Alaska Air Group, Inc. (NYSE: ALK ) : Actually based in Washington state, Alaska Air is the parent of Alaska Airlines and Horizon Air Industries, which with partner regional airlines serve 90 locations in the US, Canada, and Mexico. The smallish large-cap or big mid-cap, depending on how you look at it ($10 billion market cap) is a favorite of my Lynch model, in part because of its stellar 40% long-term EPS growth rate. Shares trade for 14.4 times earnings, making for a strong 0.41 PEG ratio. Alaska Air also has a very reasonable 34% debt/equity ratio. MYR Group (NASDAQ: MYRG ) : This small-cap specialty contractor ($571 million market cap) serves the electrical infrastructure market throughout the US and Canada. The Zweig strategy likes that it has grown earnings per share at a 27% pace and sales at a 24% pace over the long term, and that both EPS and sales growth accelerated last quarter. It also likes MYR’s 0% debt/equity ratio. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (NYSE: CBI ) : Based in The Netherlands, CBI is involved in engineering, procurement and construction services for customers in the energy and natural resource industries. The $4.7 billion market cap mid-cap was founded more than a century ago in Chicago as a bridge designer and builder. The model I base on the writings of hedge fund guru Joel Greenblatt is particularly high on CBI as a value play. Greenblatt’s approach is a remarkably simple one that looks at just two variables: earnings yield and return on capital. My Greenblatt-inspired model likes CBI’s 16.7% earnings yield (Greenblatt uses earnings before interest and taxes divided by enterprise value for that) and 177% ROC (EBIT/tangible capital employed), which combine to make the stock the most attractive in the entire U.S. market right now, according to this approach. CBI’s 24% long-term EPS growth rate and bargain priced 0.32 PEG ratio also help it earn strong interest from my Lynch-based model.