Janiczek® Wealth Management is pleased to announce we have once again been named among the TOP RANKED WEALTH MANAGERS IN DENVER COLORADO by AdvisoryHQ. This ranking adds to a long list accolades going as far back as 2001 and as recent as 2018, including:
- Financial Times
- Worth Magazine
- Mutual Funds Magazine
- CIPA (best Business/Finance Book of the Year)
Janiczek® Wealth Management specializes in serving high net worth investors (portfolios $1.5 million to $20-million) and ultra-high net worth investors (portfolios $20-million+). The firm is a pioneer in Evidence Based Investing (EBI), Strength Based Wealth Management® (SBWM) and in fiduciary (legally need to do what is in best interest of clients), fee-only (no sales of products or commissions earned), full-disclosure (no undisclosed arrangements) and full-breadth (EBI and SBWM together is our full breadth solution) investment and wealth management services.
Mr. Janiczek, our Founding Partner, has been awarded the patent on Systems and Methods for Optimizing Wealth and is the author of Absolute Financial Freedom, Investing from a Position of Strength and co-author (with Tony Jeary) of Family Wealth: Being Strategic about Your Family Legacy.
To begin exploring how our expertise and proprietary services can assist you, call us at 303-721-7000. Cathy Wegner, our Director of New Client Engagements will be glad to begin the conversation and, if appropriate, arrange a conversation or meeting with one of our advisors.
*Sources: Barron’s March 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014; Advisory HQ 2018, 2017, 2016; Financial Times June 2017, 2015; Five Star Professional November 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, Mutual Funds Magazine January 2001; NABCAP September 2010, 2011, 2013; Worth Magazine July 2002, January 2004, October 2004, October 2008; Wealth & Finance International, October 2014, CIPA, 2001.
*Disclosure: Rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services and/or publications should not be construed by a client or prospective client as a guarantee that he/she will experience a certain level of results if Janiczek Wealth Management is engaged, or continues to be engaged, to provide investment advisory services, nor should it be construed as a current or past endorsement of Janiczek Wealth Management by any of its clients. Rankings published by magazines, and others, generally base their selections exclusively on information prepared and/or submitted by the recognized adviser.
While the S&P 500 remained near its all-time high, the recent massive selloff in the technology sector went mostly unnoticed. But for investors who follow the so-called “FANG” stocks (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google) the hit was painful: About $60 billion in value was wiped out in just one afternoon, representing the largest selloff in nearly 2 years.
The wipeout was a function of just how big these companies have become and the position they are in with new tax reform looming. Tech companies are expected to receive little benefit given its already-low average tax rate of 18.5% (below the 20% proposed rate).
This has caused investors to rotate out of the tech stocks and into the financial services sector, which stands to benefit more from a corporate tax rate that would drop from the current 35% to 20%.
Interestingly, the S&P 500 was relatively unaffected while this rotation into financials and out of tech ensued. The index’s volatility actually remained low, as did correlations among the S&P 500’s member stocks.
In other words, the diversity offered by the S&P 500 Index allowed for the index too remain relatively unscathed by the trading within the tech and financial sectors, a key reminder to investors that having proper exposure across the markets continues to be important with the S&P 500 near its all-time high.
Does intelligence equate with investment management success?
What might it take to succeed in investing? Intelligence alone? You have to be intelligent to get into Mensa. They only accept applicants with IQs that place them in the top 2 percent of the population. One might expect that if Mensa members formed an investment club, their returns would exceed market averages, or at least match them. In actuality, between 1986 and 2001, while the S&P 500 was returning a robust 15.3% annually, the Mensa Investment Club had average returns of 2.5% per year.
How did these geniuses and near geniuses manage such poor results in such a strong market? Their basic problem was a lack of discipline. Instead of using their intellects to determine a sound investment approach and sticking with it, they got sidetracked into exploring trendy new tools and theories of how to predict market trends. When one strategy didn’t work they tried another. They made frequent trades, thus increasing their transaction costs. In short, they provided a perfect example of Warren Buffett’s comment: “Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with the 130 IQ.” Common sense and discipline will beat erratic genius every time.
Being a resident, I have experienced Denver’s hot housing market first hand. All residents can attest to the fact real estate has a short shelf life in this town. An influx of out of state buyers who regularly comes in with cash to quickly buy up our already low housing inventory. I have always wondered where this cash is coming from. Are buyers liquidating investment assets to purchase a home in Denver under assumptions of continued year over year real estate appreciation?
As I discussed in my last blog, investor participation in the stock market is at an all-time low. Does this mean investors are stock piling hordes of cash for future use? No. We know people are still investing with hopes of better returns than what is earned in their savings accounts. So, who are the recipients of these funds? According to Gallup, real estate is the current preferred driver of net worth. When looking at the chart below, I would have to say that Americans’ view of the stock market as the best long-term investment option is changing.
Over the past few years there has been a steady increase in real estate investing. Thirty-five percent of Americans now choose real estate over stock and mutual funds. Both asset classes suffered catastrophic losses during the great recession and both have now recovered to well above their pre-crash highs. But Americans now seem to have more confidence in real estate than the stock market. I hope they understand the risks associated with direct real estate investing; illiquidity, expensive to exit, high entry price… but that’s for a later discussion.
In 2017 thus far, the only thing more dominant than the L.A. Dodgers may be large cap growth investing.
Through July, large cap growth is up over 17%, beating the S&P 500’s impressive 12% return. At the other end of the spectrum, small cap value investors have seen a minuscule 1% return, as seen in the chart below. But there’s something eerily familiar about these year-to-date results …
With the U.S. markets hitting record highs, one would assume more adults would be participating in the stock market when compared to previous years. Since the last financial crisis, we have not experienced an increase of stock market participation. The equity markets continue to march forward and the participation in these gains has not. Per research published by Gallup, a little more than 52% of Americans’ currently have money invested in the stock market. As you can see in the below graph, this matches the lowest ownership rate since 1999. During the high in 2007, nearly 2 out of 3 adults had money invested in the stock market. Did big losses experienced in 2008-09 change Americans’ sense of confidence in the stock market?
Ready for the next market correction? Today’s drop rekindles questions of whether this bull market is finally over. To be sure, stocks are up over 7% in the first 4 months, extending the 8-year run from the 2009 low.
But the bull market run has resulted in some expensive prices. Regardless of whether one uses multiples relative to sales, book value, trailing earnings, or normalized earnings, stocks aren’t cheap. The Shiller P/E ratio, which compares stock prices to normalized earnings over a 10-year cycle, is at its third highest dating back to 1887. The top two instances were 1929 (before the Great Depression) and 1997 (during the Tech Bubble).
Passive indexing has long been popular among the smaller investors. But wealthy investors often pursue more active strategies, either with active managers or on their own. After all, they didn’t accumulate their wealth by sitting back and doing what everyone else does, right?
But the evidence against active management is strong, with the most managers failing to beat the index over time. So why do wealthy investors tend to shun a passive approach to managing their money?
It’s a foregone conclusion in the markets that the Federal Reserve will raise short term interest rates on Wednesday. But more importantly, investors will be looking for hints for future rate increases.
Why is this so important? The consensus view is for 2-3 Fed increases this year, but anchoring into this expectation comes with risks. For example, in 1994 the Fed surprised investors by increasing rates 6 times, resulting in a 3% loss for bonds that year. Of course, bonds recovered in following years, thanks largely to the long-term trend of falling interest rates since 1981.
Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffett released his annual letter to shareholders last Saturday, a publication that is examined and dissected by investors around the world. And this year’s edition underscores why.
Before its release, the S&P 500 closed at its all-time high (again), continuing its rally that began in November. In fact, in the first 38 trading days of 2016, the S&P 500 has posted a new high 11 times. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and Russell 2000 Index have printed new highs 14 and 3 times in 2016, respectively.
Even the greenest of investors is likely aware that stocks move in both directions, and that periods of upswings have historically been followed by downturns. The Holy Grail, of course, is how to invest through all the ups and downs, and Buffett offers his view: