Ask An Ex-Banker: The Magical Roth IRA

A version of this post ran in the San Antonio Express News.

Dear Michael,

Next January, when I receive the proceeds for a house I’m selling, I’m considering converting 70K from my TIAAF-CREF Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA, and paying taxes to do that that. I could then make my 7 grandchildren the beneficiaries and plan to not spend any of the Roth IRA myself unless I was desperate. I am 72 years old now, and my seven grandchildren range in age from 4 to 18. Could you make a spreadsheet to show me – and them – how nice that would be for them if I died at 90 and they received tax free income until they are all age 72 themselves?

Thanks,
Julie from Massachusetts

 

Dear Julie,

Thanks for your question. You’ve highlighted one of the cool and little-discussed features of the Roth IRA, a potentially magical low-cost estate-planning tool for passing on tax-free income to young heirs.

The Roth IRA magic I’m about to describe happens because of three features unique to Roth IRAs.

First – unlike a traditional IRA – all withdrawals from an inherited Roth IRA are tax free to the beneficiary. Roth IRAs, we recall, require income taxes to be paid up front, either when a contribution is made, or in the case of Julie, when an existing Traditional IRA converts to a Roth IRA.

Second – also unlike a traditional IRA – you are not required to make any withdrawals from your Roth IRA in your own lifetime. If you can manage to survive without pulling out money from your Roth – as Julie referenced in her question – then you can leave that much more money for your heirs.

Third – heirs can withdraw money slowly enough from their inherited Roth IRA that their little nest egg can actually grow over time. The IRS has a schedule for inherited IRAs that shows how to calculate just how slowly money may be withdrawn.

By exactly how much money will the grandchildren benefit, and how does it all work?

tax_free_inheritance
Tax Free Inheritance!

The total value

I’ll take Julie’s example and run through the numbers, but let me hit you with the punch-line first:

Julie’s nest egg would produce nearly $1.2 million of tax free income for her grandchildren.

Here’s some fine print on that punchline: $1.2 Million of tax-free income assumes Julie starts with $70,000 next year; She dies at age 90; all of her grandchildren take only their minimum distributions until they turn 72; the accounts earn 6% per year; and each grandchild receives the total remaining value of their inherited Roth IRAs at age 72.

If I keep all of those above assumptions, except I dial down the annual return to a more conservative 3% return per year, her grandchildren receive $273,054 in total tax free income.

But what about the following?
If I dial up the annual return to a more optimistic 10% per year, her grandchildren would receive a total of $9.2 million in tax free income. 1

Now that I have your attention, how does the Roth IRA achieve this magic trick?

The magic happens over two phases, Julie’s life, and her grandchildren’s lives.

Julie’s Life

Traditional IRAs 2 require an owner to withdraw a portion of their retirement account as income every year after age 70.5. The IRS publishes a list for IRA owners age 70.5 and older about their required minimum distribution, roughly determined by the retiree’s expected remaining lifespan.

According to the IRS, A 72-year old like Julie would be required to divide the value of her IRA by 25.6 (the same divisor goes for all 72 year-olds), and take at least that amount out of her traditional IRA as income. 3

With a $70,000 Traditional IRA, Julie must withdraw at least $2,734.38 at age 72, (because that’s $70,000 divided by 25.6).
With a $70,000 Roth IRA, however, she is not required to withdraw anything.

If Julie is able to survive on rice and beans (and Social Security, and other savings) without drawing from her Roth IRA, the account will certainly grow for the next 18 years. At a 6% annual growth rate, her Roth IRA would reach $188,494 when she reaches age 90. At which point we assume each of 7 grandchildren inherits a Roth IRA worth $26,928 (because that’s $188,494 divided 7 ways).

The grandchildren’s lives

An inherited Roth IRA requires an heir to make minimum withdrawals, but in small amounts determined by the age of the heir. The minimum withdrawal amount is determined by the value of the Roth IRA divided by the expected lifespan of the heir.

The key here to the Roth IRA magic is that Julie’s grandchildren are relatively young, and the IRS allows young people with a long expected lifespan to withdraw money from inherited IRAs quite slowly.

So slowly, in fact, that each grandchild’s account is likely to grow over time, under reasonable annual return assumptions.

The eldest grandchild
Julie’s eldest grandchild, now age 18, would be aged 36 when Julie is 90. The grandchild could elect to take the inherited $26,928 all at once, but would be advised not to do so.

Instead, she should allow the account to grow over time, kicking off a growing amount of tax free income per year over the course of her lifetime.

At age 36, the eldest grandchild has an expected remaining life of 47.5 years, so could elect to take the minimum of tax free income of $555 (because that’s $26,928 divided by 47.5).

With that minimum withdrawal, assuming a 6% return, the account will grow each year. Withdrawals will increase each year as well, up to $4,136 when she is 72 years old, when the account will be worth $67,424.

The youngest grandchild
For the youngest grandchild, the deal is even sweeter. She would inherit $26,928 at age 23. Her original minimum withdrawal of tax free income would be $448 (that’s $26,928 divided by her expected remaining lifespan of 60.1 years). Minimum withdrawals would grow up to as much as $7,090 by age 72, at which point the account would be worth $109,903.

The younger the heir, the higher the potential for maximizing this Roth IRA magic, which can produce tax free income for life, long after the original retiree has passed.

In the most optimistic scenario, if markets return over the next 100 years at the rate they have in the past 100 years (a key “if”) Julie’s conversion of her relatively modest $70K Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA would produce close to $10 million in future tax free income for her grandchildren.

 

 

Please see related posts:

The Magical Roth IRA

Estate Tax – My Problems With It

 

 

Post read (1898) times.

  1. Incidentally, even though past performance is not indicative of future results, the S&P500 (including reinvestment of dividends) has earned 11.7% over the past 40 years.
  2. Just like other retirement accounts such as 401Ks and 403bs
  3. As a retiree ages and her remaining lifetime shortens, the IRS requires the retiree to divide by a smaller number, leading to higher distributions. A 90 year old must divide her traditional IRA account value by 11.4 for example, so would have to take out a minimum of $6,140 on a $70,000 account (because that’s $70,000 divided by 11.4).

Seigniorage! A Senator Used the Word!

If you’re a dollar coin fetishist like me, you’ll enjoy this  funny Huffington Post article on Senator Vitter’s attempt to crush the dollar coin movement. In a delightful twist, the Senator even uses the word ‘seigniorage,’ and the article explains its meaning.

Caesars_Coin

It turns out Senator Vitter’s colleague Senator Enzi is actually a supporter of coins, so we have the makings of a showdown. This is fun.

Post read (941) times.

The Illusion of Democracy

Tony_The_Tiger_Retro
Shareholder ballots: Theeey’re GREAT!

A new dilemma arose today in the ‘Teach my 9 year old child about money’ project. Kellogg’s sent her a voting card and ballot proxy, urging her to exercise her right to suffrage at the annual shareholder’s meeting, or more preferably, by signing a proxy form and sending it back to management.

She has that voting right because I am a mean daddy and I took her tooth fairy money and made her buy 8 shares of K back in 2013.

The ballot, like all the others I’ve ever gotten from public companies, urges her to:

1. Vote for the nominated slate of directors (about whom she knows nothing, obviously.)

2. Vote for the proposed executive compensation package (about which she knows nothing, but which I’m certain would be upsetting if she connected the dots for example about what they’re paid vs. what the parents of kids in her school make per year.)

3. Vote for the proposed annual auditor. (She’s only nine, but she’s actually dedicated quite a lot of time to understanding the differences between the Big 4 accounting firms, specifically as they provide services to food conglomerates, so I know she’d have a lot to say about this one. Like every kid I know, she just loves PriceWaterhouse Coopers LLC. And who doesn’t?)

Ballot choices 1 and 2 in particular represent a kind of charade democracy whereby the supposed owners (shareholders) ratify key insider-decisions (leadership and pay) but without any freaking clue what they’re voting for. And since the interest of shareholders might diverge strongly from the company leadership when it comes to executive pay in particular, shareholder voting for public companies in this manner is about as legitimate as elections in Communist Russia. And personally I don’t like to participate in charades and farces. 1

Kellogg vote

Just imagine if we ran The World’s Greatest Democracy this way, and the Financial-Powers-That-Be got together and only presented two choices for president, a Bush and a Clinton. Ummm…. 2

So the ballot and proxy card present a dilemma because I don’t know how to explain this all to my daughter. One solution, which I haven’t pursued yet, would be to toss out the ballot. That’s what I do when these things arrive for me, because I have my standards and I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN FARCES (unless, you know, see footnote 1 again).

But since the ballot arrived for my daughter, I have the urge to initiate a ‘teaching moment.’

I’m not sure what I’m going to say, but here’s my stream of consciousness so far:

“These ballots are a farce and shareholder democracy does not exist. This ‘election’ is illegitimate, obviously, even though the purpose is to legitimize insider pay and interlocking board membership, despite a nod toward the idea of ‘independent directors.’ There have been movements, periodically, to strengthen the idea of shareholder voting. ‘Shareholder activism’ has existed in visible form at least since the 1930s, but rarely has any effect on management.

Some of the worst excesses of capitalism stem from the inability of shareholders to act as a real check on the powers of executive management and board members. For example:

1. Executive pay for public companies completely unmoored from any realistic value creation by the executive.

2. Incentives to pump up CEO pay through interlocking membership on ‘executive compensation’ committees of boards, and the consultants who pay them.

3. Incentives for audit/accounting firms to avoid rocking the financial-trickery boat in order to earn more lucrative consulting gigs from their clients. (I understand this has gotten less common following the demise of Enron in 2001 and its accounting firm Arther Anderson.)

Unless you become Carl Icahn or Daniel Loeb, don’t hold out any particular hope that your ‘voting rights’ as a shareholder mean anything. The fact that Icahn and Loeb and others share your interests and make unpleasant but shareholder-friendly demands of management, however, makes them a sort-of heroic class of shareholder. Mostly they should be applauded.”

What a lucky kid, she gets to receive a lecture like this. She’s going to love it.

Please see related posts:

Executive Pay with Equity Awards

Executive Compensation – The Yahoo Story

My daughter’s first stock investment

 

 

 

 

Post read (1771) times.

  1.  Unless there’s a lot of cross-dressing and burlesque, in which case count me in. Because as my mother once told me, ‘cross-dressing is always fun!’
  2.  What a shit sandwich. This is a total tangent but for fuck’s sake my country is embarrassing me with these two choices. Excuse me, Financial-Powers-That-Be, but this is waaaaay too obvious. Try not to let people see quite so much of the magic trick as you’re doing it. Make the voters believe in Democracy, even just a little bit.

Real Estate Tax Rant

Not a lot of real agriculture  going on in this county.
Not a lot of real agriculture going on in this county.

Real-estate tax policy – incredibly important yet relatively unseen – shapes how and where we live.

I’ve ranted about estate tax policy as well as carried-interest tax policy here before, and now I’d like to rant about real-estate tax policy in my city.

As before, I don’t think it’s enough to say ‘I hate taxes,’ because taxes are a necessary evil. I don’t know about you, but I want to have adequately funded schools, parks, and public safety services.

If I have to pay taxes, however, I want to feel that everybody pays their fair share. The key to making peace with the evil of taxes is fairness. As before, I want to discuss real estate taxes in terms of what is ‘fair to me,’ and what is ‘fair to society.’

Fair to me

I recently toured (for the purposes of buying) a small fraction of a piece of undeveloped land in Southeastern Bexar County. The entire parcel of approximately 95 acres is located (for locals who care) inside the 1604 Loop, between Highways 281 and 37.

(I only looked to buy a fraction of the entire parcel, not the whole thing.)

The entire 95 acres might be worth, I don’t know, $500,000? Maybe more?

Would anyone like to guess what the 2014 taxes were for the 95 acres? Take a moment to guess.

Would you believe $170?

When I picked my jaw up off the floor I phoned the Bexar County Assessor’s office.

That’s when I learned about “Title 1-D-1” of the Texas Property Tax Code.

The 95 acres I toured are designated as a 1-D-1 ‘Agricultural Use’ – either cattle or timber. As a result Bexar County only taxes theoretical ‘agricultural income’ from that property, rather than the full ‘market value’ of the parcel.

The ‘market value’ of these 95 acres might be $500,000, but the actual ‘assessed value’ of the 95 acres is $6,780 – the estimated annual ‘agricultural value’ of the parcel.

As a prospective purchaser of a small fraction of this land, this tax code seemed very ‘fair to me.’

Fair to Society

But fair to society?

Holy cow, this is one of the least fair property tax rules I’ve ever come across.

If you own a house or any other non-agricultural property in San Antonio, you pay taxes as a percent of estimated value, typically around 2.7% of market value.

If I owned a big house in Bexar County worth say, $500,000, I should expect to pay 2.7% in taxes to the county, or $13,500 per year. Which, I don’t know about you, but seems like a lot me.

If I owned a big “1-D-1” parcel for 95 acres in Bexar County worth that same $500,000, however, I should expect to pay 2.7% of $6,780, or less than $200 in taxes per year. Which seems like very little to me.

Here’s where the unfairness hits: The “1-D-1” designations in Bexar County shift the burden of property taxes away from large landowners (like developers) and onto individual home owners.

I learned that a residential ‘market value’ property owner should expect to pay something like one hundred times more taxes than an ‘agricultural value’ property owner per year, according to Bexar County Deputy Chief Appraiser Mary Kieke.

Not about agriculture

I’m not saying I want poor farmers and poor ranchers to pay a lot more in taxes.

cowboy child
Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to claim 1-D-1 Ag exemptions on their taxes

I can see why the State of Texas, as a whole, has decided to reward legitimate agricultural activity with favorable taxation, as a nod to its rural roots and a preservation of a certain way of life.

I don’t want to mess with that heritage. It’s not my personal gig, but I can understand the point of view.

What I am saying is that this 95-acre parcel I looked at isn’t agricultural in any real conceivable sense of the word. I mean, maybe they’ve run a couple of cows over it whenever a tax assessor is coming by? Maybe some people have cut down a few trees on the property there and reported a ‘timber use?’ I guess?

It’s land banking

Bexar County is mostly comprised of the City of San Antonio, and for the most part San Antonio has ceased to be an agricultural producer. That’s not preventing people from taking advantage of the tax code to land bank cheaply, however.

For the present owners, this parcel – as the small lots around it show – acts as a very low cost land-bank for future housing developments, either in 1-acre lots, or larger tracts.

When I expressed amazement to Appraiser Kieke, she agreed with me that “there are legitimate agricultural uses, of course, but, by and large, this [1-D-1 designation] has become a way for developers to hold land with very low taxes.”

In Bexar County

So how big is the effect in Bexar County? About $63 million per year in lost taxes.

The total difference in value between ‘agricultural’ and ‘market value’ property in Bexar County is $2,348,327,452, according to Kieke, and 2.7% of that amounts to approximately $63 million per year.

If you’re a homeowner in Bexar County you are subsidizing landowners with 1-D-1 exemptions to the tune of $63 million per year, money the county needs that has to come from your much higher homeowner appraisals.

The point here isn’t to increase tax collection by an additional $63 million. But homeowners have a very unfair deal compared to many land-banking owners with 1-D-1 exemptions in Bexar County.

 

Please see related posts

Adult conversation about tax policy

You prepare your own taxes???!!?

The good old days of taxes, 1948 edition

 

Post read (1342) times.

What Is The Value of A Skills Upgrade?

A version of this post ran in The Rivard Report.

What is the value of an education?

codeupLike many, I see education from a combination of angles. Unquestionably, education makes us broader thinkers and more sparkling conversationalists. Education makes us more actualized humans. But as a finance guy, a small evil part of me always applies the $64,000 Wall Street question to every activity – from brushing my teeth to tossing a ball with a (in my case, non-existent) dog. 1

It’s the bottom-line question: “How is this making me money, like, right now?” 2
One of the problems of education, generally, is that we have a hard time proving or quantifying its value. What is the value of holding your shoulders back and head high when you walk into a job interview, knowing you’re the best they’re going to interview that week? Or the value of the feeling, when given a work assignment, of “Boom! I got this!”

Philosophically, how can you put a value on just knowing more stuff?

Codeup
The weird thing about my friend Michael Girdley – who started the computer coding school Codeup – is that he’s ambitious enough to say that the education community tradition of waving a hand at hard-to-measure fuzzy feelings is not good enough. Just because the education community finds it difficult to measure value doesn’t mean business people shouldn’t try to.

delorean_codeup
My friend also weirdly decided to buy a DeLorean as his signature marketing prop.

In less than two years he’s established a pattern of tracking the data on the most important finance question of education.
By that, I mean the bottom-line question: How is this making me money, like, right now?

Girdley shared with me the pre-Codeup and post-Codeup earnings of his students, along with some useful stats on entry-level and mid-career web developer salaries. Using a couple of his statistics I want to take a stab at figuring out the total value, right now, of a student’s investment in Codeup.

Statistic #1: The average Codeup graduate saw her annual salary jump $13,035 in the year after graduation from the program.
What does that really mean? What can you do with that number if you plan, say, 30 working years at this higher salary?
It would be great to say that a Codeup education is worth 30 times $13,035, or $391,050. However, money in the future is not as valuable to me as money today, so that calculation is not quite accurate.

I mean, you could say it, but finance guys will give you that speech about the time value of money that you don’t want to hear again.

With a salary jumped up by just $13,035, we can figure out what that amount is worth today by using a discounted cashflow formula. So let’s be sophisticated and apply our discounted cashflow formula to 30 years’ earnings, elevated by $13,035.
I have to assume a ‘discount rate’ which is some combination of taking into account inflation and future investment risks. I’m going to assume a 5% discount rate. 3

Using my 5% discount rate, I estimate the value today of my elevated salary to be $200,379.90. That’s the sum of 30 years’ worth of $13,035, but ‘discounted,’ or translated back, into today’s dollars.

That discounting allows us to more accurately compare the $16,000 tuition for Codeup with the total financial value, today, of that education.

money_booksBy that measure, you pay Codeup $16K today for something worth on average, $200K, today. 4  Another way of saying that is that you are buying something today worth 12.5X that amount. Stated that way, Codeup sounds like pretty good deal.

Statistic #2 – The average web developer, nationally, earns $91,750. That’s $61,525 more than the average pre-Codeup salary of surveyed Codeup students

So that’s interesting.

We can imagine a number of reasons for that difference that don’t have to do with the value of Codeup. Maybe the average web developer is older and more experienced on the job than the average pre-Codeup student. Maybe national salaries are higher than San Antonio salaries, on average. I mean, I’m sure they are.

But still. If one of your goals is to swim in a higher-paid talent pool, it might pay to learn the butterfly stroke.

How much would 15 peak years of earning $61,525 more than you earn now be worth, like, right now?

Again, I don’t think it’s as high as 15 times $61,525, or $922,875, because of the whole discounted cashflow thing about money in the future not being worth as much as money today. Also, to be fair, you probably won’t earn the average national salary until you had a few years to ramp up your career.

But what about discounting 15 years of an additional $61,525 per year, at a 5% rate, starting 5 years from now, using the exact same formula that we used before? 5

Discounting those 15 years of earning the average industry salary gives me a value, today, of $500,366.44. Which, to state the obvious, is 31X the price of tuition. With those kind of numbers I start to feel like that salesguy from Entourage: “What if I was to tell you that you’d pay $16,000 tuition to Codeup for something worth $500K today. Is that something you might be interested in?”


Look, seriously, there’s a lot of assumptions embedded in my statement that you could pay $16K in tuition today for future salary jumps worth $500K, today. Most important of these is the assumption that by training as a programmer you can earn the national average salary for programming jobs. And we all know there’s no guarantee that happens.

But – and this is a big but 6 – it’s not a crazy assumption.

Because, really, it’s an assumption that the average happens. It’s an assumption that you could be paid what other people in your industry are generally paid. It’s an assumption that markets are somewhat efficient. It’s an assumption that if you have valuable skills you can find employers and work situations just like other people.

All of which makes me pretty confident that the financial return on a skills upgrade like Codeup can be somewhere between 12 and 31 times the upfront tuition cost.

Back to the value of an education

As I said before, education leads to more sparkling conversations as well as to living a more fully actualized life. Of that, I have no doubt. But I appreciate my friend Girdley’s business-like approach to showing that the value of his program can be somewhere between a 12 and 31 times multiple of your investment.

Just thinking like a finance guy, is that something you might be interested in?

Shut_up_beevis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post read (1530) times.

  1.  Notice I haven’t gotten a dog because – I ask you – where’s the profit in that?
  2.  I’m still working on monetizing my teeth-brushing. Actually, a friend of mine recently posted that in today’s ‘sharing economy’ of AirBnB and Uber he wants to make his toothbrush available, when he’s not using it. Like, $5 for every two uses, for example. He’s quickly on his way to a Billion dollar valuation, Unicorn-style.
  3. How did I come up with 5%? Sorta kinda I used art in addition to science. You could call inflation 2%, so that’s a baseline for discounting the value of money in the future. Then there’s the future risk of actually earning the elevated salary, which after all is a big assumption, and also an average, and as we always say in finance ‘results may vary, past performance is no predictor of future results, etc,’ so there’s a few % points added to the inflation rate to account for that kind of risk. If you don’t like my 5% assumption, make your own, I can’t promise you I’m “right” about a 5% discount rate. You might be just as right with a different assumption. Also, remember the faux philosopher and native San Antonian Jack Handey is a good guide to these disagreements: “Instead of having ‘answers’ on a math test, they should just call them ‘impressions,’ and if you got a different ‘impression,’ so what, can’t we all be brothers?”
  4.  In addition to the $16K tuition of course you have to do a lot of work to not only learn to code, but also, you know, earn a salary in the future. So there’s still that whole ‘work’ problem. But if you have to work, it’s nice for the finance part to at least make sense, no?
  5.  Why did I choose 15 years and not 30 this time? Mostly because I don’t think it’s fair to assume a Codeup graduate’s salary jumps immediately to the average national salary. You work up to that. For that same reason, I calculated the value with a 5 year delay, to account for a slow ramp up. Again, Jack Handey comes to mind: “If you ever teach a yodeling class, probably the hardest thing is to keep the students from just trying to yodel right off. You see, we build to that.”
  6.  Hhhnn-huh. Heh. (Shut up, Beevis.)

Sin Investing

A version of this post ran in the San Antonio Express News.marlboro man

I recently used a reader question about a stock with ticker symbol MO – also known as Altria, and formerly known as cigarette maker Phillip Morris – to talk about investment returns.

I suspect readers of my column on calculating investment returns responded “ok, yes, fine, thanks for the theoretical treatise, but tell me how do I make money?”

Interestingly, MO stock can tell us a thing or two about that question as well. A contrarian like me cannot resist the opportunity to discuss MO in terms of:

  1. Socially responsible investing vs. sin investing, and
  2. Investing in innovative companies, and
  3. A five-year bet, on paper, I’d like to record

On ‘socially responsible’ Investing

I previously wrote about how I do not advocate purchasing ‘socially conscious’ mutual funds.

To summarize those ideas: I don’t like the costs of a typical socially conscious mutual fund; it’s difficult to match up large public companies with one’s specific moral compass; and the returns of such funds may not keep up with the broader market.

In fact, the opposite of ‘socially conscious’ investing – aka ‘sin’ investing – may be a far better idea, at least for making money on your money.

On ‘sin investing’ and efficient markets

When my daughter and I discussed the first stock she should buy with her tooth fairy money,  you can be certain that Altria was not on the list of possibilities. (FYI we went with Kellogg, “because Rice Krispies make a lot of noise.”)

While our choice to avoid buying a company like Altria was not market moving,[1] that choice multiplied by many billions of dollars by other similarly-situated investors can leave socially unappealing companies like Altria undervalued. In other words, the fact that cigarette smoking is totally disgusting is the key to Altria’s attractiveness as a stock.

sin_investing

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Zweig recently highlighted a fund built specifically to take advantage of the aversion many investors feel for stocks in certain industries such as tobacco, alcohol, weapons, and gambling.

The fund – formerly known by the catchy name ‘Vice Fund’ but now going by the more staid ‘USA Mutuals Barrier Fund’ – has had a good record beating a broad market index by nearly 2% per year for the past decade.

I generally do not believe that mutual funds can consistently outperform comparable market benchmarks.

Yet even an ‘efficient markets’ guy like me can imagine that systematic aversion by some investors to some ‘sin industry’ companies creates opportunity for other investors.

By the way, I’m not advocating actually investing in this fund, because the management fees, at 1.46%, run well above what I would consider for my own account or recommend for others. But I think their success may – possibly – highlight an inefficiency in an otherwise extraordinarily efficient market.

Most Successful Company In The World

Finance writer Morgan Housel featured MO stock, Altria, a few weeks ago in a post on the Motley Fool site calling it “the most successful company in the world.”

Before identifying Altria as his featured company, he described the long-run returns of stock ownership:

One dollar invested in this company in 1968 was worth $6,638 yesterday…that’s an annual return of 20.6% per year for nearly half a century…What company is this?

On Innovation and stock investing

And then Housel built the suspense before revealing the company as Altria, tongue firmly in cheek:

…It had to have been revolutionary. It had to have been innovative. It must be in an industry that changed the world – probably the biggest trend of the 20th Century. It must have done something no other company could do.

And then Housel goes on to reveal – in a way that thrills an incorrigible contrarian like myself  –  that this world-beating stock is in an unattractive industry, one that suffered massive declines and lawsuits over the past 30 years.

Most interestingly to Housel, and to me for that matter, tobacco as an industry barely innovates at all. And that, Housel goes on to say, is another key to its success.

Innovation is super-expensive. Innovation is risky! Innovative companies frequently die. Innovative companies in rapidly evolving industries get beaten by newer upstarts.

By the way, Tesla Motors, to name one public company that I’m reasonably certain will be dead in 5 years, despite its $25B market cap, is an innovative company.

But that doesn’t make it a good stock to own.

Tobacco delivery is not innovative, but rather something far more valuable for a stock: It’s profitable.

A few final thoughts

  1. I don’t own MO, except probably tucked away as one of a few thousand companies in some broad index fund I own in a retirement account.
  2. I have absolutely zero opinion on whether one should or should not own MO stock for investment purposes.
  3. Would a few people mark their calendars for five years on Tesla and let me know how I did with my call? Because I AM SO RIGHT.

 

[1] My daughter’s stock picking is NOT YET market moving. But look out, Bill Ackman, she’s gunning for you.

Post read (2093) times.