Share This

Tuesday, 7 September 2010

The new young investor: Shunning stocks

chart_investment_risk.top.gif
By Hibah Yousuf, staff

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- When 18-year-old Robert White decided to jumpstart his retirement plan, he invested his life savings of $25,000 into an aggressive mutual fund.
Little did he know that just five years later, he would make a complete 180 and join the ranks of a new group of young investors who have become so risk averse by the wild market swings that they'd rather park their money in safety zones, like CDs or Treasurys.

 Ultra safe to risky: How 10 Gen Y-ers invest
Surveys show young investors are strikingly less eager to take on risk now than they were in 2001. Why some are holding and others are folding. 
Today, only 22% of investors under the age of 35 say they're willing to take on a substantial level of risk, according to the Investment Company Institute. Compare that with 2001, when that same group outpaced every other age bracket.

"We're coming off a series of financial crises that hit this young generation at points in their lives where external events shape strong opinions," said Christopher Geczy, adjunct associate professor of finance at University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School.

When White's fund began to slip with the broader market in 2008, he yanked his savings, now at $35,0000, and put the money into a short-term certificate of deposit with an annual return rate of 4%.

"It's almost embarrassing to talk to anyone about my portfolio because I know how stupid it is to normally keep my portfolio in cash," said White, now a 23-year-old graduate of Northern Arizona University.

While most investors have become more cautious during the decade, the biggest change has come from White's generation.

"Many of them have witnessed a decline in the wealth of their families and seen their parents delay retirement or even return to the workforce," said Geczy, who also serves as the academic director of Wharton's Wealth Management Initiative.

A recent Merrill Lynch survey of 1,000 affluent Americans, who boast more than $250,000 in investable assets, showed 56% of young investors consider themselves to be more conservative today than they were a year ago -- the highest percentage among all age groups.

"If you're in your 20s and are just starting to save for retirement, you've seen the market drop 55%, climb 88%, and drop again in a short span...If you're in your 30s and have been saving for the past decade, you've seen the stock market return essentially 0%," said Vanguard Chief Executive Bill McNabb, at a recent conference.

Members of Generation Y are also having a tougher time finding a job than their counterparts. The unemployment rate for workers under the age of 35 in August stood at more than 13%, compared to the nation's 9.6%.

Prolonging retirement
White has mustered up the courage to return to the market but he is only dabbling in stocks with about 10% of his $60,000. That's a far cry from the 70% advisors typically recommend for young investors. The rest of White's cash is tucked away in a savings account.

He's hopeful he'll gain the confidence to boost his stock allocation to 75% this fall when he returns to his hometown of Maui and starts a job at a financial planning office.

"I'm just waiting to get the next piece of advice or news that will make me more comfortable about my decisions," said White.

Experts say White and his peers may be doing themselves a disservice by shunning stocks.

"The biggest risk for this generation is that they'll live too long. With medical breakthroughs, the reality is that many of them will live beyond 100," said Barry Nalebuff, a strategy professor at Yale's School of Management and co-author of Lifecycle Investing. "The only way they have enough assets to last them is to invest in stocks. If they don't, a lot of people will have to keep working way past when they want to because they won't have enough money saved up."

Nalebuff argues that young investors have decades of earnings to rake in, so they could plow 100% into a diverse portfolio of stocks and still offset the market's risks.

But that's little comfort to people like Neil Sowinski, 30, who remains unnerved by the market's swings. He pulled his money from stock market in January and dumped it into a Pimco bond fund, and advised his wife to do the same.

"We watched the tech bubble bust and then the housing bubble bust, and we lost money left and right but rode it all out," said Sowinski, an industrial mechanic in Racine, Wisc. "After the market climbed back in 2009 and put us up about 15%, we pulled out because I felt that rally was just based on the government's stimulus and corporations cutting costs -- it wasn't sustainable."

He has $95,000 in bonds and is pleased with the 8% return so far, but he hopes to move back into the stock market for the long term.

Stocks have yielded an average of up to 7% each year after inflation over the last 200 years, while bonds have had a hard time squeezing out a 1% return rate, according to Wharton finance professor Jeremy Siegel.

Newscribe : get free news in real time
To top of page



Think, then judge

IKIM VIEWS
By MD ASHAM AHMAD,
Fellow of Centre for Shariah, Law and Politics

To evaluate the arguments and bickering going on around us every day on TV and in the newspapers takes a critical mind coupled with sound judgment.

SOME people erroneously think that open-mindedness means to accept all opinions and to avoid making judgment over those opinions.

A rational person will not make a blind, hasty or an uninformed judgment nor will he accept ideas and opinions indiscriminately.

He will listen to what others have to say and suspend judgment until what is being said is properly understood.
That is open-mindedness but ultimately, judgment has to be made regarding the true worth of an idea or opinion.

Life is about decision-making and every decision-making is actually a judgment that the decision is the correct one or the best among all other choices. So, everybody is basically a judge.

It is easy to judge. What is difficult is to make a sound (correct) judgment.

A wrong judgment could ruin one’s life and perhaps the life of others as well.

But life is too precious to be wasted just like that, hence every thinking person would work hard to make the best of his or her life.

Everyone desires to live a good life. But what is actually a good life?
More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates proclaimed that “an unexamined life is not worth living”.

To live an examined life means to live a conscious life. It means not to take things for granted.
Actually, that is what a rational human being would do.

He would carefully and critically examine the soundness of all the premises upon which important decisions in life are made.

In order to do that, he must be able to gather facts and evaluate them intelligently.

He must also be able to express his ideas clearly and concisely using the correct and proper words.
He would do all that because he is very concerned with misjudgment or wrong judgment, because he values his life.

Just consider for a moment all the arguments and bickering that are going on around us every day on TV and in the newspapers.

Some social scientists are trying to convince us that our society is not progressing well because the way we understand and practise our religion is no longer relevant.

Some religious leaders are so supportive of a certain popular motivation programme while others are telling us all that it is against Islam.

Politicians and social activists are arguing and disagreeing among each other as to which policy is best to promote unity among the citizens.

To tell the difference between what is right and what is wrong, or between what is true and what is false, one must have adequate knowledge.

To say “this act is wrong” or “that statement is false” means to propose that a particular act or statement is contradictory to what is right and true.

It assumes the person knows the difference between a true and false statement about reality and the difference between what is right and what is wrong in terms of human conduct.

To arrive at that knowledge one must have a critical mind and know the right techniques or methods needed.
Behind all the issues, questions and suggestions posed by social scientists, religious leaders, politicians and social activists are certain facts which must be researched, analysed, defined, discovered, uncovered and so on.

Only a critical mind will be able to evaluate the arguments underlying an advertisement, the finding of a scientific study or the most recent survey presented to us in the media and tell what’s true, what’s false and what really doesn’t matter at all.

Instead of appealing to the intelligence through logical argument, it is easier and more effective to use rhetoric (the art of persuasion) by appealing to feelings and emotions.

Politicians, then and now, are notorious for their use of rhetoric to promote and defend corrupt ideas in order to gain money, fame and power.

They know that not many people are intelligent enough to weigh arguments and verify the evidence presented to them.

Today, rhetoric coupled with rigorous advertising and public relations exercises are used extensively to influence public opinion.

Rhetoric uses language without logic while advertising and public relations manipulate images and events to mislead the innocent public. And those who control the media easily control one’s choices and decisions.

Democracy, by the way, is about who commands the support of the majority, not about who is right or wrong.

Free media, in the sense of being free from political affiliation or patronage, does not guarantee that people would have the freedom of choice.

The public has to be freed first of all from ignorance.
They have to be made aware of the assumptions, inconsistencies and contradictions of the politicians on major issues affecting them.

Who else can do that more effectively than the scholars?
This, however, will not happen if the scholars themselves are corrupt because “corruption of the best is corruption at its worst”.

It is indeed worse than the corruption of the politicians and public administrators.
Hence, universities should not be allowed to be the breeding ground for corrupt leaders devoid of intellectual and moral integrity.

Professors who profess nothing other than their allegiance to their political masters should not teach in our universities.

They will only perpetuate cowardice and flattery.

Monday, 6 September 2010

Money Buys Happiness Only Up to a Point

By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Managing Editor


Money might give you a sense of overall satisfaction with life, but the extra dough won’t ensure days full of laughter and joy, a new survey analysis of income and happiness suggests. 

Results showed that as a person’s income increases so does their overall satisfaction with life, but the moment-to-moment enjoyment of those days depended more on social and physical factors, such as whether a person smoked or spent the day alone. 

These findings agree with a similar analysis of global happiness, in which the wealthiest nations, such as the United States, weren’t necessarily the happiest. For instance, the United States came in at No. 26 out of 132 nations on daily happiness. Another study on overall satisfaction showed those living in the wealthiest and most tolerant states were happiest by the measure used in the study. [Happiest States Revealed

Happiness surveys
 
In the new study, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton of Princeton University took a stab at figuring out whether and how income affected each of the two well-being types: emotional well-being and overall life satisfaction. To do so, they analyzed more than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 U.S. residents conducted by the Gallup Organization. 

They looked at percentage changes in income rather than absolute numbers. 

“In the context of income, a $100 raise does not have the same significance for a financial services executive as for an individual earning the minimum wage, but a doubling of their respective incomes might have a similar impact on both,” the researchers wrote this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 

For life evaluation, participants indicated on a scale from zero to 10, from worst to best possible, how they would rate their lives. For emotional well-being, participants answered yes/no questions about whether they had experienced various positive and negative emotions a lot during the prior day. 

About 85 percent of respondents indicated they experienced a lot of positive emotions, including feelings of happiness, enjoyment and laughter/smiling on the previous day, while 24 percent felt a lot of sadness and worry. The average life-evaluation score was 6.76 (with 10 being the best possible life). 

Physical illness, headaches, loneliness, and caring for an adult were linked to lower emotional well-being. Being a college graduate was associated with high life evaluation, but that diploma didn’t do much for daily enjoyment. 

The limits of money 
 
Low income seemed to magnify the emotional pain of life’s misfortunes, including divorce, illness and loneliness. For instance, for those with a monthly income of at least $3,000, 38 percent who reported headaches also reported a lot of sadness and worry, compared with 19 percent without headaches. But headaches seemed to take a greater toll on those making less than $1,000 a month, who reported “blue feelings” at rates of 70 percent when they had headaches and 38 percent when they didn’t. 

Beyond an average of $75,000, annual income no longer played a role in boosting how happy a person felt daily. 

The researchers suggest that making anything more than $75,000 no longer improves a person’s ability to spend time with friends, avoid pain and disease and enjoy leisure time – all factors involved in emotional well-being. 

“It also is likely that when income rises beyond this value, the increased ability to purchase positive experiences is balanced, on average, by some negative effects,” they write. For instance, a past study revealed a link between high income and a reduced ability to savor small pleasures, the researchers noted.
Newscribe : get free news in real time