In recent years, structured products have gained favor among retail investors in Europe and the US. Investment banks promote these securities as sophisticated tools to help investors manage downside risk, enhance returns, or achieve other investment objectives.

Sales have grown briskly since 2006, and despite a decline after the 2008 market crisis, some industry sources expect a rebound in sales and a flurry of new products in the future.1 With this in mind, it may be useful to understand how the products work and to evaluate the costs, benefits, and tradeoffs before considering one in your investment strategy.

Basic design
A structured product is a contract that promises to pay a future amount based on the performance of an underlying asset, such as a stock, market index, or commodity. The payoff is typically linked to a preset formula. Most structured products are designed to either preserve capital or enhance returns, and are typically issued as notes.2 The notes offer a specific payout over a designated period or at maturity, and the final payout depends on the performance of the underlying asset as well as the value of the derivatives written on it. Since the product typically is issued by an investment bank, the investor is exposed to the credit risk of that entity.

One common product, a principal-protected note, generally offers a minimum return equal to the original investment, plus a potential return tied to performance of an underlying asset, such as a stock market index. If the index drops during the term, the investor gets his money back, but if the index rises, he may receive the upside gain, but usually only a part of the underlying asset’s gain. Structured products can be replicated by portfolios composed of an interest-bearing instrument, such as a certificate of deposit or zero-coupon bond, equity securities, and options or other derivative securities whose performance is linked to the underlying index.3

The following summarizes a few common characteristics of structured products:

•    Complex design: Most products have a complex design, which can make analysis of pricing, risk exposure, and potential outcomes more difficult. Some investors equate this complexity with higher potential returns, when, in fact, it may only mask high fees and risk. Worse yet, investors may not understand the range of possible outcomes. During the 2008 market crisis, some investors learned a hard lesson when the issuing firm went bankrupt or when their structured product experienced losses from poor performance of the underlying asset.

•    Substantial cost: These products tend to carry a significant markup and costs that in some cases are difficult to quantify, especially if an investor lacks the technical knowledge to analyze the underlying components of the strategy.

•    Replication: The payoff of virtually any structured product can be replicated in a portfolio by holding the underlying securities, then buying or selling derivatives written on those securities. In many cases, the costs associated with the replication portfolio are much lower than the structured product itself.

•  Tradeoffs: In return for receiving a prescribed payout, investors must accept a tradeoff in the form of a lower return and/or limited upside potential. When evaluating a structured payout, remember that there is no free lunch in the risk-return tradeoff. To pursue higher expected returns, you must accept more risk. If you do not want to bear the risk, you must transfer it to other investors and pay them for taking it.

•    Multiple Risks: First, there are the inherent risks of the underlying security (e.g., the stock or index). Investors also are exposed to credit risk of the issuing firm. The contract is an agreement with the issuer to make a pre-determined payment in the future, and thus, it is contingent on the firm being able to deliver. Liquidity risk is another issue. Although many structured products are listed and traded on exchanges, they may be difficult to sell, especially in a volatile market. To avoid a potential liquidity problem, investors should consider the time horizon of the product and attempt to match its maturity to their anticipated financial need or objective.

• Tax considerations: It is also important to check tax consequences. Some instruments may have certain appeal under the current tax rule. But, often, tax consequences differ according to the investment situation (e.g., whether one buys at the issuance or in the secondary market).

Who might benefit?
A structured product might help an investor who needs a specific payout at a designated point in the future and who is willing to pay another party to shoulder much of the uncertainty. But this benefit generally comes at the expense of lower yield or limited upside potential.

One example may be an individual who currently holds restricted company stock whose value may account for a significant portion of his total wealth. Although he might prefer to diversify this exposure, company rules may prohibit a sale until some future date. A structured product might provide protection against the downside risk of the company’s stock (even though this might mean giving up the upside potential of the stock), and at the same time, provide better-diversified exposure to an equity index, such as the S&P 500.

Perhaps most important, investors who are considering a structured product should consider why they even need a highly structured payoff in the future—and if so, whether the payoff can be structured by other means in the portfolio. In many cases, the strategy can be replicated at a lower cost, and perhaps with less risk. Many investors would prefer an alternative that is less complex and more transparent. And as the recent credit crisis taught many investors, it is wise to avoid investing in things you do not understand.

Endnotes

1 Larry Light, “Twice Shy on Structured Products?” Wall Street Journal, May 28, 2009.

2 A reverse convertible bond is one example of a yield enhancement tool. It pays investors a higher coupon rate than other comparable bonds due to its higher risk. This risk comes in the form of the issuer having the option to pay off the debt with either cash or a predetermined number of common stock shares. The method of payment at time of maturity will depend on the stock price, and the issuer will pay with common stock when it is advantageous to do so. The reverse convertible bond was popular until the last market crisis, when many investors experienced heavy losses when they were paid off with lower-value stock shares.

3 A call option provides the holder the right to buy the underlying security at a given price at a certain time in the future. A put option provides the holder with rights to sell the underlying security at a pre-specified price on maturity date. (American-style options can be exercised before the maturity date, whereas European-style options can be exercised only on the maturity date.) An option holder will exercise the put or call option only if the payoff is positive.

Dimensional Fund Advisors is an investment advisor registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. This material is provided for informational and educational purposes only. It should not be considered investment advice or an offer to buy or sell securities.

Connie Prater – FoxBusiness.com

Credit card users can expect the most dramatic changes in credit terms, interest rates and fees in decades now that most major provisions of a new federal credit card law have gone into effect.

The new normal for credit cards is more transparency and easier-to-understand terms, but at a higher upfront cost. Credit card issuers and credit industry analysts say the credit card reform law makes credit cards more costly for all users and unaccessible for low-income families and people with bad credit. The law likely means the return of routine annual fees, fewer rewards cards and the possibility that credit card bills will be payable immediately rather than after a month-long grace period.

The new normal

President Obama signed the Credit CARD Act of 2009 into law May 22, 2009, following passage days earlier in the Senate and the House.

What does the credit card law mean for cardholders? Millions of credit card users will avoid retroactive interest rate increases on existing card balances and have more time to pay their monthly bills, greater advance notice of changes in credit card terms and the right to opt out of significant changes in terms on their accounts. That will take the surprise out of “gotcha” fine print and give consumers time to shop around for better deals if they don’t like the new terms. The requirements are being phased in. The first batch took effect Aug. 20, 2009, and the majority of provisions started on Feb. 22, 2010, while some begin on August 22, 2010.

The Fed just announced final rules for the third phase of the Credit CARD Act — which takes effect on August 22, 2010. Those rules say, among other things, that late payment fees will be capped at $25 in most cases. Also, if consumers exceed their spending limits, they can’t be charged more than the excess amount.

The law has fundamentally changed the way credit card issuers market, bill and advertise credit cards.

Here are the highlights of the credit card law:

To view the rest of this article go to What the new credit card law means for you

A survey of big employers finds they expect their health-care costs to rise nearly 9% next year and plan to share some of that burden with employees via higher premiums and higher out-of-pocket limits.

The survey included responses from 72 members of the nonprofit National Business Group on Health, which represents large companies such as General Electric, Microsoft and General Motors. It parallels pretty closely another survey on employer health-care costs, by PricewaterhouseCoopers, that we reported on a few months back.

Some tidbits from the report, which you can find on the company’s website:

For he rest of this story, go to Big Employers Estimate Health-Care Costs Will Rise 8.9% in 2011

America’s baby boomers—those born between 1946 and 1964—face a problem that could weigh on the economy for years to come: The longer it takes for the economy to recover, the less money they’ll have to spend in retirement.

Policy makers have long worried that Americans aren’t saving enough for old age. And lately, current and prospective retirees have been hit on many fronts at once: They have less money, they earn less on what they have, their houses aren’t rising in value and the prospect of working longer to make up the shortfall has dimmed significantly in a lousy job market.

“We will have to learn to make do with a lot less in material things,” says Gary Snodgrass, a 63-year-old health-care consultant in Placerville, Calif. The financial crisis, he says, slashed his retirement savings 40% and the value of his house by about half.

Banks, home buyers and bond issuers are all benefiting as the U.S. Federal Reserve holds short-term interest rates near zero to support a recovery. But for many of the 36 million Americans who will turn 65 over the next decade—and even for the 45 million who have another decade to go— the resulting low bond yields, combined with a volatile stock market, are making a dire retirement picture look even worse.

Low yields present retirees with a difficult choice: Accept the lower income offered by safer bonds, or take the risk of staying in the stock market. Either way, their predicament could put a long-term damper on the consumer spending that typically drives U.S. growth.

“If these rates stay as low as they are, then a lot more people are going to be hurting,” says Jack Van Derhei, research director at the Employee Benefit Research Institute. The non-partisan outfit estimates that if current conditions persist, nearly three in five baby boomers will be at risk of running short of money in retirement. “There are going to be many luxury items that will simply have to be eliminated,” for retirees to make ends meet.

Despite the market’s rebound from the lows of 2009, nest eggs remain severely impaired. As of the first quarter of 2010, net household assets—homes, 401(k) plans, pension assets and other investments minus debts—stood at $54.6 trillion, down 18% from the end of 2007. That’s an average of about $171,000 per person, much of which is concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest.

At the same time, the return people can hope to earn on their assets has fallen, particularly for those who switch into bonds or annuities to guarantee a fixed income. The average yield on U.S. government, corporate and mortgage bonds stands at about 2.4%, while stock-market valuations suggest a long-term return of about 6%. At those levels of return, some 59% of people aged 56 to 62 will be at risk of not having enough money to cover basic living and health-care costs in retirement, estimates Mr. Van Derhei. If market returns are higher—8.9% for stocks and 6.3% for bonds—the picture isn’t a lot better: The percentage at risk falls to about 47%.

Before the recession hit, many economists assumed people would solve their retirement problems simply by staying in the work force longer. Now, “the recession has blown that idea out of the water,” says Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and co-author of a 2008 book that advocated working longer.

Older workers, who typically fared better than their younger counterparts in recessions, have been hit just as hard by layoffs this time around. As a result, the fraction of people 65 or older who are working has leveled off after a long period of growth. As of July, it stood at 15.9%, down from 16.3% in mid-2008.

For the rest of this article, go to the Wall Street Journal.

For decades, high fees have quietly but steadily eaten away at the value of 401(k) retirement plans. Now employees are making headway in legal battles to force employers to lower costs.

Employees of Edison International won a big victory this month when a federal judge ruled that the company’s 401(k) fees were excessive and said employees were entitled to recover an as-yet-undetermined amount of overcharges.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson said in an 82-page decision that Rosemead-based Edison did “substantial” harm by failing to negotiate lower prices with the outside firm running the 401(k). A large company such as Edison easily could have gotten a better deal on three of the mutual funds in its plan, but simply didn’t try, the judge said.

The Edison case is one of more than two dozen lawsuits filed against U.S. employers in recent years. The suits allege that companies allowed 401(k) providers to stuff the plans with high-cost investments in exchange for reducing the administrative costs paid by the employers themselves.
Get a daily snapshot of business, financial and technology news delivered to your inbox with our Business Daily newsletter. Sign up »

The most prominent case accuses Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which is famous for squeezing suppliers for lower prices, with failing to negotiate the lowest fees for its 401(k) participants. The plaintiffs got a boost late last year when an appellate court ruled that the closely watched case could proceed.

The Edison ruling could influence the outcome of other suits and turn up the pressure on employers to pay closer attention to 401(k) fees, experts say.

“It’s a big development,” said Fred Reish, a partner at Reish & Reicher in Los Angeles who is not involved in the case. “It will encourage plaintiffs’ attorneys to continue to litigate and will encourage [employers] to look for lower-cost share classes for their plans, which will ultimately benefit the participants.”

Retired Edison employee Fred Suhadolc, a lead plaintiff on the suit, said he and other employees were dismayed at the high fees in their plan because they thought the company would do its best to keep them low. Unfamiliar with the stock market and 401(k)s, Suhadolc said he never understood the fees and still has no idea how much he overpaid.

“It’s frustrating and disappointing that you expect to be treated honestly and fairly, and when you find out that you’re not you almost feel cheated,” said Suhadolc, a former maintenance mechanic at an Edison subsidiary in Illinois.

Edison declined to comment.

It’s difficult to determine the financial toll of excessive 401(k) fees, but some experts say they collectively drain tens of millions of dollars a year from unsuspecting investors.

At Edison, for example, an average employee who invested exclusively in the three funds would have paid more than $300 a year in unnecessary fees, estimated Jerome Schlichter, the St. Louis attorney who represented Edison employees. That does not include foregone investment gains on that money.

For the rest of this story go to Employee allegations of excessive 401(k) fees gain ground.

By Bloomberg News

July 28, 2010

The package arrived at Cindy Lohman’s home in Great Mills, Maryland, just two weeks after she learned that her son, Ryan, a 24-year-old Army sergeant, had been killed by a bomb in Afghanistan. It was a thick, 9-inch-by- 12-inch envelope from Prudential Financial Inc., which handles life insurance for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Inside was a letter from Prudential about Ryan’s $400,000 policy. And there was something else, which looked like a checkbook. The letter told Lohman that the full amount of her payout would be placed in a convenient interest-bearing account, allowing her time to decide how to use the benefit.

“You can hold the money in the account for safekeeping for as long as you like,” the letter said. In tiny print, in a disclaimer that Lohman says she didn’t notice, Prudential disclosed that what it called its Alliance Account was not guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Bloomberg Markets magazine reports in its September issue.

Lohman, 52, left the money untouched for six months after her son’s August 2008 death.

“It’s like you’re paying me off because my child was killed,” she says. “It was a consolation prize that I didn’t want.”

As time went on, she says, she tried to use one of the “checks” to buy a bed, and the salesman rejected it. That happened again this year, she says, when she went to a Target store to purchase a camera on Armed Forces Day, May 15.

‘I’m Shocked’

Lohman, a public health nurse who helps special-needs children, says she had always believed that her son’s life insurance funds were in a bank insured by the FDIC. That money — like $28 billion in 1 million death-benefit accounts managed by insurers — wasn’t actually sitting in a bank.

It was being held in Prudential’s general corporate account, earning investment income for the insurer. Prudential paid survivors like Lohman 1 percent interest in 2008 on their Alliance Accounts, while it earned a 4.8 percent return on its corporate funds, according to regulatory filings.

“I’m shocked,” says Lohman, breaking into tears as she learns how the Alliance Account works. “It’s a betrayal. It saddens me as an American that a company would stoop so low as to make a profit on the death of a soldier. Is there anything lower than that?”

Millions of bereaved Americans have unwittingly been placed in the same position by their insurance companies. The practice of issuing what they call “checkbooks” to survivors, instead of paying them lump sums, extends well beyond the military.

For the rest of this story go to Fallen soldier’s families denied cash as insurers profit

The following article from Investor’s News is an eye opener. It is so easy to think investing is easy – think again. And, enjoy reading this article and take heed.

Like so many investors in the spring of 2009, Gordon Wolf needed to dig out of a hole.

A 68-year-old psychologist in Napa, California, Wolf was a buy-and-hold sort of guy, yet the nest egg he had entrusted to his broker at Merrill Lynch was suddenly down by more than 50 percent.

The broker had invested much of it in a range of exchange- traded funds, or ETFs, a relatively new financial innovation that was replacing mutual funds in the hearts and portfolios of many investors. An ETF, which can be bought or sold like a stock, attempts to track the price of a particular basket of assets–tech stocks, for instance, or high-yield bonds, or commodities ranging from wheat to gold to oil to natural gas.

The commodity ETFs were supposed to offer a hedge against equity losses, but in the crash of 2008 everything fell in tandem. Now it was early 2009, and Wolf was watching oil fall to $34 a barrel. That had to be an opportunity, he figured, so he called his Merrill broker and asked about the U.S. Oil Fund, an ETF designed to track the price of light, sweet crude. “This seems to be something good,” Wolf told the broker, and had him buy about $10,000 of USO.

What happened next didn’t make sense. Wolf watched oil go up as predicted, yet USO kept going down. In February 2009, for example, crude rose 7.4 percent while USO fell 7.4 percent. What was going on?

For the rest of this article, go to Investors in commodity ETFs getting “eaten alive”

“The goal of Obama’s power grab is to grab your power: your wealth, economic liberties, and personal freedoms.

You aren’t falling for it any longer. And this is causing Obama and his allies to become more desperate, and to push harder, to steal your freedoms faster.

Events and the American character have conspired to bring about a moment of decision, one that will be discussed in future political discourse analyzing the current age.

The time to choose has arrived. Whose freedoms are they? If they’re yours, you are going to have to fight to keep them. Because as things stand now, Barak Obama has ushered in and is rapidly moving forward with expansion of a vast partnership between the state, left-wing activists, wealthy ideological activists, and corporatists, all seeking to impose an agenda making you less rich, less free, and less safe,

But these freedoms are not theirs to take from you. Fight back. And tell your kids and grandkids what you did in this war.”

So concludes Christopher C. Horner in his latest book, Power Grab: How Obama’s green policies will steal your freedom and bankrupt America. Horner is a senior fellow with the Washington, D.C. think tank The Competitive Enterprise Institute and affiliated with European counterpart organizations. An attorney in Washington, D.C., Horner has represented scientists, think tanks, and members of the United States House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts.

Horner is also a New York Time Bestselling Author having previously written The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism and Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.

For an additional review of this book, check out The American Culture, edited by S.T. Karnick.

Renewable Energy: Free as the Wind?

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources met this morning and, among other things, discussed a national renewable electricity standard (RES). The RES, which mandates that a certain percentage of our nation’s electricity production come from wind, solar, biomass and other renewable energies, already passed out of committee but is likely to be a part of any energy agenda this year. A new Heritage Foundation study analyzing the costs of an RES finds that a national mandate for pricier, less reliable electricity would be harmful to American families, American businesses and the American economy.

The Heritage analysis models the effects of an RES that starts at 3 percent for 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. This profile mandates a minimum of 15 percent renewable electricity by 2020, a minimum of 22.5 percent by 2025, and a minimum of 37.5 percent by 2035. It looks solely at onshore wind, which is currently the cheapest renewable energy source that can be scaled in significant fashion…

For the full article, go to Renewable Energy: Free as the Wind?