On Oct 29, 9:15*am, beliav...[at]aol.com wrote:
- quote -


I looked into using leveraged funds for 1/3 of my portfolio to try and
kick start returns. Most leveraged funds have 2 disadvantages for the
strategies mentioned to work over time (2-7 year periods).

1) the leveraged funds are rebalanced daily and track daily
performance.
2) the yearly performance of the leveraged fund and the yearly
performance of the index are not correlated. For example if S&P 500
returned 7%, a 2X leveraged etf or fund does not return 14%. Highers
than 7, but usually less than 14%- actually only a couple percentage
points better for significantly more risk (IMO).

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Not an answer to your question, but your mention of using an inverse
fund in a retirement account gave me an idea.

Investors are prohibited from borrowing in retirement accounts, but
they can use a leveraged ETF to circumvent this. Suppose an investor
with $200K in risk capital, $100K in a taxable account and $100K in a
Roth IRA, believed that he should be 100% in stocks. Assuming the
stock market outperforms cash over his time horizon, I think he could
increase after-tax wealth by owning a leveraged ETF with SPX beta of 2
(such as SSO, expense ratio 0.95%) in the Roth account and putting his
taxable money in muni bonds, especially at a time when muni yields
exceed Treasuries. At retirement he could reduce stock exposure
without paying capital gains taxes. I'd have to do some simulations to
become confident about this strategy. One question is whether the
higher expense ratio on the leveraged ETF outweighs the tax benefit.

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Pete wrote:
- quote -

This isn't regarding your tax scheme (which could instead increase the
size of your IRA?), but I see this mentioned about inverse funds often
enough that I have to comment on that piece of it...it's important to
understand the embedded costs and risks of these retail inverse funds
and ETFs. I don't follow either of those ETFs you mentioned, but I'd
suggest researching the historical gap between the total return of the
long ETF, and the total return of the inverse ETF, factoring in spreads,
discounts/premiums to NAV, tracking error, and transaction costs. My
guess is that holding a long and a short could bleed out a few
percentage points from the position annually, if not substantially more.
Research it for each fund though, I may be wrong, the answer may be
different.

If an investment scheme relies on something very close to 1:-1
correspondence, you'll need to find a cost-free inverse fund, which is
an impossibility. So the costs (of all types) need to be factored in and
they may be better than any potential benefit. In fact on days like
today when the broad market moves 10% I start pondering how it would be
possible to run an inverse fund in that environment, with fund
inflows/outflows to boot...it seems plausible that inverse funds and
similar strategies are at least a factor in contributing to recent
market volatility.

-Tad

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

"FranksPlace2" <FranksPlace2[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5d714a10-aeee-425d-9311-35b96e08a88a[at]h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

<snipped for the moderators
Can you put a VUL inside YOUR retirement account? I know some types of
retirement accounts will allow some level of insurance inside but I do
believe that there are restrictions. If you can't buy a VUL - or enough
VUL - inside the retirement plan you'd have to cash out the retirement
account, pay the tax, then buy the VUL - sort of kills the whole thing.

You are going to have to pay some ordinary income tax on what you take out
of the retirement account - it is that simple. Paying no tax means either
taking no money or taking out that which has declined substantially in
value.

Avoiding taxes is easy - simply convert all of your retirement holdings into
something that you are certain will go do substantially in value, then when
the investment tanks liquidate the account and take out the funds, then use
the funds to buy retail investments that will go back up in value - that way
you pay the least amount of tax possible and get your investments into
something that will throw off capital gains rather than ordinary income. Of
course you're taking an extreme risk that you'll be able to recover from
such a manuver - I personally wouldn't recommend this.

Depending on the particulars of your situation, you may consider converting
your retirement account to a ROTH account, especially while the value of the
holdings are low. You'll pay tax on the conversion value, then when the
account gains ground and you draw against it in retirmeent - after the later
or 5 years or age 59.5 - the money comes out tax free. Assuming of course
that the new administration doesn't change the rules on us too much.

A better approach is to focus on being better off AFTER taxes, rather than
trying to avoid taxes altogether.

Good luck,
Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

On Oct 25, 5:15*pm, Pete <s...[at]nowhere.com> wrote:
- quote -

buy a variable life insurance plan. Then I would withdraw it while
the cash value was low and pay the taxes. Subsequently it would grow
in value tax free.

Frank

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

Pete wrote:
- quote -

Yes, you've lost the return potential on the total sum invested. While
you have $100K long in the IRA and $100K in the inverse fund, you are
missing out on the return that $200K will achieve, even in CDs or some
other conservative mix.

I notice an increase in the number of schemes to try to save pennies
while ignoring the big picture. My best withdrawal advice is to manage
your investments so the post tax accounts' gains and interest are
subject to the reduced rate and the IRA/401 withdrawals don't bump you
to the next bracket. Convert to Roth to 'top off' the bracket you are
in. And pass on any schemes, they are nothing but a distraction.

Joe
www.blog.joetaxpayer.com

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.

I've been trying to figure out a way to withdraw funds from retirement
accounts without paying tax at income rates. How about this?

To take an example, assume you believe that emerging market stocks will
continue their recent declines. You move your retirement plan money into an
emerging market ETF such as EEM. You hedge this by investing a taxable
account in the same amount in the corresponding inverse (short) ETF (EUM in
this case).

If your forecast was correct, you will reduce the value of your retirement
account (taxed at income rates) and increase by the same amount the value
of your taxable account (taxed at cap gains rates). The combined value of
the two accounts is unchanged.

If you believed the target asset class was going to go UP rather than DOWN,
you'd make the opposite investment. Buy the inverse fund in your retirement
account and buy the bull fund in your taxable account.

Some of the issues I see with this are:

1. You have a lot of money tied up in the 2 investments, especially if you
want to achieve a significant reduction in retirement plan taxes. On the
other hand: (a) the zero investment return is enhanced by the tax
reduction; and (b) if you're sitting out the recent market volatility in
money market funds, you'd be putting your money to good use.

2. Your future income tax liabilities on the retirement account are
replaced by a *near-term* capital gains tax liability (assuming you do not
hold these positions for a long time). But paying the tax earlier could be
a smart move in view of likely increases in tax rates.

3. If you bet the wrong way, you'd end up INCREASING your total tax
liability. But this is not all bad. The taxable account would throw off
near-term capital losses to offset against cap gains and income. And you
can probably delay paying the added tax on the retirement plan for many
years or even decades.

As an aside, a similar strategy might be used to if you wanted to invest
more in your retirement accounts than is possible given current
contribution limits. Invest your retirement account in an ETF that you
believe is going to experience rapid gains, and invest a taxable account in
the same amount of the inverse fund. If you bet correctly, you have made a
"contribution" to your retirement plan and gained a near-term capital loss
from the taxable account.

Comments?

------ Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.