Jofi
Jofi Joseph on Three Keys to Iran Talks
So OilPrice.com decided to republish my post for Global Risk Insights on the three keys to the Iran talks this month. Many thanks, and please have a look!
Jofi Jofi Joseph on Three Keys to Iran Talks
0 Comments
I'm quoted in this Reuters article that appeared over the weekend on whether or not Iran has violated its interim nuclear agreement with the United States and other key powers. I hope to write more on this issue in the very near future!
Jofi I was interviewed by the Fox Business Network this week on how Tuesday's resounding victory for the GOP in the midterm elections is likely to impact on Wall Street's performance in the coming weeks and months.
Jofi Joseph, Global Risk Insights on Electoral Ramifications for Wall Street Folks, we are in the home stretch when it comes to the year long negotiations on the future of Iran's nuclear program and its hope for comprehensive sanctions relief. In my latest piece for Global Risk Insights, I assess the three most likely outcomes and what each scenario could mean for global investors.
Take a look! Jofi Joseph on Likely Outcomes to Iran Talks The average person saving for his or her retirement fund is often buffeted by a kaleidoscope of opinions and commentary on how they should go about doing so. Some of this advice is plainly self-interested, more designed to line the pockets of those giving the counsel than helping those at the receiving end. Other advice fundamentally misunderstands the purpose and objectives of retirement savings, whether in the form of a 401(k) or an Individual Retirement Account.
Unfortunately, Rob Arnott and Lillian Wu of Research Affiliates commits the latter error in their latest post on "What Are We Doing to Our Young Investors?" Arnott and Wu make the contrarian argument that, despite thier growing popularity, so called "target funds" are a potential disaster in the making, especially for millenial investors in their 20s and 30s. Target funds incorporate a pre-set allocation of funds among different investment classes to ensure that younger investors take more risk -- and hence increase their odds of greater growth -- while older investors carry a more conservative mix to better guarantee preservation of existing savings. Many target funds actually are nothing more than an agglomeration of existing funds -- a target fund for a 35 year old may incorporate a variety of stock funds and a mix of bond funds, but allocate the overwhelming majority of the money invested here into the stock funds. In other cases, a target fund is specifically created and managed as a stand alone entity. Let's be clear -- target funds are not perfect. First, there is no clear uniformity or consistency in target funds across the industry. What Firm A may think is an appropriate level of stock exposure for a 50 year old may be quite different from how Firm B sees it. Accordingly, unless you read the fine print, you may find yourself in a target fund that has a very different conception of risk and reward from how you see things. Second, target funds often offer investment firms an excuse to tack on more fees. Even if it is a fund of fund approach, where firms are simply aggregating existing funds together, this offers an opportunity or excuse to layer on another ten or twenty basis points of expenses. An informed investor willing to dedicate a modest amount of time can easily replicate a target fund approach for his or her portfolio and bypass the added costs while ensuring an appropriately tailored risk level. But Arnott and Wu are not criticizing target funds primarily because of inconsistent risk levels or added costs. Instead, they contend that because young investors who choose target funds are so heavily invested in equities, they will suffer disproportionately from any market downturn, which may in turn cast a permanent cloud over their investing appetites. Moreover, because so many young employees use their 401(ks) as a rainy day fund, they are most likely to raid these funds in the middle of an economic downturn, after they have lost their jobs and the market is in a prolonged funk. The bottom line: they not only sell their stocks after a significant loss -- the worst possible time to sell -- but also get hit with early withdrawal penalties and associated tax liabilities. The authors are correct that many young employees behave in this fashion, owing largely to economic necessity: if you have lost your job, your immediate priority is to pay your bills so that you can remain in your apartment or house and put yourself in the best position to find another job. What may be prudent for a retirement that is decades away largely takes a back seat. Yet the problem diagnosed here is not with target fund investing, which is simply one way to save for retirement. It is rather a manifestation of a deeper set of flaws with our retirement savings approach and the 401(k) vehicle in particular. Yes, too many employees use their 401(k) accounts as rainy day funds, defeating their entire purpose as retirement savings vehicles and incurring unnecessary costs when withdrawing these funds. Arnott and Wu declare that, given this reality, younger investors should take a more conservative approach to their retirement savings, and initially invest in bonds and other conservative investments to accumulate sufficient savings for a rainy day fund. But they fail to consider or explain why withdrawing funds from a more conservative mix of investments in your 401(k) is any smarter than withdrawing funds from an aggressive investment mix. You still incur a 10% early withdrawal penalty and you still forego the tax Jofi Joseph is navigating a mid career transition into the accounting profession and earning his Masters of Accountancy at George Washington University. After securing his CPA, he intends to specialize in tax planning and compliance. In the meanwhile, he enjoys contributing to the debate over how Americans can more effectively save for their golden years. I'm very honored that The Diplomat has published my work for the very first time! Although it may be a bit early to begin discussing a possible failure of diplomacy this fall on Iran's nuclear program, it's clear that a permanent deal will be difficult to achieve. I make the case here that an extension of the interim nuclear agreement is decidedly preferable to a collapse of diplomacy and the strategic vacuum likely to result.
Tell me what you think! Jofi Joseph on Why an Extension of the Iran Agreement is Better Than The Alternatives I'm so excited for the playoffs starting in a couple of weeks. Will be sitting at my computer and competing with the hordes tomorrow morning for the opportunity to buy some tickets!
Jofi Joseph was quoted at the very end of this informative Reuters article on the status of the Agency's investigation into concerns Iran sought to weaponize its nuclear program. Take a look here:
Iran and the IAEA PMD Investigation Spending some time in upstate New York with relatives. I hope to update this blog and my other personal website in the near future!
Jofi Joseph Yes, the regular season still has almost two months to run. Yes, the Nationals are by no means guaranteed of making the playoffs. Entering games on Tuesday, August 5th, the Nats held a three game lead over the Braves and a 6.5 game lead over the Marlins for the NL East lead. If the Nats fail to take back the division title, the consolation prize of a wild card berth is by no means assured -- the Nats, based on their current record, would only hold a game and a half edge on the Pirates, the team with the third best record among the current wild card contenders.
So the discussion over potential pitching matchups for a playoff series in October may yet be hypothetical. But Washington is playing decently this season, is facing a weakened NL East, and enjoys a favorable schedule for the remainder of the season. The odds are likely that we will see this team in the playoffs. All of which raises the question of to whom should Matt Williams hand the ball for Games 1, 2, and 3 in a divisional round. At the start of the season, the rotation was established. Stras, Gio, Zimmermann, Fister, and Roark/Jordan. There were some who thought that maybe Zimmermann should receive the Opening Day honors, but Matt Williams shot down that idea emphatically and made clear Strasburg is the team's ace. Preferring a righty/lefty alternating pattern, Gio was given the second slot, with Zimmerman the #3 starter. As that followed the 2012 and 2013 rotations, everyone seemed fine with it. Fister's injury at the beginning of the season scrambled things a bit, but since his rocky debut in Oakland, he has reminded all of us why Mike Rizzo was so high on him during the offseason. But are Stras, Gio, and Zimmerman the three starters the Nationals would want to put out there for a playoff series, and in that order? If one were to simply look at statistics measuring performance so far this regular season, it is clear that those are not the three best starting pitchers for the Nationals. Looking at wins alone, Roark and Fister lead the way with 11 and 10 wins respectively, followed by Strasburg at 8, Zimmermann at 7 and Gonzalez at 6. If you base it off ERA, then it's Roark, Fister, and Zimmerman with sub 3.00 ERAs, followed by Strasburg at 3.39 and Gio at 3.88. One final statistic to throw at you -- on OBP, again it's Roark, Fister, and Zimmermann below .300 in that order, with Stras at .301 and Gonzalez at .313. By any fair measure, Tanner Roark has been the best starting pitcher for the Nationals this season, closely followed by Doug Fister and Jordan Zimmermann. Stephen Strasburg and Gio Gonzales are distinctly #4 and #5 on that list. So it is fairly cut and dried -- Williams should give Roark the ball for Game 1, followed by Fister and Zimmerman for Games 2 and 3. Of course that will never happen. Even if Strasburg drives all of us to want to drink with his inconsistency, accompanied by a somewhat erratic mood and presence on the mound, he is a once in a generation talent. It is telling that Matt Williams ensured Strasburg would pitch the first game following the All Star Break. For better or worse, Strasburg is the ace of this team and will pitch Game 1. But then things get interesting. Gio does not have the same expectations or role with the team, and he has clearly not been his best this season. You add to that the fact that Zimmermann was the sole All Star pick for the team and that we traded for Fister in large part due to his postseason experience and it becomes increasingly clear that Zimmermann and Fister should get Games 2 and 3 in a playoff series. Were Williams to still go with Gio in either game, given his other options available, he arguably would be doing his team a disservice. A Game 4 pitcher is even tougher. The schedule may lend itself to Strasburg coming back on short rest, but probably not. So do you go with Roark or Gio? Roark has CLEARLY had the better season, but Gio is the more experienced vet and has postseason experience (OK, OK, we'll try to forget the 2012 Game 5 performance!). I would say Roark, but that means effectively benching Gio for the playoffs. Does Matt Williams have the guts to do that? I welcome other thoughts. Thanks, Jofi Joseph More Blog Posts by Jofi Joseph |
AuthorJofi Joseph is transitioning into a new career in tax accounting. Building off his previous career in the U.S. government, he enjoys writing on the intersection of public policy and personal finance issues. Archives
June 2015
|