Category Archives: Investing

Introduction to the hazards of nontraded REITs as a real estate proxy

Posted on by
Reply

Nontraded REIT (real estate investment trusts (REITs))

Nontraded real estate investment trust are having difficulty based primarily on debt load and poor occupancy. A sharp decline in tenant occupancy has hammered this REIT: Tenant occupancy of the REIT’s retail properties was 69% at the end of last year, compared with 92% at the end of 2008. Investors in this Cornerstone Core Properties REIT Inc. were told this month by the company that the shares, once valued at $8, are now worth $2.25 – plunging nearly 72%.

The Cornerstone REIT raised only $172.7 million between 2006 and 2009, making it a relatively small player in a marketplace in which the largest players have raised and deployed billions of dollars. Still, other nontraded REITs or real estate funds sold by REIT sponsors recently have seen dramatic declines in value, eating away at investors’ portfolios and making life difficult for the brokers who sold the products.

Another example at the end of December, when investors in the Behringer Harvard Short-Term Opportunity Fund I LP, which had about $130 million in total assets, saw its valuation drop to 40 cents a share, down drastically from $6.48 a share Dec. 31, 2010. And the Behringer Harvard Opportunity REIT I Inc. saw its estimated value decline to $4.12 a share at the end of last year, from $7.66 a year earlier.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

Wealth with meaning – Keys to building wealth

Posted on by
Reply

A healthy work ethic is necessary to becoming wealthy, managing cash flow and savings are at the core of this strategy. But it is an ability to change and adapt that are key to staying wealthy, according to a recent survey by wealth management firm SEI (1).

An overwhelming majority (80%) of wealthy families say hard work was either the most important quality or a very important quality in their achieving financial success. SEI’s report was based on a survey of 100 families with more than $20 million in assets.

An even larger percentage (95%) agreed that innovation—an ability to adapt to changing conditions and reinvent business or financial strategies—is important to staying wealthy from one generation to the next. The results clearly suggest that innovation is important to sustaining wealth over the long-term, but survey respondents were divided on where they expect innovation to come from.

Professional advisors were credited with being the most likely source of innovation by 41%, while 37% say innovation will come from those in business. Thirty-six percent

“Wealthy families are craving new ways of communicating and collaborating with their advisors and new strategies for building and sustaining wealth,” said Michael Farrell, managing director for SEI private wealth management. “After everything that has gone on in recent years, they understand that sometimes it takes a different approach to be successful.”

The most innovation has been in investment products, according to 11% of respondents. However, investment advice was named as the area of wealth management that has seen the least innovation by 14% of respondents, followed by reporting (12%) and education and family communications (11%).

Advice is being tailored to individuals and individual situations rather than being based on just a simple number calculation, and investments are being designed to meet specific lifestyle, retirement and charitable giving objectives. Also, reporting is becoming all-inclusive, including all investments, progress toward goals and any overlap that might exist between portfolios managed by different investment managers.

This is nothing new to a comprehensive, fiduciary wealth practice like Aikapa – this is what we believe in.  Our role is to align our clients with their goal so that they can build and retain wealth that they need for their specific goals.  Total wealth is not as important as sufficient wealth to meet their specific goals.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

How insiders can legally profit from insider information

Posted on by
Reply
 Insight on how company insiders can still profit from insider information

Despite efforts by the Senate and president to reduce profiting from inside information there remain loopholds for corporate insiders that may be useful to those who are observant. Corporate insiders whose companies are about to be bought by rivals are forbidden from buying shares ahead of time to profit from the price jumps that takeover announcements often bring. But they accumulate plenty of shares just the same.
That’s because company managers are often paid partly in stock. Many sell these shares at regular intervals, whether to use the cash for other purposes or to keep their personal assets from becoming too concentrated in a single stock.
For this reason, managers who decline to buy their companies’ shares ahead of takeovers may nonetheless accumulate them if they also halt their typical selling.

Anup Agrawal of the University of Alabama and Tareque Nasser of Kansas State University studied 3,700 takeovers announced between 1988 and 2006. They compared trading in the year before takeover announcements (the “informed period”) with the year before that (the “control period”).  They found that insiders tended to reduce their buying during the informed period, but they reduced their selling even more. The result was an increase in net buying. Over the six months prior to deal announcements, the dollar amount of net purchases for officers and directors at target firms rose 50% relative to ordinary net purchase levels.

This “passive insider trading,” as the authors call it, is legal. But it is profitable? Agrawal and Nasser didn’t look at returns, but a study published a year ago in the Journal of Multinational Financial Management offers clues. Researchers from Australia’s Commonwealth Bank and Deakin University looked at U.S. takeovers between 2001 and 2006. They found that shares of target firms tended to outperform by nearly seven percentage points during the 50 trading days preceding deal announcements.

Nothing illegal in these situation just good old fashion financial planning can yield a net gain if properly structured.

*Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

===================================================

*Inspired by “An Insider Trading Loophole Congress Didn’t Close” by Jack Hough | SmartMoney | March 23, 2012

ETNs (as ETFs) are they a good idea in your portfolio?

Posted on by
Reply

ETNs (as ETFs) are they a good idea in your portfolio?

Unlike an exchange-traded fund (ETF), an ETN (exchange-traded note) is your uncollateralized loan to investment banks. The banks promise exposure to an index’s return, minus fees. The draw is that, many (but not all) ETNs are taxed like stocks, regardless of the ETN’s true exposure not as ordinary income. These benefits could be a godsend for a hard-to-implement, tax-unfriendly strategy. You might think that you can have your cake and eat it, too.  Did we learn nothing from the bail out?

In fact, ETNs are dangerous tools in the hands of ‘professionals’ and a disaster for the unsuspecting public. They are one of the easiest ways individual investors and advisors unwittingly enter into contract relationships with vastly more sophisticated investment banks. It is hard to believe that in the midst of ‘financial regulation’ that ETNs (unlike mutual funds and most exchange-traded funds) are not registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, or the ’40 Act, which obliges funds to have a board of directors with fiduciary responsibility and to standardize their disclosures. ETNs, on the other hand, are weakly standardized contracts. Where an ETN investor should fear what s/he doesn’t know, s/he instead is gulled into thinking s/he understands the risks and costs s/he bears.  If you can’t get yourself to read the prospectus carefully and analyse the fee structure caveat emptor.

The ETN is a fantastic deal for banks. An ETN can’t help but be fabulously profitable to its issuer. Why? They’re dirt-cheap to run. They’re an extremely cheap source of funding. More important, this funding becomes more valuable the bleaker an investment bank’s health – they can have their cake and eat it too! Finally, investors pay hefty fees for the privilege of offering this benefit. Believe it or not this isn’t enough for some issuers. They’ve inserted egregious features in the terms of many ETNs. The worst appear to insert a fee calculation that shifts even more risk to the investor, earning banks fatter margins when their ETNs suddenly drop in value (examples include DJP and GSP but there are many more).

The above fees scratch the surface. Other examples of investor unfriendliness follow:  UBS’s ETRACS (AAVX and BBVX etc) have a 4% levy on top of the 1.35% fee called event risk hedge cost.  Barclays’ iPath (BCM, etc) add 0.1% fee futures execution cost.  Also an additional 0.5% index calculation fee charged for Credit Suisse’s Liquid Beta (CSLS, CSMA, etc).

When many players in the industry behave in ways that signal they can’t be trusted, it raises questions about all ETNs. What a shame. The best ETNs could be useful tools, fulfilling their promise of tax efficiency and perfect tracking but none of these do.

The ETN product creators have gotten away with such investor-unfriendly behavior by free-riding the goodwill conventional ETFs have created as simple, low-cost, transparent, tax-efficient products. Understandably, many investors have taken for granted that the ETNs’ headline fees are calculated just like expense ratios, that “gotcha” fees are not facts of life. Given how publicly accessible ETNs are I recommend that most stay away from them.

*Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

===============================================================

*The above is my opinion based on readings and triggered by an excellent article in Seeking Alpha by By Samuel Lee  “Exchange-Traded Notes Are Worse Products Than You Think” March 23, 2012.

Pershing on creating a common vision

Posted on by
Reply

The key to creating a common vision

Information for this post derived primarily from an Investment News interview with Brian T. Shea, CEO, Pershing, LLC, “The key to creating a common vision,” Jan. 1, 2012: http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120101/REG/301019997?template=printart

As we reviewed brokerage firms to custody our client assets we landed with two very different brokerage firms that have a similar attitude.  Below is a summary of an interview with the lead at one of these brokerage firms, Pershing.

Brian T. Shea is interviewed often since he became the chief executive of Pershing LLC (in 2010), which, with $910 billion in assets under custody, is the biggest brokerage and clearing firm that most investors have never heard of. Owned by The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Pershing employs more than 7,000 and provides services to more than 1,500 financial organizations and 100,000 investment professionals.

AIKAPA has considered the usual brokerage firms but has instead decided to custody our client assets at either Pershing or Scottrade – In our evaluation both of these firms provide the most service for the least cost.

Pershing’s Shea believes in creating a leadership environment where people can be successful and where you can get people to work together. The most important thing a leader has to do is create a shared vision, or mission, for the team.  He prides his leadership style as one that emphasizes communication.

The No. 1 person was his father who was an executive in the insurance industry. His father taught him that any profession can be a good profession but we need to do it with a passion every day – I could not agree with him more.

His comments that his father instilled a really strong work ethic in all of his children.

He said that he is really comfortable in an environment where people are open and engaged. He believes that it is really important to surround yourself with people who will share their opinion no matter what — even if they know you won’t like it.

As we move into 2012 we’ll engage more with Pershing as we transfer our clients from their current brokers to either Pershing or Scottrade.  I’m certain that as the year progresses I will be better able to comment on how well his vision translates to what advisers and our clients experience using Pershing to custody assets.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

 

 

Net Worth “Accredited Investor” – much ado about nothing

Posted on by
Reply

Is this something or nothing?

Today the SEC adopted the new Net Worth Standard that excludes the value of someone’s home from a calculation that allows individuals to be categorized as accredited investors.  Is this much to do about nothing? Should we want to be labelled an accredit investor?  (see http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-274.htm for details on the new standard announced today December 21st, 2011).

What is an ‘accredited investor’?  Someone who no longer needs the protections provided by the SEC as provided through the process of registration and regulation.  It implies that you will take all necessary steps to evaluate these investments and do not need the basic protection provided through the registration process.

The real question is not if a home value should be included but whether having a $1M in assets (with or without a home) truly qualifies you as able to evaluate unregistered/unregulated investments.  In my experience, many full time advisers and investors with several million are not qualified to evaluate and invest in unregulated/unregistered investments.

The changes were made to conform the SEC’s definition of an “accredited investor” to the requirements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (final rule No. 33-9287).  See below for pertinent details:

Under the amended rule, the value of an individual’s primary residence will not count as an asset when calculating net worth to determine “accredited investor” status. The amendments also clarify the treatment of borrowing secured by a primary residence for purposes of the net worth calculation. Under certain circumstances, they also permit individuals who qualified as accredited investors under the pre-Dodd-Frank Act definition of net worth to use that prior net worth standard for certain follow-on investments.

SEC rules permit certain private and limited offerings to be made without registration, and without requiring specified disclosures, if sales are made only to “accredited investors.”

The amended net worth standard will take effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Beginning in 2014, and every four years thereafter, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Commission to review the “accredited investor” definition in its entirety and to engage in further rulemaking to the extent it deems appropriate.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

Buffett or Buffet – an extra ‘t’ does matter

Posted on by
Reply

Buffet or Buffett which one would you choose to invest with? Does an additional T in your name matter?*

A firm that bears no relationship to Berkshire Hathaway filed offering with the SEC last month.

Warren Buffet is getting into the high-risk business of Regulation D private placements. This is Warren Buffet, with one T, not Warren E. Buffett.

The Buffet that’s short one ‘t’ is the moniker of a new private placement connected to a stockbroker and investment adviser based in Boca Raton, Fla., named Peter Bruno.

According to Mr. Bruno’s website, he is chief executive of Wall Street Money Management Group Inc., a registered investment advisory firm. According to filings with the SEC, the firm has $17.1 million in assets under management and 122 client accounts. At the end of September, Berkshire Hathaway reported assets of $385.5 billion.

It would seem clear that the Buffet name is being used to cash in on the Buffett record and confuse consumers. Could there be any other explanation?

*Original article by Bruce Kelly, December 2, 2011.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

SEC v David Kugel (part of Madoff Ponzi Scheme)

Posted on by
Reply

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 22166 / November 22, 2011

Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Kugel, 11-Civ-8434 (S.D.N.Y.)

SEC CHARGES LONGTIME MADOFF EMPLOYEE FOR HIS ROLE IN THE MADOFF PONZI SCHEME: details – http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2011/lr22166.htm

On November 21, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged a longtime Bernie Madoff employee with fraud for his role in creating fake trades to facilitate the massive Ponzi scheme.

The SEC alleges that David Kugel, who worked at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BMIS) for nearly four decades, was asked by Madoff to provide the firm’s investment advisory operations with backdated arbitrage trade information to be formulated into fictitious trading on investors’ account statements. Kugel’s own account at BMIS was among those in which backdated trades were entered, and he withdrew nearly $10 million in “profits” from the fictitious trading over several years.

The SEC previously charged two other longtime Madoff employees Annette Bongiorno and JoAnn Crupi for their roles in producing phony account statements that were sent to Madoff investors. According to the SEC’s complaint against Kugel filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Bongiorno and Crupi and other staff in Madoff’s investment advisory (IA) operations used the information provided by Kugel to formulate fictitious trades to appear on investor account statements.

The SEC alleges that sometime in the early 1970s after Kugel began his career with Madoff as an arbitrage trader in the firm’s proprietary trading business, Madoff informed Kugel that BMIS managed money for outside clients. He asked Kugel to provide the firm’s IA operations with backdated convertible arbitrage trades for inclusion on investor account statements. Some of these trades replicated successful trades that Kugel had actually made for BMIS proprietary trading operations. Other trades were based on historical information that Kugel obtained from old newspapers.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Bongiorno and Crupi regularly asked Kugel for backdated information about trades amounting to millions of dollars. After Kugel provided the information, Crupi and Bongiorno would then design trades that totaled that amount. These fictitious trades were highly profitable on an annualized basis, and appeared on account statements and trade confirmations sent to investors. Kugel, who opened his own BMIS account, received these account statements and trade confirmations as well.

The SEC alleges that Kugel provided backdated trade information for IA accounts, including his own. He withdrew the purported “profits” of these trades even though he knew they weren’t proceeds of actual trading activity. One trade in S&P index options in 2007 earned Kugel a profit of more than $375,000 in just a few weeks. Kugel withdrew almost $10 million from his BMIS IA accounts from 2001 to 2008.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

SEC: Facebook & Groupon Scams

Posted on by
Reply

SEC Halts Scam Touting Access to Pre-IPO Shares of Facebook and Groupon

Washington, D.C., Nov. 17, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed an emergency enforcement action to stop a fraudulent scheme targeting investors seeking coveted stock in Internet and technology companies like Facebook before they go public.

The SEC alleges that Florida resident John A. Mattera and several other individuals carried out the scam using a newly-minted hedge fund named The Praetorian Global Fund. They falsely claimed that the fund and affiliated Praetorian entities owned shares worth tens of millions of dollars in privately-held companies that were expected to soon hold an initial public offering (IPO) including Facebook, Groupon, and others. Taking advantage of investor interest in pre-IPO shares that are virtually impossible for company outsiders to obtain, Mattera and others solicited funds and gave investors a false sense of comfort that their money was protected by telling them that an escrow service was receiving their funds.

In reality, according to the SEC’s complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan, Mattera and his cohorts never owned the promised pre-IPO shares in these companies. The purported escrow service, headed by John R. Arnold of Florida, merely transferred investor funds to personal accounts controlled by Mattera and Arnold. After Arnold took a cut of the money for himself, Mattera stole most of the remaining funds to afford his lavish personal expenses and pay others for their roles in the scheme.

“By conjuring up a seemingly prestigious hedge fund and touting the safety of an escrow agent, these men exploited investors’ desire to get an inside track on a wave of hyped future IPOs,” said George S. Canellos, Director of the SEC’s New York Regional Office. “Even as investors believed their funds were sitting safely in escrow accounts, Mattera plundered those accounts to bankroll a lifestyle of private jets, luxury cars, and fine art.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, which conducted a parallel investigation of the matter, today filed criminal charges against Mattera, who was arrested earlier today.

The SEC is seeking an emergency court order to freeze the assets of Mattera, Arnold, Joseph Almazon of Hicksville, N.Y., David E. Howard II of New York City, Bradford Van Siclen of Montclair, N.J., and eight different entities also charged in the SEC’s complaint.

The SEC alleges that Mattera, who has been a subject of a prior SEC enforcement action and several state criminal actions, used investor proceeds to compensate Van Siclen and others for their involvement in promoting the fraudulent offerings. Howard, who was separately charged by the SEC earlier this year for his role in a boiler room operation, worked for Mattera as an authorized representative of the Praetorian hedge fund. Mattera, Van Siclen, and Howard were each actively involved in providing false documents and information to broker-dealer representatives in pitching their clients to invest in the Praetorian entities. They raised at least $12 million from investors across the country during the past 15 months. Almazon controls Long Island-based unregistered broker-dealer Spartan Capital Partners, which raised a significant portion of the money in the Praetorian entities.

The SEC’s complaint alleges that Spartan Capital solicited investments by phone, word of mouth, and advertisements on professional networking website LinkedIn.com. One advertisement read in part: “[Spartan] can offer the opportunity to buy pre-IPO shares of the following companies: Facebook, Twitter, Zynga, Bloom Energy, Fisker, and Groupon.” Another ad stated: “We have access to Fisker Auto, Groupon, Ren Ren, Bloom Energy and many more! Unlike most of the other investment banking firms, we let you sell your shares right at the open! You also do not need to be in NY to invest in our IPOs!”

According to the SEC’s complaint, the purported escrow accounts at Arnold’s firm — First American Service Transmittals Inc. (FAST) — played a critical role in the fraudulent scheme. Mattera and Van Siclen told investors verbally and in writing that their investments would be held in escrow with FAST. Arnold, who was charged together with Mattera in a previous SEC enforcement action, falsely held out FAST as an escrow agent for the investments. Almost immediately after receiving investors’ deposits, however, Arnold released the money to himself and entities controlled by Mattera, who misappropriated investors’ funds for private jets, luxury cars, fine art, jewelry, and other personal uses. He also transferred money to his mother Ann Mattera and his wife Lan Phan. They are named as relief defendants in the SEC’s complaint for the purpose of reclaiming investor funds unrightfully in their possession.

The SEC’s complaint charges Mattera, Van Siclen, the Praetorian Fund, Praetorian G Power I LLC, Praetorian G Power II LLC, Praetorian G IV, Praetorian G Power V LLC, and Praetorian G Power VI LLC, Arnold, and First American Service Transmittals Inc. with violations, or aiding and abetting violations of, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5. The complaint further charges Mattera, Van Siclen, the Praetorian G entities, Almazon, Spartan Capital Partners, and Howard with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by engaging in the unregistered offering of securities, and Almazon and Spartan Capital with violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act by acting as unregistered brokers.

The SEC seeks a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and financial penalties against the defendants, as well as disgorgement by defendants and relief defendants of their ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest.

The SEC’s investigation, which is continuing, has been conducted by Karen Willenken, Michael Osnato, Richard Needham, and Yvette Quinteros of the New York Regional Office. The SEC’s litigation effort will be led by Preethi Krishnamurthy. The SEC thanks the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, Internal Revenue Service, and Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority for their assistance in this matter.

# # # message reprinted from http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-245.htm
For more information about this enforcement action, contact:Andrew M. Calamari
Associate Regional Director, SEC’s New York Regional Office
(212) 336-0042
Michael J. Osnato, Jr.
Assistant Regional Director, SEC’s New York Regional Office
(212) 336-0156
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2011/2011-245.htm

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com

Where is Labuan?

Posted on by
Reply

Financial Success during tough times … Labuan

Most of us probably don’t know Labuan, but amidst the major economic financial centers it is a shining star and part of what makes Malaysia such a power house. In an increasingly competitive and globalized world, international offshore financial centers rarely stop evolving and adapting to new circumstances and economic realities, and perhaps one of the most innovative, but lesser known, jurisdictions of recent times has been the Malaysian island of Labuan, which continues to go from strength to strength, despite the testing global economic conditions.

Labuan, situated a few miles off the northern coast of Borneo in Malaysia and tiny in size, is one of the newer additions to the list of the world’s offshore jurisdictions, but it is already attracting significant interest from businesses.

In 2010, Labuan maintained positive growth across all key business sectors, but particularly banking, leasing and insurance, despite the more challenging global environment, and new measures have been implemented recently to improve the flexibility and business-friendliness of its tax and legal framework, becoming effective as of 2009 and beyond.

Labuan has succeeded in not only attracting conventional business interest from all over the globe, it has its greatest potential in catering the growing demand for Islamic finance products.  Good or bad this is what appears to be in the future.

Labuan can now be said to be the new financial force to reckoned with, having built up a favorable reputation with international investors in a short space of time. Even so, they don’t appear content to rest on their laurels, and they’ve targeted several key strategies to advance Labuan as an international business and financial center of choice in the region. “In the pipeline are a number of initiatives under the Malaysian Financial Sector Blueprint, which aims to provide a holistic approach for the development of the Malaysian financial sector for the next 10 years“. Despite the gloomy world economic outlook and ongoing moves to force more regulation on offshore financial centers, with Malaysia’s backing it would seem that the sun is shining on Labuan’s future.

Edi Alvarez, CFP®
BS, BEd, MS

www.aikapa.com