Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
No. of Recommendations: 0
Like you I also bout TASR for around $7, and intend it as a long-term hold. The negative news just got overdone; and I personally think it was a great idea for them to start making known how TASRs are really getting used in the real-world almost weekly (if not more), ending situations a lot more favorably and with less risk than with a gun. Their 'just the facts' posting of such news, coupled with the favorable on-going lawsuit record, is helping the street see them in a more favorable light.

The one bug I'd like to put in your noggin' is: are such stocks that we normally play around with in our regular portfolio, appropriate for an IRA? It depends on where you are relative to your IRA, I guess. For me, in my early 50s, it's still a ways away. Still.......the one way I convince myself that it's ok for me to 'play' with my regular portfolio, is because I ensure that my retirement accounts are not at such relative risk. For me, 401-k type or IRA investments fit fit a couple of criteria:

#1: They have to be around. Even stocks I consider "stable', or unlikely to ever suffer a major adjustment downwards, are not ok for my IRA. I don't want to have to worry about what is in my IRA already== ever. (Well, not until closing in on withdrawing the funds, anyway).

#2: Diversification. And by diversification I mean accumulating a retirement portfolio over time that:
- is not concentrated in any one area; and I include S*P 500 tracking funds as 'just one area'. We've all seen that those can indeed go south, for years at a time. An S*P 500 index fund/etf should be one part...and only one part....of everyone's retirement portfolio.
- sector /industry diversification has to become greater inside your retirement portfolio, over time. After all: was anyone just ten years ago (or less) foreseeing the huge runups in commodities (e.g., copper, oil, natural gas); or in, of all things, ethanol? Or cement and concrete? The steel ups and downs?
- international diversification. This is more important now, than it was ten years ago; and will be more important ten years from now, than it is now. Compared to the rest of the world, the US economy will be 'smaller' ten years from now; more and more dynamic companies that are The Real Players will not even be in the US significantly; and the US is building in some economic 'disaster' scenarios with our huge double deficits. The dollar ain't gonna be what it used to be, either.
I think history will end up record something like: "The US dollar continued as the 'currency of choice' in the world far longer than the weakening fundamentals of the United States justified. But after having been the stalwart for so long, it had it's own 'quality momentum'. However, when this in-supportable 'dollar bubble' finally burst in 2012 (or whatever!!), it did so with a vengeance; and the US currency was never the same again, once having been knocked so solidly off its perch.....".

So, what do I personally think should be in IRAs/401ks?

1. NOT most stocks; and certainly not those that have a very legitimate real risk attached to them.
For me, an acceptable stock is something like BP. Very well run company; not amoral, as the management of the US companies tend to be; a leader early on in various alternative energies; diversified operations; etc etc. I also think oil and gas trends will continue generally up in this century, not generally down.
One must be careful even with such picks, of course. Some Americans a few years ago might have considered GM a 'stable' company in which to invest--if they weren't paying attention. And as much as I'm pro-TASR, it doesn't meet the criteria, either; not for an IRA.

2. Any IRA investment should be one that maximizes the tax-deferral benefit. So, in this criteria, something like BP, again, would qualify, with its regular (and growing) dividend; whereas TASR would not.

3. ETFs (my preferred) or index funds should be used the max out of to construct an IRA portfolio. For me, that means each year, I put my entire IRA contribution (e.g., $5k) into one ETF I select, that is among the out-of-favor sector or countries for that year. Some years Malaysia is number one in the world--which means don't pick it for that year-- some years the UK is among the worst perfformers (which means maybe pick it, if you don't already have it).

4. The selections need to eventually give you some diversification across the major currencies: the Pound (e.g, like a UK ETF); the Yen (e.g, EWJ); the Euro (several available); and the Yuan (and yes, i mean that). Oh, and, yeah--have some things in US dollars, too!

5. Debt - having some income instruments in there are necessary as well; even years before you retire, IMO. e.g, I have one IRA in the emerging markets debt IRA. Sounds risky? Well, yeah.'s an ETF, across many countries, not just one; the debt interest rates still stay higher than the US, Japan, etc. And again, it maximizes the tax deferral aspect; and the pesonal risk is mitigated by the fact that I bought into it for just one years' of IRA contributions...and then let that one sit. Forever.

6. REITs -- same thing. One mistake commonly made in REITS is the belief that 'real estate' is just one thing; and in any one year or set of yars it is either all up, or all down. But that over-simplifies things. REITs themselves are further subdivided into sectors; and, as one might guess, those sectors don't move in unison. You can have a glut of class I office space, for example (which would hurt something like EOP), while owner homes can be in deficit in one area (but not another); which is not the same as a rental housing REIT; which is not teh same as a storage REIT; which is not the same as medical properties REIT; which is not the same as a hotel REIT; which.......oh, well, you get the idea.

Even when 'real estate is on a tear" some sectors are not; yet they too will have their days again.

The bottom line is: for each and every year, there is something you don't have in your retirement folio that you should have some of, that is also down/out of favor for that year. Often, with some research, you can find the best of breed ETF or index fund that covers that area...and buy into it that year for a whole lot less risk than buying any individual stock would give you. And there will even be more choices available next year; and the next, etc. And I've usually found that the ETF/Index Fund with the lowest fees, is often the 'highest quality' one, as well!

I'm just counselling that with so many investment vehicles is important to not treat your retirement nest egg like your regular portfolio. In fact, one might argue they should be judged by almost exactly opposite criteria. Don't build the same level of risk into your retirement portfolio that you accept with your 'regular' or trading portfolio.


Print the post  


What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.