Declining at a clip of nearly 1¢ per day.

@bradrtuttle  

To view original article click here.

The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline dipped to $1.937 on Thursday, according toAAA. Average prices are down 6¢ over the past seven days, as drivers in every state in the country have benefited from increasingly cheaper prices.

For the sake of comparison, average per-gallon prices were 16¢ higher a year ago at this time—when we were all gobsmacked athow cheap gas prices were. Here’s another way to put this into perspective: Remarkably, the price of a gallon of regular averaged $3.60 for all of 2012, or $1.64 more than it is right now. For 2016 as a whole, experts like GasBuddy are forecasting an average of a mere $2.28 per gallon, down from $2.40 in 2015.

Cheap prices at the pump are obviously great for American drivers, who saved $550 on average last year, and who will spend even less on gas in 2016.

What could be wrong with this? Well, some have pointed out that the money Americans save on gasoline is being spent rather than saved or used to pay down debt. And it’s being spent in ways that aren’t exactly good for us. Namely, we’re spending a disproportionate amount of the gas savings on things like fast food, tobacco, alcohol, and (in some cases)gambling.

Gas prices have also had significant effects on automakers. On the one hand, cheap gas is great for automakers, who have credited prices at the pump as part of the reason that there were record-high sales in 2015, including particularly strong sales for pricey (and fuel-inefficient) SUVs and trucks.

On the other hand, however, things have become extremely complicated for automakers because cheap gas is at odds with long-established goals of increasing fuel economy and shifting to electric and other alternative-fuel power.

When gas is only $1.50 or $2 a gallon, drivers have little financial incentive to seek out vehicles that run on little or no fuel—not if it means other sacrifices, like less space and power, limited driving range, and higher initial prices. Hence, the rise of SUV sales and a corresponding fall-off in sales of electric cars and fuel-efficient hybrids like the Toyota Prius.

In 2012 (when gas prices averaged $3.60 remember), U.S. regulators established the goal of nearly doubling fuel-efficiency of new vehicles, with automaker fleets expected to average 54.5 mpg by 2025. For a while, average fuel economy crept upwards. But then, as gas prices tanked in 2015 and mileage became less of a priority for car buyers, average mpg for new cars plateaued and even declined a little.

The trends put automakers in an awkward spot, facing the contradictory pressures of churning out popular SUVs to meet the demands of today’s drivers while simultaneously planning for a rapidly approaching future expected to be dominated by electric cars and car sharing.

“Over the weekend I saw the lowest gas prices I’ve seen in a long time, at $1.68 — that’s a world of hurt for selling electric and selling efficiency,” Mark Wakefield, of AlixPartners, explained this week to Bloomberg News. “Now you have consumers at odds with regulators, and, stuck in the middle, is the auto industry.”

For the time being, it looks like automakers have little choice but to keep playing both sides of the equation. They’ll keep pumping up SUVs and trucks to maintain strong sales in the era of cheap gas and a preference for larger, higher vehicles. Yet they’ll also keep pursuing futuristic models likeVW’s electric micro-bus BUDD-e and Chrysler’s electric minivan because, well, this is where the market’s heading in the future.

That future, in which self-driving cars and more car sharing are expected to be realities, “will clearly favor EVs,” IHS Automotive analyst Egil Juliussen told Automotive News. “That’s a big reason why you’re seeing so much activity in the EV space even though the market so far has been a bit of a disappointment.”

To view original article from First Trust Economics Blog click here.

The stock market is not the economy, and the economy is not the stock market. Nonetheless, many are convinced that the market correction of the past few weeks is a certain sign of impending recession. Never mind that China just reported 6.9% real GDP growth. Never mind that a barrel of oil costs less than $30, which means consumers are saving hundreds of billions of dollars per year on top of what the drop in natural gas prices has saved them.

And in just 10 days, the US will report another quarter of Plow Horse economic growth. Right now we estimate real GDP grew about 1% at an annual rate in Q4. It’s below trend, but that’s nothing new. Since mid-2009, real GDP has had six other quarters with less than 1% growth. The US economy grew only 0.9% for a full year from mid-2012 to mid-2013.

Inventories were the real challenge for GDP in Q4. Working off those inventories slowed manufacturing, rail traffic and transportation. But “right-sizing” inventories is not likely to be a persistent problem. Excluding inventories, trade, and government – none of which can be counted on for long-term growth – the economy probably grew close to a more respectable 2% rate.

Real (“inflation-adjusted”) consumer spending grew at a 1.5 – 2.0% rate in Q4, while home building likely grew at a solid 9% rate. Consumers’ financial obligations, the share of their after-tax incomes they need to make recurring payments (mortgages, rents, car payments, student loans…etc.) is hovering at its lowest levels since the early 1980s. Meanwhile, more jobs, mildly accelerating wages, and lower fuel prices mean consumers are in pretty darn good shape.

And as much as home building has recovered, there’s still much further to go. Back in 2009-11, housing starts were running at an average annualized pace of about 600,000. Last year, builders started about 1.1 million homes. But fundamentals, like population growth and “scrappage” (voluntary knock-downs, fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes…etc.) suggest a “norm” of about 1.5 million.

In other words, Consumer spending and homebuilding look poised for solid growth in 2016.

But, hey, this ain’t a perfect world. Over the past several years, some of the world’s production facilities focused too much on generating raw materials for China and finding new oil. Now, they face creative destruction. Much of the pain these producers will face is hitting right now.

But stop and think about the rest of the world that now gets to enjoy lower oil prices. Just two years ago, the leading experts were forecasting around $100 oil as far as the eye can see. Non-energy producers are benefiting hugely from cheap oil, and are generating new goods and services that cost less as a result. So, it’s not all bad news on the drilling and mining front.

Still, Donald Trump’s populism is stirring up support for slapping huge tariffs (maybe 45%) on China. This is a tax that will ultimately be paid by the populace. So much for populism! But, Congress would most likely prevent such an unwise tax.

And don’t forget growing geopolitical turmoil. The Spratly Island dispute with China may be a harbinger of ill winds if the US continues to step down from its ability and willingness to project military power. And Russia’s economy stinks, so “wagging the dog” and flexing muscles in the Baltics like it did in the Ukraine can’t be ruled out. Will the US balk at its NATO obligations if this happens?

Worst of all is the Middle East. There’s a whiff of World War I in the air with regional powers picking sides. Who knows what would happen if some young Kurd is able to assassinate the leader of Turkey.

But, chances are that all these scare stories will just be added to the long list of other stories the markets have confronted the past several years. Remember the impending implosion of commercial real estate or the European financial system? Remember Greece leaving the Euro? Remember, the “hidden inventory” of unsold homes about to hit the US market?

US equities were relatively cheap before 2015 started and even cheaper today. We recommend keeping a stiff upper lip, and waiting for pessimistic investors to realize their mistake. Even with more rate hikes coming, the US stock market is still significantly undervalued.

Brian S. Wesbury – Chief Economist
Robert Stein, CFA – Deputy Chief Economist

Click here for PDF

Advisors need to understand they can’t go it alone.

I recently had an eye-opening exchange with a fellow advisor at an industry conference. On the surface, he was like so many others in this space, having started a prosperous solo practice and possessing an insatiable drive to serve clients and build his business. Professionally, everything seemed in place for him and he looked to have a bright future.

But as he told me a few years back, his prospects didn’t always look so great after he was diagnosed with cancer – which, as you might imagine, temporarily turned his life upside down. Upon hearing the news, naturally his concern immediately turned to his family: What would they do without him? Thankfully, years earlier he had taken out an insurance policy and already had an estate plan in place. That put his mind at ease a bit.

Then, he thought about what would happen to his business, and in what turned out to be a strange twist, a good diagnosis from his doctors almost became a major hiccup for his practice. Because the cancer was detected early, it was eminently treatable and a full recovery was expected. That was the good news.

The bad news, however, was that he did not have a contingency plan that would cover him in the event of a temporary disability caused by sickness or a major accident. Luckily for him, he bounced back much quicker than his doctors initially thought, allowing him to save nearly all of his client relationships. Had he been sidelined much longer, though, he could have lost his clients, his business and, ultimately, his livelihood.

According to a recent fact sheet compiled by the Social Security Administration, most Americans believe there is only a miniscule chance that a disability will prevent them from working for three months or more at some point during their career. But the actual odds are close to 25 percent. That’s too great a risk to take for any advisor, especially if you have a small or solo practice. Here are some top things to look for in a contingency plan partner, someone who can help keep your business afloat and take care of your clients in the event you become disabled on a temporary basis:

Make sure they are within the same broker-dealer and custodial network.This will make the transition as seamless as possible for your clients, who will have access to the same set of services, investment solutions and products via your contingency plan partner. Among other things, it also means clients won’t be burdened with troublesome logistical items such as repapering, only to have to go through the process again once you are fully recovered – which would be an enormous waste of time for all parties.

Team with a large group. Typically, it’s not a good idea to have a contingency plan partner that is also a solo practitioner or part of a small team, since they are unlikely to have the excess bandwidth necessary to absorb an entirely new roster of clients, even if it is just for a short time. As such professionals can attest, the day-to-day grind of running a small business can be difficult, and with only so many hours in the day and limited administrative support it makes an already delicate task almost impossible. The best contingency plan partners, therefore, have a large team of advisors and extra administrative resources to handle the swell of temporary work when you are away.

The same culture, same investment approach. Just as clients need to be comfortable with you, you need to be comfortable with whomever you entrust to take over your business, both from a service and investment approach standpoint. Essentially, the only question you need to ask is this: Would you do business with this advisor if you were the client? If the answer is no, continue your search. It could require some vetting and a lengthy get-to-know-you process to find the right fit. But if your partner is not an effective steward of your business, you will lose clients.

Someone younger but qualified. As a practical matter, your contingency plan partner should probably be younger than you – or at the very least someone that is not planning to retire in the near future – and in good health. This is just being smart and playing the percentages. (After all, this is your backup plan, and you want to make sure they aren’t going anywhere). And in keeping with the above, they need to be professional, knowledgeable and capable of delivering world-class service and advice. Finding someone who meets all these criteria can be a delicate balance. But if you find the right fit, as an added plus there’s no reason this relationship cannot form the basis of a succession plan when it comes time to retire and sell your firm.

Advisors need to understand they can’t go it alone. Indeed, much like you should never have to go through a personal trauma alone, professional headaches should not be something you have to confront by yourself either. If you do not have a contingency plan, take the steps to get one today, because if you wait till it’s absolutely necessary, that’s when it is too late.

Steven Dudash is President of IHT Wealth Management (www.ihtwealthmanagement.com), a Chicago-based firm.

To view original article on wealthmanagement.com

Original Article 

ByGlobeNewswire | 01/26/16 – 09:00 AM EST

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Jan. 26, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Leading retail investment advisory firm and independent broker/dealer LPL Financial LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:LPLA), today announced that Jeff Kocis, John Kinsella and Richard Rohlfing have joined IHT Wealth Management (IHT), an independent financial advisory firm on LPL’s broker/dealer and hybrid RIA platforms. Kocis, Kinsella and Rohlfing reported that, based on prior business, they collectively served more than $200 million of client assets*, as of Dec. 15, 2015.

Kocis, Kinsella and Rohlfing left their prior wirehouse firm because they sought to create a team structure. “In addition, by joining with LPL and IHT, we can provide our clients with objective financial advice that will allow us to find strategies tailored for their needs,” said Kocis, who has been a financial advisor for 14 years and began his career as a trader on the floor of an exchange. “This move will allow us to have access to enhanced support and resources that can help us further help our clients now as well as in the future.”
Kinsella – a silver and gold medal winner in the 1968 and 1972 Olympics, respectively, competing in 4 x 200 meter freestyle relay in which the relay team set a new world record – has 35 years of financial advisory experience. Rohlfing has been an advisor 5 years, having chosen the industry as his second career. The three advisors together will provide clients with portfolio and business management, retirement plans and comprehensive wealth management support.

Kocis, Kinsella and Rohlfing will be opening IHT’s newest office in Oakbrook, Ill. The Chicago-based IHT will now operate five offices with a total of 17 advisors. IHT joined LPL in 2014 and intends to continue its expansion efforts into 2016 with offices planned for both the east and west coasts.

Founded by Steven Dudash, IHT provides advisors the control and business ownership that comes with the independent model, while supporting advisors with day to day operations, including office management and back office support.

“IHT is the perfect landing spot for advisors like Jeff, John and Richard,” said Dudash. “They can own their book of business, but they will have the support and resources of IHT and LPL in managing aspects of their business, which will free them up to spend more time serving their clients.”

“We welcome Jeff Kocis, John Kinsella and Richard Rohlfing to LPL,” said Steve Pirigyi, LPL executive vice president, business development. “We have found that former wirehouse advisors are realizing the benefits of the independent model and specifically what LPL can provide in support of their businesses. With our tools and resources they are empowered to better address their business needs and also serve the best interests of their clients.”
*Asset numbers were reported by Jeff Kocis, John Kinsella and Richard Rohlfing based on prior business and have not been independently and fully verified by LPL Financial.

About IHT Wealth Management
IHT Wealth Management is a team of experienced wealth management professionals dedicated to the design and implementation of customized, comprehensive financial strategies for mass-affluent and high-net-worth investors. IHT’s disciplined, goals-based approach and its objective advice are focused on helping its clients create a financial plan that aligns with their vision for the future. The firm’s areas of specialty include wealth management, comprehensive financial planning, legacy planning, retirement planning, college planning, insurance and charitable giving. Founded by Steven Dudash in 2014, IHT is based in Chicago and operates five offices in the Chicago area. For more information, please visit www.ihtwealthmanagement.com.

About LPL Financial
LPL Financial, a wholly owned subsidiary of LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:LPLA), is a leader in the retail financial advice market and currently serves $462 billion in advisory and brokerage assets. LPL is one of the fastest growing RIA custodians and is the nation’s largest independent broker-dealer (based on total revenues, Financial Planning magazine June 1996-2015). The Company provides proprietary technology, comprehensive clearing and compliance services, practice management programs and training, and independent research to more than 14,000 independent financial advisors and over 700 banks and credit unions, enabling them to help their clients turn life’s aspirations into financial realities. Advisors associated with LPL also service an estimated 40,000 retirement plans with an estimated $115 billion in retirement plan assets, as of September 30, 2015. LPL also supports approximately 4,300 financial advisors licensed and affiliated with insurance companies with customized clearing, advisory platforms, and technology solutions. LPL Financial and its affiliates have 3,413 employees with primary offices in Boston, Charlotte, and San Diego. For more information, please visit www.lpl.com.
LPL Financial, member FINRA/SIPC

Investment advice offered through IHT Wealth Management, a registered investment advisor and a separate entity from LPL Financial.

Investors Pulling More Money From Actively Managed U.S. Stock Funds

Traders says outflows have exacerbated the sharp declines in the stock market in 2016

By Corrie Dreibusch

January 13, 2016

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-pulling-more-money-from-actively-managed-u-s-stock-funds-1452702638

Investors yanked more money out of actively managed U.S. stock funds in 2015 than in any prior year.

The outflows represent a stark change in investor attitude toward stocks. After nearly seven years of a bull market, many investors faced their first year in 2015 of negative portfolio returns, a fact that has distressed them, financial advisers say.

More than $169 billion left actively managed U.S. stock funds last year, the most money to be pulled in any year ever, according to data from Morningstar Inc.

 “The tone is definitely different (among clients),” said Steve Dudash, president of IHT Wealth Management in Chicago. “For the first time in a long, long time, clients are really concerned. I mean, calling at 6:30 in the morning, wanting to talk about the markets type of concerned.”

These outflows have exacerbated the sharp declines in the stock market in 2016, traders say.

Stocks tumbled around 6% last week, posting their worst first five sessions of any year. Even if money managers were inclined to buy dips in the broader indexes, they have less money to do so.

Money has been flowing out of actively managed U.S. stock funds for years as the rise in popularity of passive funds, such as exchange-traded funds, has grown. But recent years’ flows are dwarfed by the amount of money pulled in 2015. In 2014, investors pulled a net $84 billion, and in 2013, investors took out a net $4.7 billion from actively-managed U.S. stock funds, according to Morningstar. The last year of net inflows to actively managed U.S. stock funds was 2005.

To be sure, some of the money pulled out of these mutual funds likely found its way back into stocks through exchange-traded funds or other passive stock funds. Traders and money managers also say some went to bonds and other remains in cash.

Stock and Mutual Fund investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

An investment in ETFs involves additional risks such as not diversified, price volatility, competitive industry pressure, international political and economic developments, possible trading halts, and index tracking errors. Not suitable for all investors.

Original Article

By Steven Dudash

October 9th, 2015

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/10/14/chinas-slowdown-sets-up-investor-opportunities/

Chinese stocks suffered an epic collapse, absorbing losses of nearly 27% during a nine-day stretch at one point in August. This, along with concerns that the broader economy in China was beginning to cool, sparked widespread contagion fears, spooking investors and roiling worldwide markets. The tremors continue to be felt today, with the Fed declining to raise interest rates last month in part due to concerns over China.

Still, China has forecasted 7 percent growth this year, a figure that has raised eyebrows among many economists, especially in the wake of a recent report indicating that Chinese imports are off nearly 14% from last year and are expected to plunge again in September. Amid waning demand, is it possible to grow the economy at that rate?

Dubious forecasts are nothing new. There have long been questions about the validity of Chinese government’s numbers, since how it calculates its economic data has always been a mystery, which is hardly surprising given that much of what happens there is shrouded in secrecy. In the past, when growth seemed unending, this lack of transparency was easier to overlook. Now that the environment is souring, other countries whose economies are more interconnected with China than ever before are starting to feel the residual pain and will eventually demand greater openness and transparency.

The problem is that China doesn’t care what the rest of the world wants and is very unlikely cave in to international pressure to conform to accepted accounting and disclosure requirements. However, what the Chinese people want is another thing. Chinese officials are far more sensitive to internal pressure than most realize, especially on economic matters.

In recent years the government has taken a series of steps to encourage more and more of its citizens to become active in equities markets, including encouraging brokerage houses to increase margin lending and investing directly in state-owned companies to artificially prop up valuations. With those markets now floundering, the public – which now has more to lose by the government fudging its numbers – could begin to pushback more forcefully, potentially resulting in less ambiguity.

So what would a more open and transparent China mean for investors? Short term, probably very little. Longer term, though, it could prove to be an enormous benefit to beaten down energy companies. One of the big reasons behind the decline in the price of oil has been concerns over the Chinese slowdown.

The problem is no one really knows for sure how bad the environment really is, and whenever there is uncertainty human emotion tends play an outsized role. In part, that has led to the huge oil selloff. There could be tremendous opportunity in the near future to snatch up beaten down energy stocks, such BP and Exxon, which have the capital to withstand prolonged downturns and now are trading at a steep discount to historical valuations, even after rallying from lows last month.

Large banks, meanwhile, present another opportunity. There is very little question that the pullback in China affected the Fed’s decision to hold off on rate hikes, which has squeezed bank profits, as margins remain thin due to artificially low rates. Bank stocks, as result, have suffered.