Connect with us

Uncategorized

The 3 Ways Tax Loss Harvesting Can Save You Money

Imagine that you just sold your best performing stock (or ETF) of the past few years for a sizable gain. Though you may want to spend (or reinvest) all…

Published

on

Imagine that you just sold your best performing stock (or ETF) of the past few years for a sizable gain. Though you may want to spend (or reinvest) all of the proceeds immediately, you know you can't because of...taxes. Yes, you will owe taxes on those gains unless you can find a way to offset them. This is where tax loss harvesting comes in. Tax loss harvesting is the use of investment losses to offset short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains, and even ordinary income taxes. So, if you had $10,000 in capital gains (from a taxable account) and were in the 15% capital gains tax bracket, you would owe the IRS $1,500. However, if you could sell enough other assets to properly generate $10,000 in losses (from a taxable account), this would negate your $1,500 tax bill. But before we get into the the three ways that tax loss harvesting can save you money, we should first discuss what a successful tax loss harvesting strategy looks like.

How to Tax Loss Harvest Successfully

A successful tax loss harvesting strategy should generate a tax loss in the short run without generating an actual monetary loss in the long run. What I mean by this is that you should never make it an explicit goal to lose money just for the tax benefits. Losing money is always bad for you as an investor. As Warren Buffett's once said:
The first rule of investment is don't lose. And the second rule of investment is don't forget the first rule. And that's all the rules there are.
However, a good tax loss harvesting strategy can generate losses as they appear without losing money in the long run. How does it do this? First it sells a security at a loss, and then it takes the proceeds from that sale and buys an "alternate security" that behaves similarly, but not identically to the original security. Why does it purchase an alternate security? Because it wants to generate a tax loss without changing your exposure to the underlying asset class. For example, let's say you owned $10,000 of VWO (Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF) in a taxable account as of January 1, 2020. The optimal tax loss harvesting strategy would have sold your VWO on March 23, 2020 (i.e. the coronavirus bottom) to generate the largest tax loss possible, and then would have immediately taken the proceeds from that sale ($6,817) and bought shares of IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) to replace it. In doing so, this strategy would have generated $3,183 in losses while keeping your exposure to emerging markets constant throughout 2020. I say "constant" because, as you can see from the chart below, IEMG performs basically the same as VWO: This is important because buying an alternate security like IEMG it gives you the performance of VWO without actually owning VWO. This detail might seem mundane, but from the IRS's point of view, it matters a lot because of something called the "wash sale" rule. As Publication 550 states about wash sales:
A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you:
  • Buy substantially identical stock or securities,
  • Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade,
  • Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or
  • Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement arrangement (IRA) or Roth IRA.
In other words, you can't claim a tax loss on a security if you end up repurchasing that same security (or a "substantially identical" one) within the next 30 days (or in the 30 days prior). However, the rules around what is a "substantially identical" stock/security are not 100% clear. For example, while selling VOO (Vanguard S&P 500 ETF) to buy SPY (SPDR S&P 500 ETF) would definitely generate a wash sale, selling VWO (Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF) to buy IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) wouldn't. How do I know? Because Betterment, one of the domain experts on tax loss harvesting, lists IEMG as the security alternate for VWO in their taxable accounts. This is basically Betterment's way of publicly admitting that they use alternate securities (or what they call "parallel securities") to avoid the wash sale rule. And they do it because it is the most optimal thing you can do within the confines of the tax code. For example, if you wanted to follow the optimal tax loss harvesting strategy described above when switching from VWO to IEMG earlier this year, it would have looked something like this: Chart showing hypothetical tax loss harvest by selling one EM fund and moving into another. Of course, no tax loss harvesting strategy would ever be expected to perfectly time the market bottom like the example above, but it illustrates my point. The realized losses generated by VWO (in red) will net out against the unrealized gains in IEMG (in green), assuming you sold your IEMG position. This insight suggests that all tax loss harvesting is merely a strategy of tax deferral. You are avoiding taxes now to pay for them (ideally at a lower rate) later. Now that you know how a good tax loss harvesting strategy works, let's discuss the three ways in which it can save you money.

1. Ordinary Income Deduction

One of the biggest benefits of tax loss harvesting is the ability to reduce your ordinary income tax liability through excessive capital losses. For those individuals with capital losses greater than their capital gains for the year, they can deduct up to $3,000 (or $1,500 if married filing separately) off of their ordinary income. Any losses in excess of this amount may be carried forward indefinitely to offset capital gains and ordinary income in future years. How much of an actual monetary benefit is this on an annual basis? For most taxpayers, it's far less than you think. For example, if we assume that you, like my average reader, are in the 24% federal income tax bracket (income = $85k-$163k a year), then the annual write off is only $360 after taxes (24% * $1,500). If you compounded this $360 benefit at a 4% real rate of return for 40 years, you would get a total lifetime benefit of $34,209. This is a nice chunk of change, but, technically, it is overstated since it doesn't adjust for the fact that the losses you achieve through tax loss harvesting today have to be netted out against the additional gains that you will need to pay taxes on in the future. As I mentioned above, proper tax loss harvesting is ultimately a tax deferral strategy. In this example you reduce your ordinary income tax now, but end up increasing your capital gains later. In the VWO/IEMG example above, you would have used the losses in VWO to reduce your ordinary income tax liability today in exchange for an increased capital gains liability on IEMG in the future. And since the tax rate on your ordinary income (24%) is higher than the tax rate on long-term capital gains (15%), you can see why tax loss harvesting can be beneficial. And for those in a higher income tax bracket, the benefits of this simple tax arbitrage are even more pronounced.

2. Deferring Known Taxes into the Future

Besides taking advantage of the ordinary income deduction, tax loss harvesting can also be useful when trying to defer taxes into the future. For example, if you know with certainty that you are going to have a large amount of gains in the coming year (i.e. you plan to sell a home, large position, etc.), then having tax losses can provide you with some flexibility as to whether you want to pay the taxes now or later. For example, if you know your capital gains tax rate will be lower in the future, then pushing your gains into the years with the lower rate is a clear tax arbitrage. As a reminder from IRS Publication 550 (see p. 67), single individuals with a total taxable income below $39,375 (or married couples with taxable income below $78,750) have a 0% long-term capital gains tax rate. So if you can defer taxes into your retirement, there is a scenario where you and your spouse realize gains of $78,750 a year completely tax-free. Yes, tax-free (assuming you have no other income). Technically, if you include the $24,800 standard deduction for a married couple, you and your spouse could realize up to $103,550 of long-term capital gains with no federal taxes due. This is just one of many ways in which tax loss harvesting can provide more flexibility when it comes to financial planning. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you take tax loss harvesting to its extreme, some say that the benefits are to die for.

3. Passing No Taxes to Your Heirs

Of all the benefits of tax loss harvesting, the one that makes it irresistible is the ability to defer your future taxes to no one. That's right, you can make your unrealized gains disappear. There's just one catch---you have to die first. What I am talking about is a tax rule known as stepped-up basis. For the uninitiated, the stepped-up basis rule says that your cost basis on your assets resets to whatever the value of the property was on the date of your death. So any unrealized gains (and losses) will be wiped out upon your demise. This means that you can pass on all of your property (i.e. stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.) without any tax at the federal level as long as the total value of your estate is below $11.6M (if single) or $23.16M (if married). So that Berkshire Hathaway class A share you purchased in December 1994 for $20,000 that currently has ~$300,000 in unrealized gains? Not anymore. Your heirs would now own it with a basis that was "stepped-up" to the market value of Berkshire class A on the date of your death. This rule might seem outlandish because it is. With stepped-up basis you can pass on a $2M home, a $3M art collection, and a $6M investment portfolio (with $4M in unrealized gains) to your heirs for $0 in federal taxes. How does this have anything to do with tax loss harvesting? Because when you combine tax loss harvesting with the stepped-up basis rule, you don't just defer taxes, you can avoid them altogether. For example, if you can manage to tax loss harvest every year without realizing any capital gains until you die, then you can get all of the benefits of tax loss harvesting without any of the costs. Of course this is easier said than done, but it illustrates why tax loss harvesting, when combined with the stepped-up basis rule, can be so powerful. However, before you start your tax loss harvesting journey, don't make the same mistakes I did.

Things to Avoid When Tax Loss Harvesting

Despite the multiple benefits of tax loss harvesting outlined in this article, if you don't know what you are doing, then you can make some serious mistakes. How do I know? Because I made a tax loss harvesting mistake and I feel like I am someone who is quite diligent when doing research on these topics. This is why I recommend getting professional help when doing anything that involves taxes and the IRS. But, in addition to getting professional help, below are a few things to avoid when tax loss harvesting: 1. Don't own the same securities in your taxable and non-taxable accounts Owning the same securities in your taxable and non-taxable accounts is an easy way to accidentally invoke the wash sale rule. I did this when I sold an ETF in my taxable account (for a tax loss) and then purchased the same ETF a few days later in my non-taxable account (IRA) during a portfolio rebalance. If you remember from the wash sale rules, acquiring a "substantially identical security for your individual retirement arrangement" is not allowed. This mistake was not something I meant to do on purpose, but the IRS doesn't care about my intent. They only care that I created a wash sale, which means I cannot use the tax loss from my taxable account. Usually when you create a wash sale you can adjust the basis of the security that you washed, however, since I washed it in an IRA, I get no such adjustment. More importantly, since I rotated the funds from my tax loss position into an alternate security (as I should have), the alternate security now has additional gains that I will owe taxes on in the future. This means that my clumsiness imposed all of the costs of tax loss harvesting (future capital gains in the alternate security) without any of the benefits (tax losses from the original security). Using our example from above, this is like selling VWO to buy IEMG, but not getting the tax loss on VWO. This is why I recommend that the securities in your taxable account be different from the ones in your non-taxable accounts. I used to think that your taxable and non-taxable accounts should have the same securities + allocation for simplicity in implementation. However, if you want to tax loss harvest, it's just too risky. One option is to have a core security and two alternate securities for every asset class that you invest in. One of the alternates would be for your non-taxable account and the other would be for your taxable account (when tax loss harvesting). While this ensures that you never accidentally invoke the wash sale rule, the implementation can get complex pretty quickly. For example, if your portfolio has 4 asset classes (stocks, bonds, real estate, and gold), you would have to keep track of 12 different securities (4 x 3). Another option is to split up your allocation across all of your accounts where only certain kinds of securities are in certain accounts. For example, you might put your equities in your taxable account and your bonds in your non-taxable account such that you never have to worry about wash sales events across accounts. While this can be helpful for separating asset classes, it also makes rebalancing across your portfolio much more difficult. But even if you get your taxable and non-taxable allocations right, there is still more to worry about when tax loss harvesting.  2. Don't automatically reinvest dividends in your taxable accounts I know you have probably heard the advice many times before, "Make sure to automatically reinvest your dividends." However, if you want to be a tax loss harvester, automatically reinvesting your dividends in your taxable accounts can invoke wash sales. How? Imagine you sell a stock for a loss in your taxable account and then take the proceeds to purchase an alternate security. So far, so good. However, a few weeks later you receive a dividend payment from the original stock that automatically repurchases some shares. A wash sale is born. Your error in this case was not in forgetting that a dividend would be paid because you owned the stock before the ex-dividend date. I don't expect you (or anyone) to keep track of the dividend dates across all of their positions. No, your error was in automatically reinvesting that dividend back into the original security. The automated behavior is what created the wash sale. This is why I don't automatically reinvest my dividends in my taxable accounts. Because, in addition to preventing messy wash sales, when you don't automatically reinvest your dividends you have more flexibility around paying taxes and rebalancing. It's a win-win from an investor's perspective.

The Bottom Line

Tax loss harvesting is a strategy that can be used to save you money through the ordinary income deduction, tax deferrals, and even tax avoidance (upon death). However, given the complexity of the tax code, it is probably best to get professional help when implementing a tax loss harvesting strategy. If you want to learn more, the Betterment white paper on tax loss harvesting is a superb resource. Lastly, despite the benefits associated with tax loss harvesting, I think investors place too much emphasis on tax optimization relative to other financial priorities. Yes, everyone (including me) wants to reduce their tax burden, but I don't think that you should place tax decisions above all else. Tax optimization isn't life optimization. In fact, the best thing you can do, many times, is pay your taxes. It's nothing to look down upon. If anything, a big tax bill is a sign of success. It's a sign that you created so much value that the government wants a piece of it. Of course, this doesn't mean we shouldn't be prudent about the tax code, but we don't need to worry ourselves to death either. I also want to give a shoutout to Bill Sweet, my firm's Chief Financial Officer and resident tax guru, for providing invaluable feedback on this post. Happy investing and thank you for reading! If you liked this post, consider signing up for my newsletter. This is post 207. Any code I have related to this post can be found here with the same numbering: https://github.com/nmaggiulli/of-dollars-and-data

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending