Author Archive

Stock Market Appreciation – I Am Going To Be Rich!

December 11, 2011 Leave a comment

In my last blog, I discussed the three reasons that people own stocks.  We looked at the first reason which was in order to receive a stream of income in terms of a dividend.  This alone certainly did not make a lot of sense since it was less than half of what you could make with bonds.  Another reason for holding stock was to take over a company and direct it.  I don’t think many of us our in the market for that reason.  That leaves the last one which is we are in the market because we hope to buy and sell our stocks we own for a profit.

In a lot of articles you read about the stock market as an investment they talk about how you need to own stocks because of it’s annualized rate of return.  The number is usually somewhere between 7 – 10% depending on what years they choose to do this for.  Over the last 100 years it has been 9.53%.  The last 50 years it has been not much different at 9.56%.  The last 25 years it was been an outstanding 10.8%.  So, it looks like you better get started investing and getting rich!  Let’s look at the last decade or so to make sure.  The return since 2000 was -30%.

So, what does this mean?  It means that stocks really aren’t something you get a true annualized rate of return like a bond or savings account.  It means sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down.  Again, the stock market is an auction and people primarily must buy stocks because they want to sell them for more than they bought them for.  So, in the last 10 years has something fundamentally changed?  Are the companies the stock is for not as valuable as they were 10 years ago?

As you saw in the last blog dividend yields were even lower 10 years ago than they are today, so from the point of view that a stock is only worth the future income it may generate then they shouldn’t be worth any less than they were 10 years ago.  Discounting the dividend growth in terms of a rate of return is only part of the story.  You really need to look at the earnings of a company.  In general, a company makes money (hopefully) and then determines to either reinvest the earnings or pay them out as dividends.  Theoretically, reinvesting earnings will result in more earnings which could be paid out in the fashion of future dividends.  So, how have earnings been doing and how do the correlate with the stock market going up or down?  The equivalent to Dividend Yield (total dividends / stock price) for earnings is the Price to Earnings Ratio.

Since the Price to Earning Ratio was bout 21 that means that the rate of return in terms of earnings is 100/21 or about 5% which puts on par with Bond Yields.  So, the dividend yield as a drive from the last blog could be amended to be the “Earnings Yield” for an investor.  So, why is the market so choppy?  We earlier discussed that dividends did not seem to vary much, but, stock price did.  What about earnings?  Well it turns out that earnings do change over time.  Most companies will try and protect their dividends, but, earnings come and go depending on both the performance of the company, as well as, the state of the overall economy.  As you can see a couple of big peaks set expectations so high that they couldn’t possibly be met and ended in huge adjustments meaning falling markets.

If you look at the economy as a whole, Gross Domestic Product is a measure of how well it is doing.  The higher the GDP the higher the potential is for earnings.  So, in recessions earnings drop.  When earnings drop stock prices normally follow as companies can’t pare down expenses as fast as demand is dropping.  Over the last 10 years GDP has been growing, but, slower than normal (1.75%).   So a classical way of looking at this is that a company is worth the normal earnings it has plus the anticipated growth.  Using GDP as a proxy for growth rate for all stocks then you could say that the average stock is worth the normal earnings (5%) + a forecast for GDP (say 2%).  This would mean maybe somewhere around 7% which is a little lower than it has historically been.  So, the stock market growth should have been 7% minus the dividend yield of 2% or about 5% per year over the last decade.  So, the pure financial reasons for owning stock don’t explain the “lost decade” of growth.

So, if the math doesn’t drive the stock market what does?  I will speculate on that in the next blog.

Categories: Stocks

The Stock Market is Going to Go Up

December 10, 2011 Leave a comment

The Stock Market is definitely going to be going up.  Unfortunately, the Stock Market is also definitely going to be going down.  In the previous blogs, I have been characterizing who owns Stocks and Bonds and how often they get bought and sold.  The next few blogs are going to delve into what makes the prices go up and down.  The most important thing to take away is that they will go up and they will go down.  We will look first at the Stock Market.

As was discussed in earlier blogs, you have to start by taking a look at just exactly what the Stock Market it is before looking at the movement of prices up and down.  Stocks are ownership in a company and as such have some value.  People buy stocks for one of three reasons:

  • Anticipation of getting income in the form of a future stream of dividends
  • The hope of being able to sell the stock later to someone else for a profit
  • The ability to control a corporation and direct what they do

So, which of these factors drive prices up and down.  The assumption is that all three drive it to some degree.  Can we test how much each of these motivations actually determine the price of a stock and whether it will go up and down?  Probably not, but, we will make an attempt anyway.

The dividends would be a good place to start.  The average dividend yield of the S&P 500 is 2.06%.  In the S&P 500 about 25% of the stocks offer no dividends and 75% do.  The 2.06% is all the dividends divided by all the stocks regardless if they paid dividends or not.  If you just look at the stocks paying dividends then the average dividend yield is 2.60%.  In any case, 2.6% does not look like a great return even in today’s paltry interest rates.  The following chart shows high quality bond yields versus the S&P 500 dividend yield.

As you can see, over the last 40 years or so bond yields are consistently at least twice as high as stock dividends.  Normally, bonds are less risky for a number of reasons including that if a company hits bad times a bond holder will get paid before a shareholder.  The other thing to notice is that both bond yields and stock dividend yields have been in a consistent down trend over the last 30 years.  The first thought is that this must be due to inflation.  Bond rates are not specifically tied to the inflation rate although with the role of the Federal Reserve Bank to control inflation, it is common policy for the Fed to raise the prime lending rate in order to “cool off” an economy and help control inflation.  A bond is tied to this prime lending rate and not directly to inflation.

Also notice the spikes associated with dividend yields.  There were huge spikes in 1929, 1982, 2008, etc.  These spikes were associated with the depression and some pretty big recessions.  So, does this mean that companies start paying out higher and higher dividends in order to lure people back into the stock market.  Unfortunately, that was not the case, it was the fact that the denominator (the total capitalization of the stock market) was lower that caused the dividend yield to spike and not the case of the numerator (dollars paid as dividends) that got higher.

So, the best that can be said for a person to hold stocks for the dividends is that you will earn half of what you could earn with bonds.  That means that people must hold stocks for the other two reasons (stock appreciation or wanting to own a company).  Let’s assume that individual investors don’t often try and own a company (Warren Buffet types not included).  Then the average investor is in the Market because they think that people will pay them more for their stocks than what they bought them for.

My next blog will go into why people would pay more for stocks than the future stream of dividends.  On the surface, it just doesn’t make any sense.  It seems like the worse kind of Ponzi scheme or is it just simple economics at work?

Categories: Stocks

Who really owns bonds?

December 4, 2011 Leave a comment

This blog will try to characterize who owns bonds.  As identified in my last blog, the Total Corporate and Foreign Bond market as identified in the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds documents is $11.3 Trillion dollars.  It is mostly made up of traditional Corporate Bonds, Asset Backed Securities and Bonds issued by Commercial Banks or Bank Holding Companies.  The following chart shows who owns this $11.3 Trillion Dollars in Bonds:

The number one owner somewhat to my surprise isn’t Americans at all it, but is Foreign Investors.  This is followed by Insurance Companies.  Ownership of bonds by families is next either by owning individual bonds or through mutual funds (both at 15%).  So, the average family owns about 30% of the bond market.  For are mythical average American Family this would be about   $11.3 Trillion Total Bond Market * 30% Owned by Individuals / 95.6 Million Families = $36,000.  This $36.000 per Family would be evenly divided between individual bonds they owned ($18,000) and bond funds they had invested in ($18,000).

As we saw in earlier postings, you need to dig a little deeper to find out really what the average family owns.  For example, looking at the difference between average (mean) and median ownership.  Also, looking at the wealth of the people owning the bonds and their age would be interesting to know just like we did for stocks.  Digging back into the Survey  of Consumer Finances (SCF) Study by the Federal Reserve we can get a little bit of a deeper insight into who really owns bonds.  The first surprise is how few people actually hold bonds for how big the market is.  Direct bond ownership has been decreasing dramatically over the last few years as evidenced by the following chart:

So, if only about 1.5% of families actually own bonds directly and that means the average value of the bonds a family holding bonds would be $18,000 Direct Bond Ownership per all families / 1.5% families owning bonds = $1.2 Million.  In other words the average direct holder of bonds isn’t your average Joe or Jane, it is someone with a lot of money.  It looks like bond ownership is highly concentrated with the wealthy from this chart.  Looking into more statistics from the SCF Study they show the median value of families owning bonds to be much less than the mean or average ownership of about $1.2 Million.  Even though it is much less than the average (mean), it has been growing.  Again, this points out to concentration towards the higher end of the wealth bands.  The median was about $80,000 and growing in 2007.  It would be interesting to see what it is now, but, we must wait on the next SCF study released in 2012 for that.

As you would expect total bond holding is concentrated with the wealthiest 10% of families with the them holding over 50% of the total bond market in terms of value.  This is a little lower than the 60%+ they own of the stock market.  In terms of age, as you would expect, the older we get the more bonds we tend to own versus stocks with over 95% of bonds owned by people over 50.  That would make sense as a bond can provide income if you are retired and is considered to be less risky than stock market investing for those not willing to risk as much of their portfolio as they get near retirement.  We will look at the relative risk of stock versus bond ownership in a future blog.

In summary, bonds are not nearly as widely owned as stocks with only 1.5% of families owning bonds versus around 18% owning stocks.  Using medians as are measure of the individual typical investor, if you do own bonds you own about $80,000 worth of bonds versus the $107,000 worth of stock.  The SCF does not give us insight to the bond funds we own, but, I would hazard a guess that they are much more liberally sprinkled across stock ownership.  Remember the pooled investments (i.e. mutual funds and bond funds) were owned by about 12% of families.  The median value of these pooled funds per family was about $55,000 per year and has been consistently growing.  This means that a lot of families are not choosing to invest in individual stocks and bonds, but, instead are becoming “pooled” or fund investors.  Part of this is the growth of Exchange Traded Funds, as well as, traditional Mutual Funds.  While bonds are an important part of our economy not many people are directly invested in them.

Categories: Bonds, Uncategorized

How big is the Bond Market? Believe me you will actually find this interesting!

July 30, 2011 1 comment

I looked previously at how much money is invested in the stock market.  This blog will the first on a series on the “boring bond market”.  The first question to ask is how big is the bond market?  Let’s look first at the Corporate Bond Market.  The total Corporate Bond market at the end of the 1st quarter of 2011 was $11.3 Trillion dollars.  As discussed in a previous blog, the total Stock Market for US Stocks was $17.7 Trillion Dollars and the total for all the Worlds Stock Markets was about $60 Trillion Dollars.  So, the total bond market is about 20% the size of the total stock market and about 60% of the US Stock Market.  So, if we once again try to get our hands around this Trillion Dollar number we will divide it by the 95.6 million families in the US, it would mean that each family on average owns $118,000 woth of bonds in their portfolio.  We will look at that like we did stocks in future blogs about who really owns bonds.

Americans own $$1.6 Trillion dollars of Foreign Debt and Foreigners own $2.4 Trillion of US Company Bonds.  This means Foreigners own more of our bonds than we own of theirs which is opposite of the what happens with stocks where we own more of their stocks than they own of ours.

The bonds we own by who the issuer of the bond was is shown below.

Not too surprising is that the biggest share of bonds we have are the one’s issued by Companies.  It is what you think of when you think of bonds.  The typcial AAA rated US Steel or Ford  bond.  The second biggest area is Asset Backed Securities bonds.  The Asset Backed Security (ABS) is a bond that is issued on top of some other debt.  The biggest of these Asset Backed Securities is one’s made from Mortgages.  In other words, a bank sells its’ mortgages that it has to a company that then put’s it together with a whole bunch of other Mortgages that were sold to it and then floats a bond for the value of all these mortgages.  This means that if you buy this ABS Bond you basically are holding a bunch of mortgages and you are receiving the payments made by homeowners in the form of dividends paid by the bond issuer.  This seems like a great idea, you become the bank in essence with homeowners sending their house payments to you.  It was a very fast growing area in Finance for a number of years.  It was also the biggest single reason for the Great Recession we just suffered through!

The problem was that banks started lending money for mortgages to people that couldn’t afford the house.  Then the Traditional Bank packaged these mortgages up and sold them to a Bond Issuer (usually an Investment Bank like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers & Goldman Sachs).  You may recognize these names as two of them recently collapsed and took down the stock market with them.  In any case, the traditional bank no longer had to worry about the fact that the homeowner was not going to pay their mortgages because they just had passed the liability on to the Investment Bank.  The Investment Bank then turned around and sold these ABSs to a number of people.  Most of these bonds were bought by companies like Insurance Companies who felt like this was a nice safe investment.  Some of these you may have heard of, like AIG,  because the US Government had to bail them out too.  When you hear the term “Toxic Assets” on a company’s books, the Asset Backed Security is the prime one.  Mostly individual investors did not invest in these horrible investments, but, were still hurt because pension funds, insurance companies, mutual funds, etc, did buy them, so, you and I ended up getting indirectly hurt as the value of these stocks we owned fell dramatically.

Bet when you decided to read this you boring blog about bonds, you wouldn’t find out that bonds were the cause of demise of the US Economy.  In any case for reasons that seem obvious now, the Asset Backed Security is not as popular as it used to be.  It still is out there in a big way however with about $2.2 Trillion Dollars invested in these type of bonds.  That is less than half as much as what it was in 2008 when the whole mess started and a lot of this is due to the bonds actually defaulting.

In summary, we own a lot of bonds, but, only about 60% of what we have invested in the stock market.  The bond market while “boring” can also be risky as evidenced by the Asset Backed Securites Bonds fiasco of the last decade.   Even with the decline in the fortunes of the ABS Bond, bond ownership has been steady as we invested money in traditional Corporate Bonds at the same rate money was lost money in Asset Backed Securities as evidenced by the following chart.  So, bonds are an important vehicle in an investment portfolio.  I will be discussing what a bond really is, who owns them, and what to expect from them in future blogs.  So, come back and “bond” with me in the next few blogs.

Categories: Bonds

How much do we owe?

July 24, 2011 Leave a comment

I had looked at how much stock we own as an average American family, so, next I wondered how much do we owe in debt?  Again the Federal Reserve keeps a pretty good tab on how much in debt everyone is and how much we are borrowing or saving every year.    As of the 1st quarter 2011, all families had an outstanding personal debt of $13.3 Trillion dollars.  That works out to $139.000 (13.3 Trillion debt / 95.6 Familiies) for every family.  Of this debt, 75% is house mortgages and 25% is consumer credit.  So, the average family owes 3 times as much on the mortgage as they do all their other consumer debt combined (car loans, credit cards, other debt).   The total Wages and Rental income for people (i.e. not companies) was $9.2 Trillion dollars.  That is an average income per family of $96,700.  That means the debt to income ratio is 1.4 for every family.  So, it would take a year and a half of work, if you paid no taxes to pay off your debt.  How do you stack up?

This sure seems like a lot of debt.  But, a silver lining is we aren’t borrowing like we used to.  The following is a graph of the last few years for family borrowing.  As you can see the average family has negative debt the last couple of years which means we are saving more than we are borrowing.  We are paying down our debt.

This is certainly something to keep an eye on in the future.  This may be a combination of banks not lending like drunken sailors and them raising requirements for loans or it may because American families are just paying down their debt and doing more saving.  We have been averaging $270 Billion dollars a year in lowering our debt.  At that rate it will take “only” 49 years for families to pay back what we owe in personal debt.

So, we will always owe money it looks like.  This is to be expected as families buy homes, cars, etc and take loans to do this.  What about our government?  We all know that when the government owes money it means that we owe money because the government can only raise money through taxing us.  The National Debt for the US currently is $14.4 Trillion Dollars which works out to $150,000 per Family.  That means you owe more to pay back the National Debt than you do to pay back everything you owe in terms of your loans for homes, cars, personal debt, etc.  Makes the idea of a balanced budget amendment a lot more appealing.  Of this $14.4 Trillion about $9.4 Trillion dollars is owed in the general credit market.  So, how does the trend look for the government?  Are they starting to pay down their debt like Families are doing?

Well, it looks like the Government isn’t paying down the debt.  I know this was a trick question, as the government obviously borrowed more because of the latest economic stimulus packages to try and soften the recession.  I guess a government spin would be that they are not borrowing at the same accelerated rate in 2011 as they did in 2008, 2009 and 2010, but, I don’t know if that is something to get too excited about.

In summary, if we combine our personal debt with the debt the Government has so kindly saddled us with it looks like we owe nearly $300,000 in debt.  I know how excited that makes me!

Categories: Debt

How often are stocks traded?

July 17, 2011 Leave a comment

I know how many times I have been trading stocks.  So, I wonder how much stock gets traded in general and what the average amount of stock being traded is.  This blog entry will attempt to get a handle on how much gets traded in general and then compare it to how much an average person trades and finally compare to how much I have been trading.

The first place I looked for this information was the Census data which proved very interesting.  I came across a Net Equity/Stock Purchases by year.  This shows if money went in (a positive number) or went out of the Stock Market.  The following is 2000 – 2009 net purchases/sales in billions of dollars:

The 5 billion dollar in 2000 means that there was just about as much coming into the stock market as leaving it.  You can see in 2005 through 2007 money was leaving the market.  And in 2008 and 2009 it was coming in.  Compare this to the NYSE Year End Closing Price percent change in these years.

You can’t draw too many conclusions from this except to say in the last downturn people were getting out of the market before the big downturn and got back into it during the recovery.  You didn’t see the same pattern exactly in the bubble burst of 2002, so, it is hard to say for certain that the smart money left before the downturns.

In any case, while this has given some insight into how much in dollars goes into and out of the market from a net perspective, it doesn’t answer how much stock is traded.    An obvious candidate is just the sheer volume numbers.  Looking at the NYSE & NASDAQ, they have a volume of about 1.7 Trillion Shares a year that are traded.  These shares are traded with 5.4 Billion Transactions (i.e. number of actual trades).  Again, like in previous blog postings, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a trillion.  So, looking at some other numbers to get a perspective it means.  I will put it in terms of stocks traded per family.  There are 95.6 million families in the US (305 Million People / 3.19 People per Family).  So, for each US Family they trade as follows:

Stocks Traded per Family = 1.7 Trillion Stocks / 95.6 Million Families = 18,052 Stocks Traded per Family

Trades Made per Family = 5.4 Billion / 95.6 Million Families = 58 Trades a Year

So, much for buy and hold strategy.  In a previous blog entry I determined that about half the stock was owned by individual people.  That means to me that about half this 18,000 Stocks and 58 trades per year for a given family are being traded by Exchange Funds, Mutual Funds, Pension Funds and the like for them.  That would mean that an average Individual Investor trading for his family should trade about 9,000 shares per year in 29 trades on their own as an individual investor.  This means that the average trade size would be about 300 shares.  The trade size seems right, but, the 29 trades seems a little high to me.

To double check these numbers, I will look at my own trading.  I consider myself a fairly active trader that has traded quite a bit based on technical indicators.  So, looking at my portfolio strategy, for the first half of the year, I was shocked that I traded (bought or sold) about 90,000 shares of stock and made 57 trades.  So, that would mean for a year, I would expect to have traded around 180,000 shares and 114 trades which would be quite a bit above the average I came up with.  I know that a lot of the professionals are day trading, adjusting positions daily, etc.  So, maybe these numbers are legit.  They certainly seem reasonable given a mix of active traders and buy and hold types.

Another interesting fact is that the Market Capitalization for NYSE & NASDAQ was around 17 Trillion Dollars in 2010 and the Value of all the Shares Traded was 30 Trillion.  That means that an average portfolio “turns over” about 1.8 times a year (30/17).  Taking this a step further it would mean that an average investor holds on to a stock for less than 7 months (12 months / 1.8 Turnover).  If the average investor has around the $107,000 I calculated in previous blog that means he trades about $190,000 of stock per year.    So, to summarize, my mythical average family investor does the following:

  • Has a portfolio of around $107,000
  • Makes 29 Trades a Year
  • Assuming that they use discount brokers spends about $300 a year to trade stock
  • Trades 9,000 Shares a Year
  • Makes an average size trade of 300 shares per trade
  • Turns over his portfolio 1.8 times a year

But, we all know that there is no average family investor.  When I look at friends and family who own stock, I know that most people are either not trading stock at all or probably not doing it very actively.   So all our mythical average family investors are in there with the professionals trading stock, the question to be asked is are the  professionals the high volume traders or is it our average family investor.

Categories: Stock Volume, Stocks

Who really owns Stock in the United States – Part 4?

July 17, 2011 Leave a comment

So, half the families in the US own stock either directly or indirectly through mutual funds or IRAs.  If you make more money, have a college degree or are older, you are more likely to own stock.  So, as stock owners out there we have an average or mean of about $160,000 in our portfolio.  Again, this number doesn’t feel right because we have a gut feeling that it is concentrated more in a few wealthy individuals, rather than across all income and net worth brackets.  Again digging into the Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) you can get some more insights into our mythical average family investor.

We saw in previous blog that around 50% of families owned stocks in some fashion, although it varies greatly by how much money you make and your age.  Also, in a previous blog we determined that wealth is concentrated, well, with the wealthy.  We also saw that there are significant differences between average (mean) and median wealth holdings.  If we had a median value for a stock holder it would probably be a better indication of this mythical “average” family investor.

Since we looked at wealth and income let’s look at the ownership of individual stocks, pooled mutual funds and IRAs in terms of the dollar amount owned by the age brackets we utilized in the previous blog.

It is obvious from the above chart that the people in the top 10% of wealth are getting a bigger and bigger proportion of the stock market, as well as getting wealthier at a much accelerated pace than everyone else.   The average combined stock ownership (individual stocks, mutual funds and IRAs) is over $1,000,000 for the wealthiest 10% of families.  As we saw, their total wealth was about $3.7 Million which means 27% their wealth is tied up in the Stock Market and over 73% in bonds, real estate and other assets.  The top 10% wealthiest people owned about 68% of the stock market in 2007 up from 60% in 1989.  While this is a high percentage, it was lower than I was suspecting.  If someone had asked me I would have said the top 10% of families owned 90%+ or the stock market.  Makes me want to go look at some of those “shock headlines” I thought I had seen before and do some investigating.

So, the portfolio value by wealth band in 2007 was:

It seems that regardless of your income bracket that the average (mean) size is 2 ½ to 3 ½ times bigger than the median portfolio size.  This means there is great variability in the portfolio values in all the wealth brackets.  It is not spread evenly within the band, it must be “lumpy”.  You can draw the assumption from this that the portfolios of the 50% of people above the median are significantly greater than the ones in the lower half because the mean is so much higher than the median.  In other words, regardless of the wealth of a person, some people invest more in the stock market than others in their wealth bracket.

What about age?  It seems like the people getting ready for retirement should have the biggest footprint as they are investing for that retirement on unlike older people they are willing to take more risks to accumulate wealth via the stock market.

Well somewhat of a surprise, the biggest group was the newly retired (ages 65 – 74) with an average stock portfolio of $302,000.  The next biggest group is the 55 – 64 group with an average of $299,000.  It goes down there by age group.  So, it appears that the older you get the bigger your portfolio is because you have invested for more years and the stock market has appreciated in general.  The only exception is the over 75 group, who have only $139,000 average portfolio sizes.   This makes some sense because they would be living off of this and moving to other more conservative investments like bonds and CDs.

So, now how does our average family investor look like with his $160,000 portfolio?  The $160,000 threshold in terms of age is around the 45–54 Age Group because their average portfolio is $177,000.  The 34–45 Age Group has an average portfolio of $78,000.  So we would say that if the average is $177K for the 45-54 Group this means that our $160K would probably be in their late 40s.  Let’s say 47.  They would definitely be towards the high end.  Since the 80% – 90% Bracket only has a $132,000 average portfolio, our mythical investor would have to be closer to the 90% wealth bracket.  Let’s peg it for talking purposes at 88% wealth bracket meaning only 12% have more money.

The approach up to this point has used averages or the mean in order to identify our average family investor.  But, looking at all the data it becomes more evident that the average person’s actual portfolio value is closer to the median than the mean.  We saw that the differences were quite a bit higher when looking at the mean versus the median.  There is a smaller group of people with very big portfolios and a whole lot of people with portfolios less than the average.

We showed earlier the median portfolio for all families.  Since, we are looking for to understand what the average portfolio a family investor is managing, we don’t want to include all the people that aren’t in the stock market.  So, we need to go back and find the Median Size Portfolio for people that are actually actively in the stock market.  This is also available in the SCF survey and is the Median Size Portfolio for Active Investors in the table below.

So, according to this analysis the new portfolio value for our average family investor is $107,000 instead of the $160,000 we have been using.  This is more representative of what kind of money the average family investor is playing with.  This investor is in their late 40s.  As they get older, they will start managing more money.

Categories: Stocks