It’s always possible to find rates that are more attractive than the average.

The challenge is that so many home buyers locked in mortgages during the long period when interest rates were low (and ultra-low during the Covid pandemic), that there might not be a lot of people who are paying more than the current rate on their mortgages.

But the lower rate might make this a good time to buy in a market where there seems to be more sellers than buyers.  In 2024, sales of previously-owned homes fell to the lowest levels since 1995, and preliminary data from 2025 shows sales actually dropped from the year before.  Delistings—where homeowners list a property for sale and subsequently take it off the market—rose by 50% compared with 2024.

It doesn’t hurt to periodically check your mortgage rate against the latest offerings, and if the housing stall continues, it might be possible for new buyers to pick up a bargain.

If you’re thinking about a mortgage refinance or home purchase, consider engaging us to build a financial plan for you. Email us using this link.

The post Is it Time to Refinance Your Home Mortgage? appeared first on Strategence Capital.

Bandwidth – the first I can remember this being used was in the late ‘90s, when fiber optic cable was compared to copper lines, and it described the ability of the medium to carry information. Now, it seems to describe one’s capacity for additional work (of course, additional work.)

Circle back – a classic, although submitters forgot to include its close cousin “loop in.” I literally received two emails on March 6 that included these two gems. In the first, the sender said he would “loop in” Sam, who replied that he would “circle back.” Translated, “circle back” means that someone will respond or otherwise follow-up on something, while “loop in” just means to include.

Deep dive – the submitter said, “oh, really? Not investigate, study, discern, discover, find out about, look into? You had to go with ‘deep dive.’ “ I love the submitter’s submission but hate the phrase. Just use normal words.

Lean in – popularized, I think, by Sheryl Sandberg, this one really gets my blood boiling–I know…blood boiling? They’re just words, but for me, it gets worse: change “in” to “into,” and one unlocks a whole panoply of annoyances.

• Lean into
• Speak into
• Pray into
• Invest into
• Pour into
• Step into
• Plug into
• Dive into

Reach out: [verbatim from the submitter] This phrase sounds so overblown. “Reach out to Bob in accounting” seems to imply some level of difficulty, like you’re trying to get a personal reply from Taylor Swift or something, when it may just be a matter of walking up to Bob’s cubicle on the other side of the building.

Space – The equity space. The beauty-supply space. The intellectual-property space. The media space. From the submitter: They’re not spaces, they’re sectors or industries. Spaces are well-defined and venerable terms in physics and math. If you don’t know what “phase space” or “vector space” is, then stay away! And if you do know, then don’t consign “space” to jargon space.

Unpack that: “In other words: Deal with it now. It’s so overly consultant-speak cringey that I can clearly picture a corporate off-site meeting about to go into breakout sessions. The consultant is at the front of the room with a flip-chart indicating tabletop topics and instructions. Ugh, pure torture.”

I’m sure you have your own phrases you hate. You can ping me on LinkedIn and/or add yours to the Comments section. To piggyback on that , you can go to our website, where I designed a buzzword bingo generator app. You can play it online during your next company meeting or download and print a bingo card. The only catch is that you first have to enter your email address so we can send you our infrequent company emails where we dispense with jargon. (You can also immediately unsubscribe, too.)

The post The Corporate Jargon We Hate the Most appeared first on Strategence Capital.

A recent article by Mike Piper at Oblivious Investor illustrates this well. He received a phishing email designed to look like a Vanguard statement notification. On desktop, the red flags were immediate — the sender’s email address was nonsense, and hovering over the links revealed they pointed to a scam site rather than Vanguard. On his phone, none of that was visible without going out of his way to look for it.

Here’s why mobile is the more vulnerable environment:

• Most mobile mail apps show only the sender’s name, not the email address. You’d have to tap through to reveal it — and most people don’t.
• Similarly, you can’t hover over a link on a phone to preview where it actually goes. You either tap it or you don’t.
• Once you’re on a page, your mobile browser may only show a fragment of the URL — enough to see “vanguard” at the beginning without realizing the actual domain is something like “com-payments-us-vanguard.com,” which any fraudster can buy.

The good news is that the most effective protection is simple: don’t interact with inbound communications that ask for anything.

• No clicking on links
• No replying
• No providing information
• If an email looks like it might be legitimate and require a response, close it and go directly to the company’s website by typing the address yourself, or call the number on the back of your card.

This is especially worth keeping in mind for anything related to your financial accounts. The stakes are high, and the effort required to be cautious is low.

Just so you know, I used AI to help come up with the base content here, and then I tweaked it.

The post More Electronic Fraud Prevention Tips appeared first on Strategence Capital.

In the piece, he contends that one shouldn’t get too worked up about having 33% in seven companies. He’s referring to the Standard & Poor’s 500 index (S&P 500), an index that I think is the world’s most-benchmarked-to benchmark, which has about a one-third allocation to the so-called Magnificent Seven (Mag 7), Alphabet, Amazon.com, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia and Tesla.

He points out that on June 1, 1932, 12.7% of the value of the entire U.S. stock market consisted of just AT&T. Today, the largest of the Mag 7, Nvidia, accounts for just 7.8% of the market value of the S&P 500 and 6.9% of the total U.S. market.

His cursory recap of the arguments against indexing or passive investing goes like this.

• In the 1970s and 1980s, tracking the market with low-cost index funds instead of hiring an expensive stock picker was “settling for average.”
• In the 1990s, brokers called index funds “tax bombs” that would supposedly hit investors with huge, unexpected tax bills. Then came warnings that index funds couldn’t protect you against market crashes. More recently, stock pickers touted their unique abilities to pick socially responsible companies. (Never mind.)
• “Concentration risk” is the newest in this long line of marketing blitzes.

Work as an advisor long enough, and you’ll realize that “investors need to be wary of messages about markets that are really about marketing.” He then includes this quote:

“The investment community has always agreed on all these tribal ‘truths’ that have no basis in data,” says Tim Atwill, a former senior analyst at Russell Investments and ex-head of investment strategy at Parametric Portfolio Associates

So should you bail out of your S&P 500 or other index funds?

No way.

That’s the conclusion of recent research by Mark Kritzman, chief executive of Windham Capital Management, and David Turkington, head of State Street Associates, both based in Cambridge, Mass.

After all, by definition, concentration goes up whenever winning stocks keep winning.

“Taking risk off the table every time the market gets more concentrated would have been very harmful historically,” Kritzman tells me. “It may help you avoid some fraction of the selloffs, but you incur a huge opportunity cost in losing out on the run-ups.”

He goes on to point out that larger companies are generally more diversified economically, geographically, and in their businesses; “the larger stocks are just safer,” says Kritzman.

What’s more, while we use the S&P 500 in portfolios, it usually comprises about 48% of an equity portfolio or segment. So, in a 60% stock/40% bond portfolio, the Mag 7 represent less than 10% of the portfolio (48% x 60% x 33%). When I used to work in a Trust Company setting, we would ask clients to sign exculpatory letters when one holding exceeded 20% of a portfolio, more than twice what Nvidia comprises presently.

It seems like, for now, this is an issue to be aware of but not overreact to.

The post The Big Scary Myth Stalking the Stock Market appeared first on Strategence Capital.

The New York Times recently published the story, “Want to Know Where the Market Is Going? Don’t Trust This, or Any, Forecast.” It’s behind a paywall, but if you have a subscription, you can access it here. It has some great takeaways, and I have used an AI tool to summarize those for me and which I have edited. 

Wall Street forecasts are worthless: Since December 31, 2000, Wall Street analysts have predicted gains every year, but the market fell in 7 of 25 years (28% of the time). The 2022 forecast illustrates this perfectly—strategists predicted a 3.9% gain, but the S&P 500 fell 19.4%, a miss of 23.3 percentage points. The 2008 crash saw a 38.5% decline that forecasters failed to predict. Average forecast error: 14.1 percentage points annually—more than 50% larger than the forecast itself.

Misleading averages: While the average annual forecast of 8.9% price gains seems close to the actual 7.7% annual performance, this masks terrible accuracy. The forecasters were positive in all down years and consistently underestimated the good years, making their predictions essentially useless.

Why forecasters are always bullish: Negative predictions hurt business. If brokers told clients the market would decline, people wouldn’t trade stocks and bonds. The firms make elaborate and compelling presentations that create an illusion of clairvoyance.

The author’s forecast: The author of the article, Jeff Sommer, who writes on markets and the economy, for fun, predicts a 16% decline in 2026 but with “no pretense of accuracy whatsoever.” Not a single strategist is predicting a decline in 2026.

Reasons for both optimism and pessimism: The article notes legitimate concerns including tariffs, high share valuations, and AI euphoria. But there are also positive factors like market momentum and strong corporate earnings. The point: no one knows which will dominate.

Historical precedent from famous forecasters: Byron Wien and Laszlo Birinyi, both prominent strategists who died in 2023, completely missed the 2008 crash. When questioned, Wien admitted he had no ability to foresee the future—he just wanted to be “interesting.” Birinyi said his predictions were merely “arguments” for people to evaluate themselves, not actual forecasts.

Here is the author’s advice: 

• Ignore all forecasts completely, but invest anyway for the long term 
• Use low-cost, well-diversified index funds 
• Hold appropriate high-quality bonds for safety 
• The economy typically grows over the long run, rewarding patient investors in profitable companies 
• If retired or with a short time horizon, emphasize bonds and drastically reduce or eliminate stock exposure 

Bottom line: The author compares Wall Street forecasts to his tennis serve—sometimes too long, sometimes too short, technically “perfect on average” but actually terrible. Market predictions are theater designed to generate trading activity, not useful investment guidance.

The post It’s Time for the Annual Forecasting Folly appeared first on Strategence Capital.

With a daughter getting married in a week, I thought it was timely to send out this helpful guide for newlyweds. Click the image above for the priceless scene from “The Princess Bride.”

The post Issues to Consider for Newlyweds appeared first on Strategence Capital.

The gap that Morningstar wants you to mind is the gap between fund returns and investor returns. The gap arises when investors take action in their investment portfolios.

For example, take an investor in one of the more–if not most–popular technology-heavy funds, the Invesco QQQ Trust, which tracks the performance of the NASDAQ 100 index, pictured below. The fund return is the return of the fund, based on an investment at the beginning of a time period. The investor return, on the other hand, reflects the investor’s investment decisions in the fund, like freaking out over the Tariff Tantrum in April, bailing out, and getting back in later.

The good news about the study is that the gap has narrowed over the time that Morningstar has been doing the study. Based on 2024 data, the gap was 1.2%. Over 2019-2021, the gap was 1.5%+.

The report looks at the gap across different types of funds, from municipal bond funds to international funds to sector (i.e. non-diversified funds.) Not surprising to this author, the biggest gap is in the Sector Equity funds, where it averaged 1.5%. These are common used by market-timing stock jockeys. On the other end of the spectrum are the Allocation and Alternative funds; both at 0.1%.

1.2%…as Ted Lasso might say, “big whoop!” Compound that 1.2% over ten years or longer and pretty soon it’s real money–assuming the gap doesn’t revert to its wider levels, as shown below.

Invested over ten years with a 10% return per year, $100,000 grows to $259,000

Earn 1.2% less each year, and $100,000 grows to $232,000, 10.4% less

Invested over 20 years with a 10% return per year, $100,000 grows to $673,000

Earn 1.2% less each year, and $100,000 grows to just $540,000, 19.8% less

This fits well with our investment philosophy of long-term asset allocation along with periodic rebalancing, ignoring noise along the way. In a formula, it’s…

Strategic Allocation + Rebalancing – Noise

We’d love to talk with you about it. You can contact us at info@strategencecapital.com.

The post Morningstar’s 2025 “Mind the Gap” Study appeared first on Strategence Capital.

Moody’s recent decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating from Aaa to Aa1 officially ends America’s top-tier debt status across all major rating agencies. This move follows similar actions by Fitch in 2023 and Standard & Poor’s in 2011, reflecting mounting concerns about the nation’s fiscal direction. As Congress navigates budget negotiations that could further expand annual deficits, investors are questioning how these developments might affect their portfolios and long-term financial strategies.

Budget negotiations have historically created periods of uncertainty

Throughout the past fifteen years, budget standoffs and debt ceiling debates have generated considerable market volatility. Notable examples include the 2011 S&P downgrade, the 2013 fiscal cliff, and various government shutdowns. Despite the initial market disruptions, agreements were ultimately reached in each case, allowing markets to stabilize and continue their upward trajectory.

Even following the unprecedented 2011 downgrade that triggered a market correction, the S&P 500 achieved full recovery within months. Remarkably, U.S. Treasury securities continue to function as safe-haven assets during volatile periods, maintaining their role as a cornerstone of global financial markets despite these rating downgrades.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions are on track to be extended or made permanent

Congress is currently developing a comprehensive budget bill to extend individual tax cuts from the TCJA, which would otherwise expire at the end of 2025. This initiative aims to prevent a potential “tax cliff” scenario where rates would revert to pre-TCJA levels, potentially disrupting economic stability.

The proposed package includes significant provisions for both individuals and businesses. Individual benefits encompass permanent TCJA tax rates with a 37% top rate, an increased child tax credit of $2,500 through 2028, and potential SALT deduction cap adjustments. Business provisions feature an enhanced pass-through deduction of 23%, reinstated 100% bonus depreciation, and restored research and development tax deductions.

Deficits may continue to add to the debt

While the current proposal incorporates approximately $1.6 trillion in spending reductions through program modifications, these cuts are overshadowed by tax reductions and increased spending in other areas. The national debt already exceeds $36 trillion, representing roughly $106,000 per American, and the proposed budget could add an estimated $3 trillion or more over the next decade.

The persistent growth of national debt reflects the political challenges of reducing spending on mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare, which consume most federal expenditures. However, markets have historically performed well across varying levels of government debt and deficit spending. Interestingly, some of the strongest market returns over recent decades have occurred following periods of significant deficits, as these often coincided with economic downturns when markets were at their lowest points.

While deficit and debt levels represent important long-term economic considerations, their immediate market impact should be viewed in proper context. A disciplined investment approach focused on diversification, fundamental analysis, and long-term objectives remains more effective than making portfolio decisions based on fiscal headlines or hoping for Congressional deficit solutions.

The bottom line? The U.S. credit rating downgrade reflects legitimate concerns about America’s fiscal trajectory, and current budget negotiations may exacerbate these challenges. However, historical evidence suggests that investors are best served by maintaining their long-term investment strategies and staying committed to their financial plans.

OneAscent Financial Services, LLC (“OAFS”), d/b/a Strategence Capital, is a registered investment adviser with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. OAFS does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness, suitability, completeness, or relevance of any information prepared by OAFS or any unaffiliated third party. OAFS is neither an attorney nor accountant, and no portion of the presented content should be interpreted as legal, accounting, or tax advice. All such information is provided solely for convenience purposes only and all users thereof should be guided accordingly.

Clearnomics is not affiliated with OneAscent Financial Services, LLC or Strategence Capital.

Content in this material is for general information only and not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results. All indices are unmanaged and may not be invested into directly.

No strategy assures success or protects against loss. Investing involves risk including loss of principal.

The post Understanding the U.S. Credit Downgrade and Its Impact on Investors appeared first on Strategence Capital.

In the former category, I was able to get an itinerary for a five-day anniversary trip, based on the interest I shared. It can also help to spark creativity. One way I’ve been using it lately is to figure out Excel formulas and otherwise get help with software tools. In the latter category, I’m worried about deepfakes, where someone can be convincingly imitated, even to the point of a video image. While AI can spark creativity, it can also stifle it, sometimes to our own detriment (think of a student who “writes” a term paper either the help of AI; the opportunity to improve one’s skills is lost.)

To keep abreast of developments in AI, I am subscribed to two daily emails. Sign-up links to both are below.

• The Neuron
• AI Valley

Both tell me the latest developments, and while many don’t apply to me, some do. I recently added Napkin and Gamma to my list of go-to sites when I need to illustrate a concept or to get started on a presentation.

Recently, however, The Neuron featured a troubling use of AI. In it, the newsletter featured a story of two college students who used Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses, which feature an inconspicuous camera, to identify whoever they were looking at to identify them. They then approached strangers on a subway and elsewhere and ask them if they were so-and-so or to ask if their address was such-and-such .

Here’s an excerpt from the newsletter.

Here’s what happened: students Anhphu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio cooked up an app called I-XRAY that turns these Ray-Bans into a doxxing machine. We’re talking name, address, phone number—all from looking at someone with the glasses.

Here’s how it works:

The Ray-Bans can record up to three minutes of video, with a privacy light that’s about as noticeable as a firefly in broad daylight.

This video is streamed to Instagram, where an AI monitors the feed.

I-XRAY uses PimEyes (a facial recognition tool) to match these faces to public images, then unleashes AI to dig up personal details from public databases.

Click here to see what happened when they used the technology on strangers. Fortunately, they’re not releasing the app , just showing how easy it was to do .

They also suggest you opt out of the following services, using the links provided.

• PimEyes
• FaceCheck.ID
• FastPeopleSearch
• Instant Checkmate

I don’t know how this strikes you. For me, I’m reminded that tools can be used for good or ill, and that we need to be careful. The phrase, “what hath God wrought,” from the book of Numbers 23:23, which was the first message sent over telegraph, comes to mind. Maybe you prefer Eugene Peterson’s version from The Message, which says, ‘“What a great thing has God done!” Either way, the verse is badly taken out of context.

The post A Troubling Use of AI and How to Protect Yourself appeared first on Strategence Capital.

How can that be?

Timing.

Basically, most investors buy high and sell low—or at least they tend to. A good financial advisor can help counter this impulse.

A note for the curious (and Enneagram 5s)…

The phrase “mind the gap” originated in the London Underground (also known as the Tube) rail system. It was introduced in 1969 as a warning to passengers about the space between the train door and the station platform. (source: claude.ai).

In the 2024 study, Morningstar found that the average fund return was 7.3%, while the average investor’s return was 6.3%, a 1% gap, but a 13% (7.3% to 6.3%) reduction in return. According to Morningstar, “the 1.1% “gap” is explained by the timing of investors’ purchases and sales of fund shares.” Morningstar drilled down further and found that certain types of funds had different gaps. Allocation funds, those that invest in a mix of assets, say, stocks and bonds, had the lowest gap, at 0.4%. Sector funds—think of a fund invested just in technology stocks—had the widest gap, at 2.6%.

Of the last ten years studied—each study has covered the previous ten years—2020 was the worst. Morningstar found that, “investors particularly struggled to navigate 2020’s turbulence, adding monies in late 2019 and early 2020, then withdrawing nearly half a trillion dollars as markets fell, only to miss a portion of the subsequent rally.”

Does this describe you?

We find that this illustration describes investor behavior well—and we understand it well.

It’s easy and feels good to invest when markets do well. We enjoy logging on to see rising account values, and the opposite is true. The easy thing to do when markets decline is to sell investments, to not look at updated account values.

But this may cost you. We think a better solution is to find a mix of investments (asset allocation) that is likely to help you reach your long-term goals and to periodically rebalance to that asset mix. Between rebalances, ignore the stories that produce fear or greed in you (noise.) We have an easy formula for this.

Click here to schedule a time to talk to us about this.

OneAscent Financial Services, LLC (“OAFS”), d/b/a Strategence Capital, is a registered investment adviser with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. OAFS does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, timeliness, suitability, completeness, or relevance of any information prepared by OAFS or any unaffiliated third party. OAFS is neither an attorney nor accountant, and no portion of the presented content should be interpreted as legal, accounting, or tax advice. All such information is provided solely for convenience purposes only and all users thereof should be guided accordingly.

The post Mind the Gap appeared first on Strategence Capital.