Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.
Editor’s note: The Investment Q&A feature appears regularly in the Banking & Wealth Management special reports of The Central New York Business Journal, spotlighting area investment professionals and their views on the financial markets and investments. In this issue, Alan Leist provides his outlook. Alan R. Leist III, CFA, chief investment officer at Strategic Financial […]
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Editor’s note: The Investment Q&A feature appears regularly in the Banking & Wealth Management special reports of The Central New York Business Journal, spotlighting area investment professionals and their views on the financial markets and investments. In this issue, Alan Leist provides his outlook.
Alan R. Leist III, CFA, chief investment officer at Strategic Financial Services in Utica.
CNYBJ: What is your view on where the financial markets are headed in the coming months?
Leist: On my first day in the investment business, I received a particularly bad piece of unsolicited advice: “Always be bullish, no matter what!” This stance has always struck me as dangerous, a product of the Wall Street sales machine. I was reminded of that long-ago conversation at the start of this year when reading a popular survey of leading market strategists. All of these “experts” were calling for the market to be up again in 2014. I couldn’t help but laugh. Everyone was bullish.
The market may very well be up this year. We don’t know. Over the short-term, no one ever really knows for sure. At Strategic, we simply employ a disciplined, repeatable process to make sound decisions in protecting and advancing client capital over the long-term across market cycles. On occasion, we may even recognize that the bull deserves a short rest.
U.S. Stocks: With a weather-related pause in the domestic economic recovery, an escalation of geopolitical risk, and the Federal Reserve in transition mode, equity investors were patient to start the year and refused to chase stocks after 2013’s historic rally. Nevertheless, a familiar theme quickly returned. As soon as the market showed any sign of weakness, buyers stepped in to put a floor under U.S. stocks in the absence of attractive alternatives elsewhere. This pattern has been repeated consistently for the past several years, instilling an imprudent sense of complacency among investors.
Market sentiment and valuation tend to swing like a pendulum, occasionally moving to the outer edges, but rarely pausing in the middle. Five years after the final washout in 2009, the momentum remains on the side of the bulls in a low-interest rate world that supports ever-higher prices for stocks and other risk assets. However, the market has recently shown some signs of exhaustion, most notably in the type of speculative stocks that often emerge at tops. A reacceleration of economic growth is needed to drive corporate sales and to justify current valuations. As we wait for fundamentals to catch up to stock prices, the market likely will mark time within the recent range, occasionally retesting lows and flirting with new highs.
Bonds: A sell-off in the bond market was all but guaranteed at the start of 2014. As is often the case, however, the market moved against popular opinion. A rally ensued as the economy showed some signs of weakness and the Russian-Ukraine conflict drove investors toward safety. Yes, fixed-income investing will be a challenge for the next few years, but bonds are the ballast in a well-diversified portfolio, allowing for prudent risk to be taken elsewhere. A high quality, laddered, relatively short-duration strategy will help protect investor capital until better values emerge in other segments of the capital market and interest rates inch closer to levels that are more normal.
CNYBJ: Provide specific recommendations for investments that clients should be making right now.
Leist: At Strategic, we have been net sellers of small and mid-cap stocks in recent months despite the persistent calls of the bulls. Client portfolios have been rebalanced back to targets in domestic equities in order to capitalize on better values elsewhere in the market. Sales proceeds were directed toward international stocks, including emerging markets, commodities, and even cash. A note on emerging markets: valuation and demographic trends support attractive longer-term returns. Investors should expect bouts of near-term volatility that present an opportunity for entry at favorable levels.
CNYBJ: What do you see as the greatest risks investors need to be aware of and seek to avoid in the coming months?
Leist: A disorganized unraveling of Federal Reserve policy, corporate-margin compression and a still fragile global recovery remain among the key risks for 2014. Until there is a pick-up in the pace of top-line growth, segments of the market appear to be fully valued, if not outright pricey, at current levels. With valuation no longer a cushion, we are due for a healthy correction that tests the conviction of investors and sets the stage for the next leg higher in the bull market.
Acting as an offset to dysfunctional policy making in Washington, the Federal Reserve’s monetary stimulus program has distorted asset prices across the entire investment spectrum. Investors must resist the temptation to reach for returns. Protecting capital is the first rule of successful investing. Insist on quality with a margin of safety in every investment decision.
First Niagara CFO: No current plans to consolidate more branches
Following first-quarter earnings that were reduced by charges related to recent branch closures, First Niagara Financial Group’s chief financial officer, tells The Business Journal News Network, the banking company is not planning to close any more branches at this time. “We don’t have any current plans to consolidate more branches,” Gregory W. Norwood, CFO, says
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Following first-quarter earnings that were reduced by charges related to recent branch closures, First Niagara Financial Group’s chief financial officer, tells The Business Journal News Network, the banking company is not planning to close any more branches at this time.
“We don’t have any current plans to consolidate more branches,” Gregory W. Norwood, CFO, says in an interview.
First Niagara (NASDAQ: FNFG) on April 24 reported that its first-quarter net income declined 13 percent from the year-ago period, amid restructuring costs to close branch offices.
The Buffalo–based parent company of First Niagara Bank N.A. generated net income available to common shareholders of $51.9 million, or 15 cents a share, in the first quarter, which included $8.3 million in after-tax restructuring and severance expenses related to branch closures and staffing moves.
That’s down from $59.7 million, or 17 cents, in the first quarter of 2013, which included $4.3 million in after-tax charges related to executive departures.
Excluding restructuring charges, First Niagara produced operating earnings of 17 cents a share in this year’s first quarter, which was in line with analysts’ consensus estimates, according to Yahoo Finance data, citing the estimates of 12 stock analysts.
First Niagara, the fourth largest bank in the 16 county Central New York market ranked by deposit market share, closed 10 branches companywide in the first quarter. They included two Southern Tier offices — one each in Owego and Conklin. First Niagara also shuttered five branches in Pennsylvania and three in Western New York. The moves came in response to customers’ increased use of its online, mobile, and telephone-banking options, the banking company says.
In all, First Niagara has consolidated 70 branches since 2011, according to a document it presented to investors on April 24.
“What customers want to do in branches is changing. We will continue to look at the physical footprint [of the branch network] as well as what people want in branches,” Norwood says.
First Niagara said in its earnings report that the first quarter was highlighted by continued balance-sheet growth, steady credit quality, and stable core net interest margin.
Average loans increased 8 percent annualized compared to the prior quarter. Average commercial business and real-estate loans rose 9 percent annualized over the previous earnings period.
First Niagara generated “really strong loan production, maybe stronger than even I anticipated,” Norwood says. “And it’s what I would say is high-quality loan growth.”
Norwood notes that the bank didn’t depend on making large loans to generate its growth.
The largest loan First Niagara made in the quarter was only $12 million, he says, adding that the average loan was probably “high single digits” in millions of dollars.
When asked how well the banking company’s Central New York operation is performing, Norwood says, “We still have a significant presence in that market — 700 to 800 employees. The entire Upstate market has performed very well for us, [producing] high single-digit [percentage] revenue growth.”
First Niagara issued its earnings report before the open of trading on April 24. In the three trading days that followed, its stock price fell by 3.4 percent from $9.25 to $8.94, as of the close on April 28. Year to date, the stock was down almost 16 percent.
Going forward, analysts are expecting First Niagara to generate earnings per share of 18 cents on revenue of about $360 million in the second quarter, ending June 30, according to Yahoo Finance data.
First Niagara says it’s a multi-state community-oriented bank with 411 branches, $38 billion in assets, $28 billion in deposits, and about 5,800 employees serving New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
Contact Rombel at arombel@cnybj.com
Tompkins Financial profit rises 9 percent in first quarter
ITHACA — Tompkins Financial Corp. (ticker symbol: TMP) reported that its net income rose more than 9 percent to $12.6 million in the first quarter from $11.5 million in the year-ago quarter. The Ithaca–based banking company’s earnings per share rose over 6 percent to 84 cents in the first quarter from 79 cents a year
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
ITHACA — Tompkins Financial Corp. (ticker symbol: TMP) reported that its net income rose more than 9 percent to $12.6 million in the first quarter from $11.5 million in the year-ago quarter.
The Ithaca–based banking company’s earnings per share rose over 6 percent to 84 cents in the first quarter from 79 cents a year earlier.
“We are pleased to start 2014 with the strongest first quarter in our history,” Tompkins Financial president and CEO Stephen S. Romaine said in the earnings report. “In addition to earnings per share growth over the first quarter of 2013, loan and deposit levels increased from the same period last year, and from the most recent prior quarter. At the same time we saw continued improvement in nearly all credit quality indicators.”
Tompkins Financial’s net interest income increased almost 5 percent to $40 million in the first quarter from the same period last year.
The net interest margin for the first quarter of 2014 was 3.6 percent compared to 3.57 percent in the first quarter of 2013.
Noninterest income at Tompkins Financial was nearly unchanged at $17.43 million in this year’s first quarter, compared to $17.39 million a year earlier.
Credit quality improved in the latest quarter with non-performing assets representing 0.81 percent of total assets, the lowest this percentage has been over the past five years, the banking company said.
Tompkins Financial took a provision for loan and lease losses of $743,000 in the first quarter of 2014, down 28 percent from $1,038,000 in the first quarter of 2013.
Net loan and lease charge-offs totaled $699,000 in the first quarter of 2014, down from $1 million a year prior.
Tompkins Financial’s total loans of $3.2 billion as of the end of this year’s first quarter were up 7 percent over the same period in 2013, and increased an annualized 1.3 percent over year-end 2013.
The company also declared a quarterly dividend of 40 cents per share, payable on May 15 to shareholders of record on May 5.
Tompkins Financial is a financial-services firm serving the Central, Western, and Hudson Valley regions of New York and the Southeastern region of Pennsylvania. It is parent to Tompkins Trust Company, The Bank of Castile, Mahopac Bank, VIST Bank, Tompkins Insurance Agencies, Inc., and Tompkins Financial Advisors, which offers wealth-management services.
Contact Rombel at arombel@cnybj.com
NY Estate Tax Update Creates Estate Planning Challenges
Legislation that went into effect on April 1 makes broad changes to New York’s estate and gift tax laws, as well as certain trust-income tax rules. Although these estate-tax changes were intended to make New York a less expensive state in which to die, they could have a significant impact on some estate plans currently
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
Legislation that went into effect on April 1 makes broad changes to New York’s estate and gift tax laws, as well as certain trust-income tax rules.
Although these estate-tax changes were intended to make New York a less expensive state in which to die, they could have a significant impact on some estate plans currently in place and necessitate a re-evaluation of those plans for individuals seeking to minimize the impact of taxes on their death.
A number of features of this legislation will directly affect the “cost of dying” in New York:
– Estate-tax exclusion increases
– The estate-tax “cliff”
– Gift add-back
Before the new law was passed, people in New York whose estates were valued at $1 million or less were exempt from estate taxes. The problem is that $1 million isn’t what it used to be and over the years we have seen an increase in the number of estates that meet or exceed that $1 million threshold. That threshold triggered a taxable event even though the estate was still too small to trigger federal taxes.
In a nutshell, the exemption from the state’s estate tax increases from $2,062,500 in assets in 2014 to $5,250,000 by 2017. Beginning in 2019, the New York exemption amount is expected to equal the federal estate-tax exemption.
The goal of the state legislation was to level the playing field between New York, with its high tax structure and very low estate-tax exclusion, and other states. That goal was only partially achieved, as the law kept the top tax rate — 16 percent — intact. Gov. Andrew Cuomo had sought to lower the top rate to 10 percent.
The increasing exemption amount will benefit many affluent New Yorkers, but will have little impact on the state’s wealthiest people — who still could save millions of dollars by moving out of state. For those wealthiest people, it is the top rate that matters most, not the exemption.
In addition to the top tax rate, the new legislation also includes an “estate tax cliff” if an estate exceeds the exemption by more than 5 percent. That means if a resident who dies has a taxable estate that exceeds the basic exempted amount by more than 5 percent, the entire estate will be to be subject to New York estate tax.
The legislation also includes provisions dealing with gifts. These provisions could be tricky to navigate because they require gifts made within three years of death to be added back into the value of the estate, increasing the amount of the estate tax owed.
As a way to keep individuals from simply giving away assets on their deathbed to avoid taxes, New York included a three-year, look-back window on gifts. Simply, if a person dies within three years of making a gift, the amount of the gift is added back to the estate. The calculation involved does not affect the federal tax, but could lead to a higher state tax bill.
This gift-giving add-back also seems to include out-of-state property, such as a vacation home in Florida or North Carolina. If that property is given away within three years of a person’s death, it appears to be added into the value of the estate and taxed even though it is in another state.
Authors’ note: This article seeks to provide general information only and is not intended to provide specific investment, legal, tax, or accounting advice for any individual.
Richard J. Marsh, Jr. is group vice president, upstate New York market leader for Wilmington Trust, N.A. a unit of M&T Bank Corp. Based in Syracuse, he manages Wilmington Trust’s Upstate Region. Sharon L. Klein is managing director of family office services and wealth strategies at Wilmington Trust and chair of the Trusts, Estates and Surrogate’s Court Committee of the New York City Bar Association.
We fought the war on poverty, and poverty won — Peter Ferrara It’s now 50 years since President Lyndon Johnson proposed his war on poverty. To date, the nation has spent $20 trillion to solve the problem, twice the amount spent on all military conflicts since the American Revolution. During this past half century, federal
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
We fought the war on poverty, and poverty won — Peter Ferrara
It’s now 50 years since President Lyndon Johnson proposed his war on poverty. To date, the nation has spent $20 trillion to solve the problem, twice the amount spent on all military conflicts since the American Revolution. During this past half century, federal spending in constant dollars on major means-tested programs exploded from $516 per-person, per-year to more than $13,000 per-person. Currently, the U.S. government spends more annually on anti-poverty programs than it spends on national defense, Social Security, or Medicare.
So how effective has the war on poverty been? When President Johnson launched his campaign, the U.S. poverty rate stood at 15 percent. In 2012, the last year for which we have figures, the rate was about the same. No wonder Peter Ferrara, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, says we’ve lost the war on poverty.
But does anyone ask why?
Two things are clear. First, people who live at poverty levels don’t work. In 1960, nearly two-thirds of households in the bottom quintile were headed by people who worked. Three decades later, the number working had dropped to one-third and only 11 percent worked full-time, year-round. If we contrast the top 20 percent of earners with the bottom 20 percent, the Census Bureau says there are six times as many people working full time in the top quintile. If those in the lowest quintile worked full time, 75 percent of the poor children would no longer be classified as living in poverty.
Conclusion: Today’s welfare system pays people not to work. Statistics from the seven-year Seattle/Denver Income Maintenance Experiment confirms that generous welfare benefits reduce labor earnings by 80 cents on the dollar. On top of that, anyone desiring to forgo government largesse loses 50 cents worth of subsidies for every dollar earned. Add Social Security tax, a modest 10 percent federal income tax, and another 5 percent state income tax, and voila, the effective marginal tax rate is more than 70 percent. Now there’s an incentive to get off welfare.
Second, out-of-wedlock births to single mothers promote poverty. The poverty rate for households headed by females with children is 44.5 percent compared to 7.8 percent for married couples with children. The poverty rate for black American families who are married is 11.4 percent; the rate for households headed by black females is 53.9 percent.
If poor women who give birth outside of marriage married the fathers of their children, two-thirds of the families would be lifted out of poverty. The numbers are even more dramatic for those trapped in long-term poverty: 80 percent of all long-term poverty occurs in single-parent homes. Today, most welfare benefits are restricted to families with children, thus encouraging single women to pursue generous government benefits. Or put another way, our government policy pays women to have children out of marriage and discourages family unity.
We did address the problem back in the 1990s, when Washington reformed the New–Deal, Aid-to-Dependent-Families-with-Children program and renamed it Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to reform was eliminating the matching program of grants and replacing them with finite grants to the state. Each state redesigned the program, requiring able-bodied recipients to work. The success of TANF was both quick and dramatic. Low-income families formerly on welfare increased their income by 25 percent. The percentage of families living at just half the poverty level plummeted 35 percent. Poverty among female-headed households declined by one-third. Not only did poverty decline, but the taxpayers also saved 50 percent of the program cost. That’s how you define success.
But TANF was just one program. Today, Uncle Sam sponsors nearly 200 means-tested welfare programs projected to cost more than $10 trillion in the decade that began in 2009. America is smart enough to redesign our current welfare system to put people back to work and to encourage marriage. We really could win the war on poverty if we could overcome the ideology that the best way to create jobs is to redistribute workers’ money and if we promote marriage.
After spending 50 years and $20 trillion trying to eradicate poverty, it’s time America casts the politics of envy overboard and replaces it with the politics of plenty for all. The keys are work and family.
Norman Poltenson is a regional staff writer with The Business Journal News Network. Contact him at npoltenson@cnybj.com
Amid high auto-insurance rates in NY, higher fraud penalties could help
New York state (NYS) has the unfortunate distinction of being a high cost-of-living state, and when it comes to auto insurance, New York lives up to its reputation. Our auto-insurance rates are among the highest in the nation. Although there are several reasons for our high rates, fraud plays a large part. Indeed, according to
Become a Central New York Business Journal subscriber and get immediate access to all of our subscriber-only content and much more.
Click here to purchase a paywall bypass link for this article.
New York state (NYS) has the unfortunate distinction of being a high cost-of-living state, and when it comes to auto insurance, New York lives up to its reputation. Our auto-insurance rates are among the highest in the nation. Although there are several reasons for our high rates, fraud plays a large part. Indeed, according to estimates from the NYS Department of Financial Services, the agency that oversees insurance in our state, as many as 36 percent of all auto-insurance claims in New York contain some element of fraud. That leads to higher insurance premiums for everyone.
New York state requires that motorists carry a minimum amount of auto insurance that covers bodily injury and property damage and provides for no-fault coverage. Because this insurance is mandatory, I believe that the state has a special interest in ensuring NYS motorists’ insurance rates accurately reflect an insurance company’s underlying costs.
When fraud is added to the formula, however, it perverts this calculation and creates higher insurance costs for all motorists. According to the Insurance Information Institute, no-fault fraud and abuse in New York state cost consumers and insurers about $229 million in 2009. The institute further reports that when this extra cost of fraud is calculated on a per-claim basis, it adds $1,644 per claim, or 22.4 percent of the cost.
According to the NYS Department of Financial Services, no-fault insurance fraud takes many forms. Fraud occurs when: (a) a driver and a body-shop worker agree to inflate the auto-damage claim and share the “profit;” (b) a doctor bills an insurer for services that were not provided; or (c) a driver stages a fake accident, and unscrupulous doctors and lawyers help “handle” associated medical claims and lawsuits.
To combat this fraud and, hopefully as a result, reduce auto-insurance premiums for policyholders, I have introduced the New York Automobile Insurance Fraud and Premium Reduction Act.
This legislation provides a comprehensive solution to no-fault auto fraud by addressing the issue from all sides. While there are many facets of this legislation, four of the legislation’s major provisions are as follows.
First, in effort to combat fictitious or unnecessary medical treatment usually emanating from a staged accident, my legislation would direct the establishment of medical guidelines to be employed in the evaluation and treatment of injuries sustained in any auto accident. It also requires pre-certification for certain treatments and equipment to curb fraudulent over-utilization of medical treatments.
Second, the legislation creates a monetary incentive of between 15 percent and 25 percent of an amount recovered (up to $25,000) for persons who report suspected insurance fraud to law-enforcement authorities.
Third, to make people think twice before committing no-fault fraud, my legislation expands the definition of insurance fraud and increases penalties for insurance-fraud violations.
Finally, to ensure that whatever reduced costs that insurers receive as a result of the enactment of this legislation are passed on to the policyholders, my legislation requires the state superintendent of insurance recommend an appropriate one-time, no-fault premium reduction for every insurer, by rating territory, equivalent to the insurers’ cost savings. This recommendation would be binding on insurers unless the insurer can show that such a reduction would result in an underwriting loss.
Recently, I participated in an Assembly Insurance Committee hearing in Albany regarding auto insurance in New York. Many who testified at the hearing, including those from the insurance industry and representatives from consumer groups, complained about the high costs of auto insurance. It is my hope that they will get on board with my legislation and together we can work to get it passed so that New Yorkers can at last begin to see a decrease in their auto-insurance premiums.
William (Will) A. Barclay is the Republican representative of the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses most of Oswego County, including the cities of Oswego and Fulton, as well as the town of Lysander in Onondaga County and town of Ellisburg in Jefferson County. Contact him at barclaw@assembly.state.ny.us, or (315) 598-5185.
ICS Solutions Group has hired a new chief operations officer, Robert LaFave. He comes with more than 12 years of customer service and sales experience
Hezel Associates, LLC, has hired Christina Robles as a research assistant. Robles is involved in nearly every aspect of the project-management process. She has substantial
Michele Reid has joined the staff of Gateway Properties of Upstate New York, Inc. as a real-estate agent. She also has a background in finance. Gateway
Terry Zarnowski has joined Unimar, Inc. as director of marketing and business development. He is an RIT graduate, electrical engineer, holds a number of patents,
Stay up-to-date on the companies, people and issues that impact businesses in Syracuse, Central New York and beyond.