|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
What to Know Before You Invest Offshore

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 Vol. 8 No. 252 |
|
In Today's Letter: Comment: What to Know Before You Invest Offshore... Sovereignty: Defending the Common Anarchist Currencies: What's the Current Account Deficit Mean Anyway?
|
What to Know Before You Invest Offshore...
Today's comment is by Eric Roseman, Investment Director and editor of Global Mutual Fund Investor.
Dear A-Letter Reader,
Before you delve into the offshore investment world, your number one priority should be figuring out the tax situation. How will your investments be taxed and what investments, if any, should be avoided because of the harsh tax consequences in the United States?
It's amazing, but since 1992, I've heard numerous disaster stories about investors who actually made offshore investments immediately after opening a foreign bank account. They didn't bother to check out the tax consequences before investing. Then later, they were shocked when they were hit hard by punitive taxes.
And considering the tax consequences is even more important than it was 15 years ago. Since 1992, the United States has changed the way certain offshore investments are taxed.
The most onerous tax implication facing American investors is the QEF rule, or Qualified Elected Fund rule. Basically, a U.S. investor who purchases offshore mutual funds must now pay annual capital gains from that investment even if there was no distribution. Unlike the majority of U.S.-based mutual funds, which make year-end distributions, most offshore funds don't issue year-end per share capital gains, dividends, or interest income distributions. That means any investor holding an offshore fund must pay capital gains taxes every year, assuming he has gains, from a separate source of income. In my book, that's an onerous tax regime, making offshore mutual funds a bad investment for Americans.
However, Americans can defer offshore mutual fund taxes by investing in an offshore variable annuity or moving an IRA or Individual Retirement Account (IRA), offshore. This way, you get to defer taxes in the policy or account and hopefully, accrue some impressive long-term gains from some top-performing offshore funds. But outside of a tax-deferred solution, an investor should avoid offshore mutual funds because they are onerously taxed by the IRS.
International stocks are a different story altogether.
International investors also make the mistake of buying U.S.-listed ADRs (or foreign stocks traded as American Depositary Receipts (ADRs)) inside a retirement plan. Also, buying foreign-listed stocks from an offshore private bank will result in withholding of dividends. Both strategies, unfortunately, will result in losing that dividend tax credit - an IRA cannot recover that lost income held at source because an IRA can't file a tax return.
When a foreign company pays a dividend to a foreign investor, it withholds the tax you owe on that dividend in its home country. For example, let's say you own Britain's Barclays Bank ADR, partly because of its attractive dividend. Outside of a tax-deferred plan, an investor can claim a dividend tax credit or take a tax deduction, assuming the country withholding the income has a tax treaty with the United States. In this example, the United Kingdom does have a tax treaty with the United States. An investor will therefore recover that dividend as a credit or a tax deduction. But that's not the case with a tax-deferred plan, like an IRA. An investor using a tax-deferred plan should avoid investing in dividend-paying stocks with an IRA (even in an offshore IRA) because there's no way to recoup the tax.
If you choose to buy foreign stocks, either domestically or from a private bank abroad, then make sure you buy these securities in a taxable account so you can indeed reclaim the dividend withholding at source.
One way to ensure you don't buy a dividend-paying ADR in a retirement account is to check out a universe of ADRs online. The Bank of New York, the largest sponsor of ADRs in the United States, offers a mostly free source of per share information, including current dividend distributions.
Foreign bonds also pose a similar dilemma to retirement investors.
If you buy international bonds in an IRA or in any other tax-deferred account, interest income will be withheld. And because you cannot reclaim a credit in a retirement plan, you'll lose a portion of the income, a horrible consequence because interest-income is a big part of a bond's total return. But you can claim that withholding outside of a retirement plan.
Going global with a portion, or even all your investment portfolio, can yield some impressive long-term results. But make sure you fully understand the tax implications of investing in foreign securities before investing a penny either in the United States or overseas.
ERIC ROSEMAN, Investment Director On behalf of The Sovereign Society
|
|
|
|
See Options-Sized Gains Without Trading OptionsWe've just done it for gains of, 56%, 75% and 1,060%...
And we're doing it again...
A week ago, this investment would have cost you $5.8 million.
For the next 48 hours you can buy in for less than $150...
LINK: http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/CTA/ECTAGC05/
|
|
|
|
Defending the Common Anarchist
I just read that Iraq is threatening to fall into anarchy, and also that if Mussharef is assassinated that Pakistan could succumb to anarchy. It was suggested last week that Even the Church of England faces anarchy.
This would be great news, if only the true concept of anarchy were what was meant by those using the term.
The term 'anarchist' has been plagued by centuries of bad press. Back in the early 19th century, a few bomb-throwing revolutionaries usurped this wonderful word. Now, not a week goes by that George Bush or some other politician doesn't accuse terrorists of being anarchists. Wrong. Terrorists aren't anarchists--they're not demanding freedom from government-they want to become the government. Terrorists are micro-governments that want to become macro-governments.
Calling a terrorist an anarchist is a slur on anarchists. The correct definition and history of the word can be found in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"ANARCHISM, a social philosophy that rejects authoritarian government and maintains that voluntary institutions are best suited to express man's natural social tendencies. Historically, the word "anarchist" derives from the Greek an archos, meaning "no government."...Pierre Joseph Proudhon (What is Property?, Paris, 1840) described himself as an anarchist because he believed that political organization based on authority should be replaced by social and economic organization based on voluntary contractual agreement [emphasis added].
"[T]here is no necessary connection between anarchism, which is a social philosophy, and terrorism, which is a political means occasionally used by...actionists belonging to a wide variety of movements that have nothing in common with anarchism."
Anarchism is a philosophy of freedom. True anarchists believe that authoritarian government is the problem, and that voluntary cooperation is the answer.
Power corrupts, and that explains what's going on in Gaza, the decades of genocide in Darfur, the millions slaughtered by warlords in the Congo, in Rwanda, in China under Mao, and in Cambodia under Pol Pot. These places didn't suffer from anarchy, they suffered from the opposite: government.
Perhaps some of the confusion stems from the concept of government. What is a government? The word is derived from the Greek kybernan, which means "to steer." You and I can be governed by someone else, or we can govern ourselves. There can be an external 'sovereign,' or we can be sovereign individuals. Those who would control us and our property by force (including every petty thief, terrorist, and political party) are simply different manifestations of government... the complete antithesis to anarchism.
What a tragedy that "anarchism," a word that concisely describes individual sovereignty, has been co-opted by authoritarian governments to mean just the opposite. In the correct sense of the word, I'm an anarchist and proud of it. I don't want to govern you, nor do I want you to govern me. If you believe that you should have the sovereign authority over your own life and assets, and 'steer' your own future...then, surprise! You're an anarchist, too.
JOHN PUGSLEY, Chairman
|
|
|
|
What Does the Current Account Deficit Mean Anyway?
The U.S. reported another blowout current account deficit on Monday. (Or rather the U.S.'s total import of goods is greater than the total of its exports.) Depending on your perspective, the current account may imply many different things.
Here are two competing camps of thought that battle on the issue of current account deficits:
1) Structural decline crowd: They believe the seemingly ever-widening U.S. current account signals that the U.S. has lost control of its international fiscal position because of over-consumption, under-saving, and under-producing of "real goods" and capital. They think the U.S. has handed control of its future to others, because the U.S. has become completely dependent on the flow of capital from other nations to fund growth, which represents primarily consumption. In other words, the U.S. has eaten much of its seed- corn. At some point, the U.S. will have to rebuild its seed-stock if it wants to remain an economic power. And that will be a painful long-term process, if it can be done at all.
2) "It's no problem" crowd: They think the fact that U.S. is running a large current account deficits is a reflection of a vibrant economy that increasingly demands goods-lower priced goods more efficiently produced overseas-Ricardo rules!: In economics, the theory of comparative advantage, sometimes known as "Ricardo's Law", explains why it can be beneficial for two parties, countries, regions, individuals and so on, to trade, even though one of them may be able to produce every item more cheaply than the other. What matters is not the absolute cost of production, but rather the ratio between how easily the two countries can produce different goods (from Wikipedia).
In short, specialize in what you do best, and let others do the same. The U.S. is best at services, specially value added services such as research and development, entertainment, financial services, innovation, and entrepreneurship across the broad spectrum of knowledge-based industries. It is why capital flows briskly into the U.S., to gain access to this vibrant and creative economy and services much more stable for economic growth than manufacturing or agriculture. The current account deficit calculation is a reflection of old school thinking i.e. mercantilism. It doesn't properly account for the value services create.
There are likely many kernels of truth floating about in both camps. It is frankly well beyond my depth of economic theory, to build a strong theoretical rationale to support one of these views at the exclusion of the other. They created the Journal of Economics for stuff like that...LOL
I'd have to say, that most of the material foisted into the public square falls squarely into camp #1, the structural decline crowd. The argument seems easier to make, as doom and gloom sells faster than optimism in the financial world, it seems.
But as I said, camp #2 has some merit also... I'll let you make up your own mind this week.
JACK CROOKS, Currency Director
|
|
|
|
There's Only One Affordable Investment LeftIt's the world's second oldest asset class, and it's finally made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange. For generations it belonged only to the realm of Fortune 500 companies and professional traders. But now thanks to the launch of 7 ridiculously simple (yet revolutionary) new products you - for the first time - can get in on it for just $76...
Please click here for more information: http://www.isecureonline.com/reports/CRC/ECRCGC09
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|