Breakthrough Drugs, Statistics, and Anecdotes: Three Things Every Individual Investor Needs to Know – Part 1 of 3

11 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, Education, financial advice, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services industry, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, math, personal finance, portfolio, S&P 500, S&P 500 Index, statistics, time series, time series data

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

asset allocation, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, noise, statistics, time series, time series data

Although the title might appear to be random at first glance, I promise that there is an underlying theme. This article is the first in a three-part series that will discuss how individual investors are bombarded with information about what happens in the financial market. Most of the time you might hear that, 5 out of the last 7 times “x” happened, the S&P 500 index went up by 10% or more. I will argue that most of these types of comments might be useful trivia for the television show, Jeopardy; however, they should not impact your long-term investment plan.

So, why did I use breakthrough drugs? Prior to any drug coming to the marketplace, the FDA does a very thorough review of the test results to ensure that the drug is safe and also its efficacy is not overstated. What if I told you that a pharmaceutical firm came up with a possible cure for lung cancer, and there were successful trials of 10 individuals. Does that sound like a group too small to draw any conclusions? Would you take a drug that the testing was only done on a handful of people? Now the FDA would never allow such a thing, and there are tons of protocols and blind or double-blind randomized testing of many individuals. It just sounds weird if only 10 people were tested, and there was also no control group (i.e. a separate group given a placebo).

While the drug example seems a bit outrageous and contrived, I bet you can think of similar examples in the daily financial press (e.g. financial television or print media). Whenever you hear a small number of events happening that “tend to” lead to certain financial market outcomes, you should be extremely wary. For instance, I just heard today that, after the Singles Day huge ecommerce sale by Alibaba, the stock (Ticker Symbol: BABA) is up 80% of the time over the course of the next two weeks. Well, when did Alibaba start Singles Day? The first Singles Day sale was in 2009. Therefore, we have 10 data points to work with (2009 to 2018). Given the information I referred to above, the comment made today simply says that the stock has been up after two weeks 8 out of the last 10 years. Now I will try to hold in my red flags and bit of ludicrous thoughts, this type of information is not informative at all. There are just too few observations to draw any sort of valid conclusion.

Here is the plan of attack for the next two articles. The second part of this discussion will focus on statistics. Yes, I know this topic is not too much fun and can get complicated very quickly. However, individual investors need to know a bit about statistics to recognize when a quantitative quote is totally useless. We will not get too granular though, I promise. Essentially most financial market data is time series data. Different rules apply in that case, and these rules are broken all the time by even the most sophisticated professional investors and commentators. The third part of this discussion will be an in-depth examination of an actual event that grounds my argument in recent events. I will examine what is called the inversion of the yield curve and how it normally portends a recession for the U.S. economy. Don’t worry; I am going to explain those terms when the third part of this series rolls around.

Please join me in a critical review of all the financial market and economic data you get bombarded with. So much of it is just “noise” or simply interesting trivia at best. Note that the interesting trivia cannot guide or inform your particular asset allocation of investments. As always, if you have questions along the way, please feel free to comment on this or any other article.

Individual Investors Should Treat Obtaining Financial Advice Like Buying a New Car

29 Tuesday Oct 2019

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, behavioral finance, Consumer Finance, financial advice, financial advisor fees, financial advisory fees, financial goals, financial markets, financial planning, financial planning books, financial services industry, Income Taxes, Individual Investing, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investment advisory fees, investments, personal finance, reasonable fees, reasonable fees for financial advisor, reasonable fees for investment advice, reasonable financial advisor fees, risk tolerance, stock market, Stock Market Returns, stock prices

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

asset allocation, behavioral finance, financial advice, Financial Advisors, financial goals, financial markets, financial planning, financial services, investing, investing advice, investing fees, investment advice, investment fees, performance, portfolio

I had a long conversation with a friend and business associate about how I think individual investors approach obtaining financial advice. We went back and forth for almost 30 minutes. However, I found myself stumbling upon the analogy of purchasing a new vehicle. This analogy encapsulates how individual investors might want to think about building their investment portfolios, setting financial goals and how to obtain them, establishing their risk tolerance, and addressing any special situations that might pertain to their specific situation (e.g. caring for an elderly parent in their house). I should state at the outset that, if you have more than $1 million in investable assets (i.e. an accredited investor), the size of your portfolio demands special attention. If you have not amassed $1 million, please read on to the rest of this article.

First, I would like to lay out the typical new vehicle purchase scenario and then turn to its applicability in the case of financial advice. Most people start off the process by doing a good deal of research on the available options. After considering his/her situation, the individual will go to the vehicle dealership. For the purposes of this particular example, let’s suppose that the vehicle dealership offers a number of different car manufacturers as options and then the various models associated with them. Luckily today, there is a lot less haggling (well at least upfront in the process) and the vehicles’ prices are normally right around the MSRP. However, you as a consumer need to select the car make and also the specific model.

Usually a salesperson will assist you with the process. Even though you can do a lot of homework prior to picking out a new vehicle, it still does not fully capture actually looking at the vehicle. Of course, you also need to sit in it and take a test drive. The salesperson is able to translate what your needs are to try to select the best option. For example, do you need to transport the kids to basketball practice? What if you take turns carpooling and pick up an extra 3-6 kids? How big should your SUV be? What if you drive a lot of highway miles and a lease option may not work for you? Do you like to have a decent amount of horsepower to be able to merge onto highway traffic? What about the manufacturer’s warranty? Does the dealership service the vehicles onsite? What about financing options (i.e. buy or lease)? The list of questions could go on and on.

Given the entire list of questions you might ask, the salesperson is an integral part of the vehicle buying, or leasing, process. After the salesperson has finally answered all of your questions, let’s say you decide on a price, the financing options, and the color/options/model. If you make the purchase, the salesperson will earn a commission. Once you leave the dealership’s parking lot, you are then responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle. Fingers crossed, you should only need to take car of oil changes and normal maintenance (e.g. changing the air filter, flushing the transmission fluid, etc.). What would you do if the salesperson came over to your house and wanted to check if you were still pleased with the vehicle you selected in the second year? Does it fit your needs and perform as expected? Wow, that experience would be one of pretty good customer services. But now, the salesperson’s next utterance is that you own him/her $500. What? Well, he/she responds that he/she helped you out and things are going according to plan. My guess is that you would be dumbfounded and refuse to pay another commission to the salesperson in year two of ownership.

What in the world does this have to do with financial advice? I would argue that the analogy fits quite well with the normal way financial advice is given to individual investors. When you first sit down with a Financial Planner, Financial Advisor, or Registered Investment Advisor, he or she really walks through your entire life situation. Additionally, that person will assess your tolerance for risk which is not always as easy as it sounds. Usually most financial professionals will include questions that relate to your behavior under certain instances of financial market conditions. So, you cannot simply ask only objective yes/no questions. Other big thing that may come up are any insurance, tax planning, or estate planning needs that you have. Another significant area is trying to find out if you might have any special circumstances. The caring of an elderly parent was provided above. But there are myriad other situations that might require special planning considerations unique to your family.

The vast majority of financial professionals no longer charge commissions. Rather, they will charge a fee based upon the total asset in your portfolio of stocks, bonds, other assets, and cash. The financial services industry calls this an AUM (assets under management) fee in the jargon, and a very typical fee that one will see is 1%. What does that mean? Well, to use round numbers, let’s say you have $1 million dollars in your account of financial assets. You would then pay a fee of $10,000 ($1 million * 1%). To be technical though, the fee is normally prorated over four quarters throughout the year and not in one lump sum. Given all the assistance that I listed in the previous paragraph, there is no doubt that the financial professional earns his or his AUM fee. But what happens when year two of your financial relationship begins?

For illustrative purposes, I am going to assume that your life situation does not change at all. In the first year of your relationship with the financial professional, he or she is likely to have prepared an asset allocation for at least the next five years. One would expect a long-term investing plan. Of course, he or she may recommend that based, upon the price movement in the financial markets, you should reallocate your investments to either the same target allocation in year one or slightly different percentages. He or she may even recommend that you sell a particular investment and replace it with what he or she deems to be a better performing investment vehicle for the future. Well, to keep using round numbers, if your investment portfolio stays constant, you would pay another $10,000 (again $1 million * 1%).

The year two situation is akin to car maintenance in year two of your ownership of that vehicle from my car vehicle purchase analogy. Now, if you blew a head gasket in your car’s engine, you would want to take the vehicle back to the dealership or go to a trusted mechanic. The latter represents a major change in your life situation, financial goals, income tax ramifications, and other major events. Otherwise, we have a situation where you are paying the car salesperson another commission in year two. Now my analogy may not be entirely “apples to apples” (as my business associate said during our discussion). However, it is close enough to get to the point that I am trying to make in terms of financial advice. You need to be very cautious with how much money you pay in expenses for financial advice. Why? It really eats into the investment performance returns you will realize. I am all for paying for financial advice when there is a complicated situation, but, if nothing of import changes, it can be hard to justify.

So, what can you do if my analogy resonates with you? Well, there are two options that I will provide. However, there are other avenues to proceed down. I will discuss each in turn.

First, you can select a financial professional that charges a fee-only amount or one that charges by the hour. The fee-only financial professional will charge you a set amount per year for financial advice, and, in almost all cases, it is significantly lower than the $10,000 in our example. The hourly financial professional is just as it sounds. In the second year, you might require 10 hours of financial advice throughout the year, some of which might include just coaching you through the inevitable volatility in financial markets. Depending on the area that you reside in, you can expect to pay anywhere between $250 to $500 per hour. Using the 10-hour amount, you would be paying anywhere from $2,500 ($250 * 10 hours) and $5,000 ($500 * 10 hours). Using either type of financial professional with a different fee structure will lower your overall investment fees. Note that the quality of financial advice usually does not decrease in most cases. And yes, there are certain cases where the quality will increase markedly.

Second, you can use an external investment account at the beginning of your relationship with a financial professional that charges a percentage of assets under management (AUM). What does this mean? The vast majority of asset managers are large and sophisticated enough to handle this arrangement at the outset. For example, you would establish an investment account where your financial professional is located. Next, you would establish an investment account with another brokerage firm and allow your financial professional to have access to the investment portfolio you maintain. Note that the access is only for purposes of preparing reports for you and not to execute actual trades of stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or any other financial asset. For instance, you might keep 50% with the financial professional’s firm and another 50% in the external account. You would just maintain the portfolio allocation that your financial professional would like you to have in the external account. In order to ensure that you do not deviate from his or her investment recommendations, your monthly or quarterly investment performance reports would lump together the assets at the financial professional’s firm and your external account.

In regard to the second option, just because asset managers can easily do this reporting for you, does not mean that they will not push back. Some asset managers and financial professionals get even confrontational. It is understandable since the more assets you maintain at their firm the larger the investment advice fee. But this response can be very informative for you. If your financial professional does not handle your request of this potential option diplomatically, this may be a cue to seek financial advice elsewhere.

So, have I successfully convinced you that buying investment advice is just like buying or leasing a new vehicle? My guess would be that you think the analogy is not a perfect one. I will readily admit that it is not and really is not meant to be. Rather, I wanted to get you thinking about the financial advice you receive and investment fees from another viewpoint. Investment fees have an outsized effect on the returns that you will experience over time.

Their impact is even greater if you take into account the “opportunity cost” of investment fees. However, that is another topic entirely that I will not delve into. If you would like more information on the idea of “opportunity cost” and investment fees, you can refer to a previous article that I wrote. Here is the link:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2014/02/26/what-is-the-800-pound-gorilla-in-the-room-for-retirees-it-is-12-5/

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Summary

30 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, behavioral finance, correlation, correlation coefficient, Dot Com Bubble, Emotional Intelligence, EQ, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial goals, financial markets, financial planning, financial services industry, historical returns, Individual Investing, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, market timing, math, personal finance, portfolio, risk, risk tolerance, risks of stocks, S&P 500, S&P 500 historical returns, S&P 500 Index, standard deviation, statistics, Stock Market Returns, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

asset allocation, behavioral finance, education, finance, historical stock returns, investing, investments, math, mathematics, performance, performance monitoring, portfolio, portfolio management, S&P 500, S&P 500 historical returns, S&P 500 Index, statistics, stock returns, stocks, success, successful long term investing, trading, uncertainty

The discussion of how to become a successful long-term investor in my three-part series is now finished. However, the journey is an ongoing one that takes discipline, constant learning, and monitoring your emotional reactions to fluctuations in the financial markets. I discussed the history of stock market returns of the S&P 500 Index (dividends reinvested) from 1957-2018, the concept of risk, and also the futility of trying to engage in “market timing”. But you may be asking yourself, why didn’t you tell me what stocks, bonds, and other assets to buy to build my investment portfolio? That is a valid question, and there is an extremely important reason why that gets at the very heart of my overall discussion.

The best way to answer the question posed above is with an analogy. Now my international readers will have to indulge me with this example. My favorite sport is football which is the most popular sport in the world. Most people in the United States refer to it as soccer and only watch if the men’s or women’s teams are competing in the World Cup. I could tell you all about the reasons why football clubs rarely use a 4-4-2 formation. Or I could talk about how the 4-2-3-1 formation has evolved in the Bundesliga. We also could discuss why goalies now need to be good with their feet in order to pass from the backline. Finally, I might even be more specific and give my rationale for why Liverpool in the Premier League uses a 4-4-3 formation given their current squad for the 2019-2020 season.

My analogy above relates to long-term investing because I would argue that you should not invest a single dollar in the stock or bond markets without knowing about the history of returns, risks and volatility, and “market timing”. Most Financial Advisors (FAs), Certified Financial Planners (CFPs), and Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) jump right into the discussion of how to build an investment portfolio taking into account your financial goals and risk tolerance. This conversation is directly related to the football analogy above. Without a firm understanding of investing at a high level (or the general way football is played first), you are likely to fail in your resolve to stick with a long-term focus while investing. For example, when you are asked if you can tolerate a 20% decline in the stock market, how should you answer? I would say that, if you do not have some grasp of historical returns and the level of risk, you cannot properly answer. Remember that we covered how often you will experience negative returns (including 20% declines) in the first article. You need to understand the “composition of the forest before deciding how to deal with the trees”.

Here are the links to the three articles to have an understanding of first prior to jumping into the mix of long-term investing strategy and building an actual portfolio of investments.

Part 1 – Understanding Historical Stock Market Returns:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2019/09/23/successful-long-term-investing/

Part 2 – Understanding and Managing Risk:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2019/09/25/successful-long-term-investor-risk/

Part 3 – Giving up on the Allure of “Market Timing”:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2019/09/28/successful-long-term-investing-market-timing/

Once you have a firm grasp on these topics, you are ready to get your feet wet in the world of investing.

For those of you wanting a little bit of guidance because your intention is the manage your investments personally, I have written about this topic in the past. I wrote a two-part series on how to build an investment portfolio and monitor the performance returns of that investment portfolio. I have included the links below:

Part 1 – Building an Investment Portfolio:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/07/16/how-to-create-an-investment-portfolio-and-properly-measure-your-performance-part-1-of-2/

Part 2 – Monitoring the Performance of an Investment Portfolio:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/07/19/how-to-create-an-investment-portfolio-and-properly-measure-your-performance-part-2-of-2/

Those two articles above will provide you with some ways to go about creating your own investment portfolio without the assistance of a financial professional. While it does contain a lot of information and suggestions, individual investors who are complete novices may find it easier and less confusing to seek out someone to guide them with investment selection, measuring risk tolerance, and understanding the goals of their financial plan.

In summary, I appreciate you taking the time to read my thoughts in regard to successful long-term investing. As you can see successful investing has more to do with preparation, setting realistic expectations, and knowing how you personally respond to risk. These topics need to be studied prior to investing money yourself or before going to seek out investment advice from a financial professional. If you have any questions, comments, feedback, or disagreements, you can feel free to let me know.

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Part 3 of 3 – The Folly of Market Timing

28 Saturday Sep 2019

Posted by wmosconi in Alan Greenspan, asset allocation, Average Returns, behavioral finance, bubbles, correlation, correlation coefficient, Dot Com Bubble, finance, finance theory, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, Greenspan, historical returns, Individual Investing, individual investors, Internet Bubble, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, Irrational Exuberance, market timing, math, personal finance, portfolio, risk tolerance, risks of stocks, S&P 500, S&P 500 historical returns, S&P 500 Index, statistics, stock market, Stock Market Returns, Stock Market Valuation, stock prices, stocks, Valuation, volatility

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

asset allocation, behavioral finance, bubbles, correlation, correlation coefficient, finance, invest, investing, investing blogs, investing strategies, investing tips, investment advice, investments, long term investing, long-term investor, market timing, math, mathematics, portfolio, statistics, stocks, successful investor, trading, uncertainty, volatility

This article is the third and final post in my three-part series on learning how to be a successful long-term investor. The general theme underlying all of the topics has been developing enough of an understanding of the stock market gyrations and sometimes wild ride to form reasonable expectations at the outset. Those expectations lead directly into to developing a long-term investment strategy and plan that you are much more likely to stick with through “thick and thin” because you know what is coming. Of course, you will not know the order in which the ups and downs may come, but you will have a ton of information helpful to be much less likely to lose your nerve or get overly excited.

The last topic will be about “market timing”. We will delve deeply into the concept and see how very difficult it has been in the past, and, I believe, will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Now the discussion to follow will be entirely self-contained; however, it might be helpful to take a look at the first two articles to have additional context. The opening topic was an overview of the history of stock market returns using the S&P 500 Index (dividends reinvested). Here is a link to that post:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2019/09/23/successful-long-term-investing/

The second topic was a discussion about the concept of risk. We explored how it is normally defined, ways that you can gauge your tolerance for risk given the information from the first post, and explored some methods/mindsets to reduce risk in your investment portfolio. Here is a link to that post:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2019/09/25/successful-long-term-investor-risk/

So now, we will turn to the topic for the last article. As mentioned above, we are going to take a look at “market timing”. In general, the idea of “market timing” is to develop ways to be able to buy stocks when they are very undervalued and also sell stocks right near the market peak to avoid a big downturn. There are certain variations where an investor is not necessarily trying to time the most opportune time but trade along with the momentum of the stock market and anticipating the next movement prior to other stock market participants.

“Market timing” is notoriously difficult to do. But you will see considerable time devoted every day to financial market television and periodicals advising individual investors what trades to make. I would submit that following things and pundits on a daily basis adds to “noise” and “information overload”. Additionally, for every guest that predicts a big leg up in the market, there will be another guest later in the day who tells you that we are in a bubble and stocks will drop dramatically soon.

Another lesser talked about item is the main guests that are invited to speak on television or are quoted in financial periodicals. Typically, the guest introduction will be prefaced by this man/woman predicted the last major move in the stock market and we are so lucky to have him/her back again. While these guests are great to hear from, there is a severe amount of “selection bias”. What do I mean by “selection bias”? You will rarely see a guest brought on to be lambasted for a prediction that never came to fruition or was just flat out wrong. The vast majority of guests on television or market experts in financial articles will be the ones who made a very prescient call on the direction of the stock market.

The promise of “market timing” is still so enticing. It normally relates to the fear of losing money or the greed of just not wanting to miss the next big bull market trend upward in the stock market. However, the ability to call the market tops or bottoms has proven to be pretty much a 50/50 flip of the coin (now I am being generous at that). One of the examples that I love to give is the coining of the term “irrational exuberance”. The former chair of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, used that new term to state that the stock market was in what he thought was a bubble. Little do people remember, but he first gave the speech in December 1996 to refer to what would become the Dot.Com bubble and bust. Greenspan was proven right but the top of that bubble occurred in March 2000. I use that example because irrational activity in the markets can persist for much, much longer than you might expect.

So, now I know that some people reading this post will be able to point to experts who made the great calls or even their own calls on the direction of the stock market. Well, I will start off the discussion by showing that “market timing” is indeed somewhat possible. But it takes much longer periods of time than you might think at first. Here is how we will proceed in the analysis. I discussed how the long-term historical average of the S&P 500 Index from 1957-2018 has been 9.8%. It would seem logical then that, if stock market returns were below that average or above that average for a certain length of time, you could just do the opposite figuring that stock market returns would eventually trend back to that average (in the jargon reversion to the mean).

The problem is, as I briefly mentioned in the last paragraph, that the time period needs to be so long that it is almost untenable for individual investors to practically implement. In fact, we have to use 15-year annualized returns to illustrate the theory. So, if the stock market has been below/above trend, we will buy/sell because an inflection point has to come. Let’s take a look at it graphically to drive the point home:

Fifteen Year Correlation

In the graph depicted above, we have exactly the returns we would like to see. The blue dots are the past 15 years of stock market returns, and the orange dots are the next 15 years of stock market returns. The dots are what we would term to have an inverse relationship. In fact, for all of you somewhat familiar with statistics, the correlation coefficient is -0.857. Therefore, there is a really strong relationship here that leads us to the promise of “market timing”. Should we give up on it so early?

The problem with “market timing” is that, for any length of time less than 15 years of annualized stock returns, there really is no relationship (at least no actionable trading of stocks for your investment portfolio). Let’s take a look at the same concept in the first graph with a look at one-year and three-year current and then future returns:

One Year Correlation

Three Year Correlation

Using the one-year and three-year current and then future stock market returns of the S&P 500 Index, our dots just kind of do not follow a discernable pattern. Again, for the statistically inclined folks out there, the correlation coefficients are -0.10 and -0.041, respectively. As always, we won’t get too waded down into the mathematical weeds but a correlation coefficient close to 0 means that there is essentially no correlation/relationship between the two. To make an analogy, you can think of what is the correlation between birds in your backyard and the number of jars of pickles for sale at your local grocery store? Well, there should be no relationship whatsoever. Even if there were, it would not make any sense. In our case here, there is at least some logic underlying our premise of the most recent return on the S&P 500 Index and the future returns over that same time period. As we see though, there is really nothing actionable to embark upon for individual investors to properly engage in “market timing”.

Before we totally give up on “market timing”, we can take a look at the same charts but extending the time periods to five years and ten years. Let’s take a look at those two graphs:

Five Year Correlation

Ten Year Correlation

The correlation coefficient for the five-year chart is 0.028, so we cannot really use that long of a time period either. I will admit that the ten-year chart looks a little more promising. We have a graph that looks somewhat more like the fifteen-year graph that I started off with. In fact, the correlation coefficient is -0.276. And a negative number is what we want to see in order to try “market timing”. Unfortunately, the number is really not strong enough to not get caught. By this I mean, we can see that “market timing” would have worked from 1975-1985 and also from 1990-2001 roughly. However, 1965-1975 has a grouping of returns that don’t work and 2002-2008 has mixed results as well. Note that there are less data points because there needs to be at least 10 years of future returns in order to compare the current record of 10-year annualized returns with what the next 10 years of stock returns will end up being.

Overall, we have seen that “market timing” in the short term (even as defined out to five years) does not really have much, if any, predictive power. Therefore, if you make decisions related to “market timing” based upon how the stock market has performed in any time period five years or less, it is clearly a “fool’s errand” or incredibly difficult to do. And by the latter, I mean that you can reliably do so over more than one major change in market direction. The majority of market pundits that you will see or read about have made one correct call which is not nearly enough to judge his/her investing acumen related to “market timing”.

I will close out the discussion of “market timing” by using the Financial Crisis and ensuing Great Recession. Many folks correctly called (or were proven right without the reason for the bubble matching their investment thesis) this major stock market inflection point. They correctly saw the unsustainable bubble in housing, the rise of financial stocks, and the buildup of toxic securities like subprime loans. However, many of those same individuals never changed their investment thesis and failed to tell individual investors to return to the stock market and buy. Essentially there are still folks that will tell you we are in a bubble. Now I am not bold and/or grandiose enough to weigh in on the current value of the stock market. But you need to know that most of the people who call a wicked crash in stocks or a massive bull market do not change their investment thesis prior to the next big turn.

For example, let’s say that you learned about stock investing 10 years or so ago and decided to invest $1,000.00 in the S&P 500 Index toward the end of October 2007. And yes, this was the absolute worst time to invest in stocks. Sadly, by March 2009, you would have lost 50% of your investment and have only $500.00 at that point in time. You might feel great if you listened to someone who called the top and told you that the fourth quarter of 2007 was the absolute worse time to buy stocks. But I am willing to bet that this same person would not have told you when it was “safe” to invest again. If you knew to expect bouts of extreme volatility in the stock market beforehand, you could have kept your money in the stock market. At the end of December 2018, you would have had $1,712.36 using our 13.1% 10-year annualized return over that time. If the original market predictor of catastrophe told you to just keep your $1,000.00 in the bank you would have $1,160.54 (assuming generously that you could earn 1.50% over the ten years in your bank saving account). Adjusting the hypothetical investor who simply kept his/her money in stocks back to inflation, he/she would have $1,404.73 (assuming 2.0% inflation over the last 10 years which is higher than was actually experienced). At the end of December 2018, you would have a bit more than 21% higher in inflation-adjusted dollars than the person who just never invested (or took his/her money out of stocks right at the end of October 2007 but never returned to stocks).

Now I will admit that my hypothetical scenario would have tried the “intestinal fortitude” of the most seasoned professional investors after seeing a 50% market drop over 1.5 years. My only point with the example is that, even if you could not have held your nerve to remain invested in stocks over the Financial Crisis, the investment pundit(s) who tells you the exact top with a brilliant prediction also needs to tell you when to invest or sell again in the future (i.e. “market timing”). Rarely will you see such a prognosticator that can totally change their investment thesis to get the next call right. You are much better off abstaining from “market timing” and sticking to your long-term investment strategy. Of course, that may indeed call for selling or buying a portion of stocks at certain given points to change your investment portfolio allocation to match your risk tolerance and financial goals. But trying to utilize “market timing” to be in and out to experience hardly any losses and capture all the gains is just not realistic, so you might as well discard the entire investment strategy of “market timing”.

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Part 1 of 3 – Understanding Stock Market Returns

23 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, Average Returns, behavioral finance, finance, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services industry, historical returns, Individual Investing, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, personal finance, portfolio, risk, risk tolerance, risks of stocks, S&P 500, S&P 500 historical returns, S&P 500 Index, statistics, stock market, Stock Market Returns, Stock Market Valuation, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

asset allocation, behavioral finance, finance, historical stock returns, investing, investments, long term investing, mathematics, performance, personal finance, portfolio, S&P 500, S&P 500 historical returns, S&P 500 Index, stock market, stock returns, stocks, uncertainty

All financial professionals providing advice urge individual investors to have a long-term plan and orientation. This advice is solid and has proven itself over the long term. However, no one really explains what it means to be a long-term investor. Most of the information dispensed is only a cursory review of the concept. The majority of new individual investors are then left without a full understanding and a comfortable feeling that a long-term investment strategy will work out in terms of allowing them to reach their financial goals. Since the importance of long-term investing is so integral to financial planning, I would like to delve very deeply into this topic. Therefore, I am going to cover this information as a three-part series of posts. This first post will discuss the nature of stock market returns. The second and third posts will address volatility in stock market returns and the perils of market timing, respectively.

Let’s get started on this journey and talk about stock market returns over the long term. Wherever possible I am going to use tables and graphs to better visually depict the concepts discussed in this post. But first, we must address one of my “pet peeves”. The proxy for this post for long-term investing will be the historical returns of the S&P 500 Index (including reinvestment of dividends). Why is this a “pet peeve” for me? I see too many articles in the financial press that look at historical returns for this index that go back to the 1920’s. You might want to know why this is a problem. Well, the S&P 500 Index was created back in March 1957. The S&P Index was started in 1926 but only included 90 stocks. Many articles in the financial press use the 1926 date as the starting point for analyzing historical stock market returns but that is really comparing “apples to oranges”. Additionally, as of September 2019, the S&P 500 Index includes 505 stocks grouped into 11 different sectors. Up until fairly recently, there were only 10 sectors but Standard & Poor’s made the decision to reclassify several of the stocks.

Now that we have dispensed with the preliminary comments, we can get back to the main discussion of part one. As you probably know already, the value of stocks fluctuates quite a bit over the course of a year. In fact, the financial media and financial professionals discuss these fluctuations on a daily basis. But even on an annual basis, stock market returns vary vastly over time. The long-term stock market return of the S&P 500 Index from 1957 through 2018 has been approximately 9.8%. Oftentimes Financial Advisors or Certified Financial Planners (CFPs) will tell their clients that they can expect to earn 8% to 10% by investing in stocks over the long term. While that information is true, it does not tell the entire story and subsequently leads individual investors to sell stocks during major market declines and buy stocks during periods of euphoria. Why is that the case when individual investors know up front that stocks will earn 8% to 10% over the long term but be volatile from year to year?

The main reason is that financial advisors mostly fail to fully explain how much stock market returns will fluctuate every year. In any given year, there will only be about 10% of stock market returns that fall into the bucket of being between 7% and 12%. To put that number into perspective, you can think of it as saying that only 1 in every 10 years can you expect to see stock market returns around the long-term average historical return of the S&P 500 Index. Now this information is very disheartening to both novice and more sophisticated individual investors alike. If you were told to expect that your yearly stock market returns would only be about average every 10 years, wouldn’t that be very helpful information to have in the beginning? My personal conjecture is that individual investors see that 90% of the time stock market returns are “abnormal” which causes them to react irrationally (or you might even say rationally since nobody told them it was likely to occur).

In order to “set the record straight”, I would like to show you a series of tables and graphs to depict what historical stock market returns of the S&P 500 Index have been over the last 61 years. My goal is not to dissuade you from investing for the long term; rather, I hope to persuade you why you should invest for the long term. After reviewing how stock market returns vary over different lengths of time, it is easier to understand what to expect and set more realistic expectations for your portfolio of investments. In order to accomplish this goal, I am going to show you a series of graphics regarding historical stock market returns. The information will show one-year, three-year, five-year, and ten-year data. The data with timeframes longer than one year will be annualized. “Annualized” is a fancy way of saying that the stock market returns are shown in a comparable way with yearly returns.

So, we will start off with an explanation of how I have grouped the data for stock market returns. I have broken up the returns for any period into “buckets” with a range of 5%. For example, there will be one “bucket” for any year where returns are between 7% and 12%. On either side of that main historical average bucket, I will extend the range in increments of 5%. For instance, there will be another “bucket” to capture returns between 2% and 7% and also another bucket to capture returns between 12% and 17%. Lastly, due to the fact that stock market returns have fluctuated so much over time, there will be two “buckets” to capture more extreme returns of less than -13% and greater than 22%. Showing how stock market returns for various periods fit into these “buckets” will be very instructive in deciding how to approach long-term investing.

The first way to view things is with a table of stock market returns. Note that these will be supplemented by graphs below for an even better visualization. Here are how stock market returns appear in each “bucket” as a percentage of time that they occur below:

Table of Returns

There are two main takeaways after looking at the above table. First, the distribution of stock market returns over the course of one year are quite wide indeed. Plus, you can see how people can get very euphoric about buying stocks when the investment returns are higher than normal. The return of the S&P 500 Index has been greater than 22% about 29% of the time. Let’s put that percentage into a yearly equivalent which is, that in 1 out of every 4 years the stock market return will exceed 22%. It is hard not to get excited and want to buy more stocks when an individual investor sees that. Second, the distribution of stock returns for five years and ten years gradually shifts away from the extremes and toward the long-term historical average. Now this might be intuitive since the average must come about after longer periods of time are taken into account. More importantly, neither the 5-year returns or 10-year returns have fallen into the -3% and below “buckets”. If you have a long-term investment horizon, there will be more returns that appear within the “bucket” historical average for the S&P 500 Index. Using 10-year returns, they fall into the 7% to 12% “bucket” 32.1% of the time. And in our now familiar conversion to a yearly equivalent, you can expect to see any given 10-year annualized average return be just about inline with the historical average 1 out of every 3 years. Note that, even with such a long-term period, 2 out of 3 years will be outside of the expected historical average given the last 61 years of stock market returns.

In order to better absorb the information from the table above, here are four graphs that show the breakdown by period grouping in the various “buckets”:

One Year Returns

Three Year Returns

Five Year Returns

Ten Year Returns

The four graphs above show how the number of returns gradually centers more and more around the historical average for the S&P 500 Index as the time period is lengthened from one year to ten years. Moreover, the extreme outliers to the downside (returns less than -3%) are not present in the graphs for five years and ten years.

Now a historical side-by-side comparison makes it even easier to see that convergence to the historical average and removal of the outliers. I have left out the graph for three years only to reduce the amount of information shown on the following graph.

Historical Returns

By carefully studying the table and various graphs depicted above, it becomes more palatable to become a long-term investor. I am a big believer in having realistic expectations prior to investing and building a portfolio of assets to buy and hold. Without knowing how much of a distribution there is in stock market returns from year to year, it becomes much harder to stick to that financial plan. Now do not get me wrong here, actually experiencing periods of extreme outliers (especially to the downside) when you have money at stake is nerve-racking to put it mildly. However, you have a much better understanding of what is “normal” in terms of annual returns. But, always keep in mind, that past performance in not indicative of future performance. With that being said though, it helps to have over 60 years’ worth of data to develop your investing strategy and determine your tolerance for risk (i.e. volatility of returns) going forward.

The topic of risk will be covered in the second part of this series on becoming a successful long-term investor. That topic and the last topic are covered by most financial professionals, but I would like to show the data in a somewhat different and unique way.

What is Confirmation Bias? Why is it Dangerous for Individual Investors?

26 Wednesday Apr 2017

Posted by wmosconi in active versus passive debate, behavioral finance, confirmation bias, Emotional Intelligence, EQ, finance, finance theory, financial advice, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, Individual Investing, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, passive investing, personal finance, stock market, stocks

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

behavioral finance, confirmation bias, Emotional Intelligence, financial advice, financial markets, financial planning, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investments, stock market, stocks

There are many dangers for individual investors to be aware of when investing. More and more of these dangers and/or complications are being recognized in the field of behavioral finance. Behavioral finance looks at the psychological and emotional factors that influence the decision-making process of investors. Oftentimes researchers in this field try to figure out what causes normally rational people to act irrationally. Unfortunately, it has proven over and over again that, when money is involved, the vast majority of people let their emotions/feelings interfere with their investment decision either slightly or in profound ways. We do these things without even knowing it which makes it even harder to address and correct. Keep in mind that Warren Buffett says that having control of one’s emotions is just as important (or even more so) than having a superior intellect that can select excellent, long-term investments.

Confirmation bias belongs in the realm of behavioral finance, but, as many of these issues, it really first has been examined in terms of psychology. So, what is confirmation bias exactly? The definition of confirmation bias is “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses” (Plous, Scott (1993). The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. p. 233). Keeping in mind that confirmation bias applies to many other areas, the primary focus in the remainder of this article will be how it manifests itself in relation to investing. Now that we have the formal definition, let’s take a look deeper into this very real danger for individual investors.

Individual investors have the natural inclination to make a decision first and then look for information that supports that initial decision. It also applies at an even higher level than that. The way that individual investors think they should invest in general is almost predetermined. The easiest thing to do is to talk to people with the same thought process about investing, search through the same supporting financial media news publications and websites, and listen to the same experts. Over time, it gets very easy to just keep doing the same thing over and over again. Plus, it takes an incredible amount of effort to step outside of one’s comfort zone and try to prove that he/she might in fact be incorrect. Individual investors (and even professional investors, money managers and investment advisors) are not wired to attempt to confirm why they might be wrong. At first glance, it seems like a totally foreign and nonsensical concept.

So, what are the types of problems that can occur when individual investor does not acknowledge confirmation bias? There is a long list here are a few to ponder. First, a big mistake can be thinking that what has happened in the recent past will continue into the future indefinitely. This danger is especially evident during a bull market. It can be easy to get carried away and see how much money one made and then keep pouring money in (more than you can really risk). The converse is true when it comes to a bear market. After stocks have gone down for a number of months or longer, it is very easy to just give up on investing in the stock market because it seems like things will never turn around. Second, the danger creeps in when investing by not challenging one’s assumptions. Even if an individual investor knows at a subconscious level that an incorrect decision was made, there can be a desperate search for any shred of evidence that one can justify nonaction. Third, there are times when listening to the investment advice of a particular expert can be “addictive”. By this I mean that it is natural to continue to listen only to the views of that person, especially when he/she made a bold prediction about the stock market that came true. It can be simple to forget that market timing is extremely difficult and that person could be totally wrong in terms of his/her next prediction. Lastly, it can feel good to be part of the crowd and not think differently (or at least examine other issues). There is safety in numbers essentially and, if your investment decision does turn out to be wrong, you can at a minimum take solace in the fact that “everyone else was doing it”.

There are a number of steps that individual investors can take to counteract the dangers of confirmation bias. First and foremost, the fact that you are aware of the potential trap of confirmation bias is half the battle. Periodically ask yourself if you have looked for alternative viewpoints and evidence. Second, you can make a list of why you made a particular investment decision in the first place. But, more importantly, you should write down what types of events could occur to make you change your mind because your investment thesis was not correct. It is very powerful to have a written record to start with. This recommendation actually comes from a reporter at The Wall Street Journal named Jason Zweig. Mr. Zweig has been writing about the financial markets for decades now and still has a weekly article in the paper (usually in the weekend edition) called The Intelligent Investor. I really urge you to take a look at this interview with him back in 2009 about confirmation bias. Here is the link:

http://www.wsj.com/video/when-investing-consider-your-confirmation-bias/B768E62A-AA01-4B37-905F-F3EDA5C72B78.html

Third, you should make it a habit on a regular basis, maybe monthly, to go to various financial market and investing websites that do not mesh with your general investment philosophy. You can peruse through a few articles that you might find totally different than you interpret a situation. I urge you to read them with an open mind though and try to be objective. Lastly, you can bounce an idea off a close friend or advisor and see what they think about your rationale. It is far easier for them to be objective. If you do not have anyone to consult with, I would urge you to pose the question in an investing forum. However, you need to phrase the question in the manner that will address your possible confirmation bias. It is very common to ask question in a positive manner like “Why should you invest in technology companies?”. The better way to phrase it at the outset is to use language like “What are some of the reasons why you should not buy gold?”.

Now keep in mind that the advice on confirmation bias also applies to the articles I have posted on my website. You will note that two of the main themes are using a passive investing approach to invest and striving to keep investment fees as low as possible. I urge you to go and seek out information about why you may want to choose an active investing strategy as an individual investor. Look for the reasons why and situations where you might have to pay additional investment fees depending on your particular circumstances. It is very healthy and beneficial to seek out other information, and I always encourage individual investors to do so. The one thing that I firmly hold onto is that I would avoid financial websites or sources that say I am right and the other guys are all wrong. Things are rarely ever so “black and white”, especially in the world of financial markets and investing.

Bonds Have Risks Other Than Rising Interest Rates. Dividend Stocks are not Substitutes for Bonds.

24 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by wmosconi in academics, asset allocation, bond basics, bond market, Bond Mathematics, Bond Risks, bonds, Fabozzi, finance, finance theory, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, financial planning, financial services industry, Fixed Income Mathematics, foreign currency, Frank Fabozzi, Individual Investing, individual investors, interest rates, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, math, MBS, personal finance, rebalancing, rebalancing investment portfolio, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, risk, risks of bonds, Search for Yield, statistics, types of bonds, volatility, yield

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

asset allocation, bond basics, Bond Risks, bonds, dividend stocks, education, finance, financial advice, Financial Advisor, Financial Advisors, financial markets, financial planning, financial services, financial services industry, individual investing, interest rates, investing, investment advice, investments, mathematics, personal finance, portfolio, portfolio allocation, portfolio management, rising interest rates, risks of bonds, Search for Yield, statistics, types of bonds, volatility, yields

The main reason why Financial Advisors are recommending that individual investors sell bonds is that interest rates are likely to rise over the next 3-5 years or more. Although those sentiments have been a familiar refrain over the last 3-5 years though. Well, I would tend to agree that interest rates are poised to rise at some point toward the end of this decade. However, interest rate risk is only one of the risks of bonds. In fact, the size of the bond market dwarfs the stock market. When Financial Advisors are talking about bonds, they tend to be referring only to US Treasury bonds, corporate bonds, and municipal bonds. Interest rate risk greatly affects these bonds indeed. With that being said, they tend to conflate the interest rate risk of these bonds with the entire bond market. Remember that interest rates have dropped from 16.30% on the 1-month US Treasury bill back in 1981 to roughly 0.25% today. Therefore, bond prices have been rising for over 35 years and most financial professionals outside of the fixed income markets have forgotten (or if they are younger than 50) how bonds normally work, especially in a rising interest rate environment.

But does it even matter really? Yes. Here is an urgent note to all individual investors: “Beware of financial professionals that recommend dividend stocks or other equities as replacements for your fixed income allocation”. What I mean by this is that the volatility of stocks is far greater than bonds historically. Yields may be very low in money market funds, US Treasuries, and in bond mutual funds now. However, your risk tolerance must be taken into account at all times. While it is true that many dividend-paying stocks offer yields of 3% or more with the possibility of capital appreciation, there also is significant downside risk. For example, as most people are aware, the S&P 500 index (which represents most of the biggest companies in America) was down over 35% in 2008. Many of those stocks are included in the push to have individual investors buy dividend payers. With that being said, stock market declines of 10%-20% in a single quarter are not that uncommon. If you handle the volatility of the stock market well, there is no need to be concerned. However, a decline of 10% for a stock paying a 3% dividend will wipe out a little more than 3 years of yield. Individual investors need to realize that swapping traditional bonds or bond mutual funds is not a “riskless” transaction, meaning a one-for-one swap. The volatility and riskiness of your portfolio will go up commensurately with your added exposure to equities. Sometimes financial professionals portray the search for yield by jumping into stocks as the only option given the low interest rate environment.

While your situation might warrant that movement in your portfolio allocation, you need to be able to accept that the value of those stocks is likely to drop by 10% or more in the future just taking into account normal volatility in the stock market historically (every 36 months or so in any given quarter). Are you able to handle that volatility when looking at your risk tolerance, financial goals, and age?The purpose of this blog post is to discuss the risk factors associated with bonds in greater detail. Most bonds, such as Treasury notes and bonds, corporate bonds, and municipal bonds, will go down in value when interest rates go up. Conversely, they will go up in value when interest rates decrease. This characteristic of these types of bonds is called an inverse relationship. For a primer on how most bonds function normally, I have posted supplementary material alongside this post. You can refer to it to brush back up on bonds and how they work, and I also provide a historical look at interest rates over the last 35 years. Here is the link to that prior blog post:https://latticeworkwealth.com/2014/01/02/a-bond-is-a-bond-is-a-bond-right-should-you-sell-bonds-to-buy-stocks-supplementary-information-on-how-bonds-work/

There are many risk factors associated with investments in bonds. A great overview of those risks can be found in Fixed Income Mathematics the Fourth Edition by Dr. Frank Fabozzi who teaches at Yale University’s School of Management. Most fixed income traders, portfolio managers, and risk managers use his Handbook of Fixed Income Securities as their general guidebook for approaching dealing with the trading, investing, and portfolio/risk management of owning fixed income securities. Suffice it to say that he is regarded as one of the experts when it comes to the bond markets. Dr. Fabozzi summarizes the risks inherent in bonds on page 109 of the first text referenced above. The risks are as follows:

Interest-rate risk;
Credit risk;
Liquidity risk;
Call or prepayment risk;
Exchange-rate risk.

Most of fixed income folks and myself would add inflation risk, basis risk, and separate credit risk into two components. Bonds have two types of risk as it relates to payment of principal and interest. The first risk is more commonly thought of and referred to as default risk. Default risk is simply whether or not the company will pay you back in full and with timely interest payments. Credit risk also can be thought of as the financial strength of the company. If a company starts to see a reduction in profits, much higher expenses, and drains of cash, the rating agencies may downgrade their debt. A downgrade just means that the company is less likely to pay back the bondholder.Here is an example to illustrate the difference more fully: a company may have a AA+ rating from Standard & Poor’s at the beginning of the year, but, due to events that transpire during the year, the company may get downgraded to A- with a Negative Outlook. Now the company is still very likely to pay back principal and interest on the bonds, but the probability of default has gone up. As a point of reference, AAA is the highest and BBB- is the lowest Standard & Poor’s ratings to be considered investment grade. You will note that the hypothetical company would need to be downgraded four more times (BBB+, BBB, BBB- to BB+) to be considered non-investment grade or a “junk” bond. Bond market participants though will react to the downgrade though because new potential buyers see more risk of default given the same coupon. So even though the company may not default eventually on the actual bond, the price of the bond goes up to compensate for the interest rate required by the marketplace on similarly rated bonds to attract buyers.Now I will address the full list of risks affecting bonds outlined by Dr. Fabozzi above. Any bond is simply an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to pay back money to the other party at a later date with interest.

All bonds have what is referred to as credit (default portion) risk. Credit risk in general is simply the risk one runs that the party who owes you the money will not pay you back (i.e. default). What is lesser known or thought about by individual investors is interest-rate risk and inflation risk. These two risks are usually missed because investors tend to think that bonds are “safe”. Interest-rate risk relates to the fact that interest rates may rise, while you hold the bonds (spoken about at length in the beginning of this blog post). When financial pundits make blanket statements about selling bonds, they are referring to this one risk factor normally. Inflation risk means that inflation may increase to a level higher than your interest rate on the bond. Thus, if the interest rate on your bond is less than inflation or closer to inflation from when you bought the bond, your purchasing power goes down. The prices of goods and services go up faster than the interest you earn on the bond. Call risk refers to instances where some companies have the option to redeem your bonds in the future at an agreed upon price. This is normally done only when interest rates fall. Prepayment risk is a more specialized case of call risk and refers to people paying their mortgages (or credit cards, home equity loans, student loans, etc.) back sooner than expected. Most people group these two risks into a category called reinvestment risk. Think about the concept in this manner: many people refinanced their mortgages because interest rates went down. They did so because they could lower their total mortgage payment. Well, companies do the same thing if they have the option. Companies can redeem bonds at higher interests and issue new bonds at lower interest rates. Chances are that, if you are the owner of the redeemed bonds, you will be unable to find as high of an interest payment currently if you want to buy a bond with similar characteristics of the company issuing the bonds you own before.The other three risks I mentioned above are less commonly discussed and not quite as important.

Exchange-rate risk exists because sometimes a company issues bonds in a currency other than its own. For example, you will sometimes hear the terms Yankee bonds or Samurai bonds. Since the company is paying you interest and principal in a foreign currency that money may be worth more or less depending on what happens in foreign exchange markets in the future.

Liquidity risk refers to the phenomenon that there are certain crisis times in the market where very few, if any bond market participants, are willing to buy the bonds you are trying to sell. Therefore, you might have to take a bigger loss in order to entice someone to buy the bonds given the current macro environment.

Basis risk is a more obtuse type of risk that institutions deal with. Basis risk essentially refers to anytime when interest rates on your bond are pegged to another interest rate that is different but normally behaves in a certain way (referred to as correlation). Now most of the time, the behavior will follow the historical pattern. However, during times of stress like a liquidity and/or credit crisis, the correlations tend to break down. Meaning you can think you are “hedged” but, if the historical relationship does not hold up, your end return will be nothing like what you had expected. These two risks are not something that individual investors need to focus on for the most part, since these types of bonds are not normally owned by them.I will admit that this list is quite lengthy and, quite possibly, a bit too detailed and/or complicated. However, I wanted to lay them all out for you. Why? When you hear Financial Advisors recommend that you sell a large portion of your bonds, and/or hear the same investment advice from the financial media, they normally are really only referring to interest-rate risk primarily and secondarily inflation risk as well. As you can see from the description above, the bond market is far more complex than that to make a blanket statement.Now, as I usually say, I would never advise individual investors to take a certain course of action in terms of selecting specific bonds or not selling bonds to move into more stocks. However, I am saying that you should feel comfortable enough to ask your Financial Advisor why he/she recommends that you sell a portion of your bonds. If the answer relates only to interest-rate risk, I would probe the recommendation further. You can explain that you know that is the case for Treasury notes/bonds, municipal bonds, and corporate bonds. However, there are a whole host of other fixed income securities with different characteristics and risks. Now I am not referring solely to Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), although the residential and commercial markets for these are in the trillions of dollars. There are bonds and notes that have floating interest rates which means that as interest rates go up, the interest rate you receive on that security goes up. Not to mention that different countries are experiencing different interest rate cycles than the US (stable or downward even).The complete list is too in-depth to cover in a single blog post. My goal was to provide you with enough information to at least ask the question(s). Your risk tolerance and financial goals might make a move from bonds to stocks the best course of action. With that being said, you also have the option of selling bonds and keeping the money in cash or investing in the different types of bonds offered in the fixed income markets while keeping your total allocation to fixed income nearly the same. Thinking holistically about your portfolio, you may be increasing the riskiness of your portfolio beyond your risk tolerance or more than you are aware unbeknownst to you by moving from bonds into stocks. This is something you definitely want to avoid. It can turn out to be a rude awakening and hard lesson to learn one or two years from now.

Four Important Lessons for Individual Investors from the Brexit Vote

10 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by wmosconi in Alan Greenspan, Black Swan, bond market, Brexit, Brexit Vote, Emotional Intelligence, EQ, EU, European Union, Fed, Federal Reserve, finance, finance theory, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services industry, Greenspan, Individual Investing, individual investors, Internet Bubble, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, Irrational Exuberance, Nassim Taleb, personal finance, portfolio, Post Brexit, PostBrexit, rebalancing, rebalancing investment portfolio, risk, risk tolerance, stock market, Stock Market Returns, Stock Market Valuation, Taleb, Uncategorized, Valuation, volatility, Warren Buffett

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Alan Greenspan, asset allocation, Black Swan, bonds, Brexit, BrexitVote, EU, European Union, Fed, Federal Reserve, finance, financial advice, Financial Advisor, Financial Advisors, Financial Market History, financial markets, financial planning, financial services, financial services industry, Greenspan, individual investing, investing, InvestingLessons, investment advice, investments, Nassim Taleb, portfolio, portfolio allocation, portfolio management, Post Brexit, PostBrexit, stock market, stocks, Taleb, UK, uncertainty, volatility, volatiltiy, Warren Buffett

The vote by the United Kingdom (UK) to leave the European Union (EU) caught the majority of individual investors by surprise. In fact, the so-called Brexit was not foreseen by many of the most sophisticated professional investors and money managers all around the world. The election results sent shockwaves through the financial markets on the Friday and Monday following the Brexit vote. The most notable effect was the devaluation of the pound to its lowest level since 1985. Over the course of Tuesday through Friday, the US and European stock markets gained back nearly all their losses from the two days after the Brexit vote. This fast-moving volatility has left individual investors feeling confused, frustrated, bewildered, and a bit scared. However, the Brexit vote results offer individual investors a unique set of key lessons to learn and understand.

The four important lessons for individual investors from the Brexit vote are as follows:

1) There are very few seminal events in financial market history that affect the future path of stocks, bonds, and other assets.

The difficult thing to realize about the financial markets is that there are very few consequential events that make an inflection point or major change in the direction of the financial markets. Even more frustrating than that, these consequential events are only known with the benefit of hindsight. In other words, what seems like a monumental event today may or may not be considered one of those major events. Given the fact that there are so few, there is a high probability that the seemingly major events of today will not fall into the seminal event category of financial market history.

What are some of the seminal events in financial market history? Here is a list of some of the seminal events in chronological order: the stock market crash in October 1987, the bursting of the bond bubble in 1994, the Asian contagion of 1997-1998, the bursting of the Internet bubble in March 2000, and the Great Recession of the financial crisis starting in September 2008. There are many more examples previous to 1987, but these are events from recent financial market history that many individual investors will remember. Keep in mind that in between all of these events are a string of other major events that turned out to be minor blips that caused only fleeting financial market volatility or none at all.

Furthermore, these seminal events are confusing to financial market participants in and of themselves. For example, let’s take a closer look at the stock market crash of October 1987. The US stock market dropped over 20% in one day, and things looked very dire. If an individual investor with a portfolio of $100,000 had sold his/her stock mutual funds (primary investment vehicle used by individuals on the day of the crash, he/she would have a portfolio worth $80,000 approximately. That type of individual investor was likely to be very fearful and stay out the of stock market for the remainder of 1987. If an individual investor with a similar portfolio of $100,000 had keep his/her money in stocks on the day of the crash and for the rest of 1987, he/she would actually have roughly $102,000 at the end of 1987. Why? Well, there are not too many investors these days that remember how 1987 really turned out for the US stock market. The S&P 500 index ended up about 2% for the year, so US stocks recovered all of the losses from the crash and a bit more. Here’s a little fun exercise: Ask your Financial Advisor or Financial Planner what the return of stocks was in 1987. The vast majority will assume it was a horrible down year for performance returns.

Another excellent example is the bursting of the Internet bubble in March 2000. The reason it is so interesting is that individual (and even professional) investors forget the history. Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve during that time period, gave a famous speech where he coined the term, “irrational exuberance”. Greenspan warned investors that the Internet and technology stocks were getting to valuations that were way out of line with historical norms for valuation of stocks. What do individual investors forget? Well, that famous speech was actually given in December 1996. Yes, that is correct. Greenspan warned of the Internet bubble, but it took nearly 3 ½ years before financial markets took a nosedive. The main point here is that smart, rationale professional money managers and economists can know that financial market valuations are out of whack in terms of valuation at any given point in time. (Note that this can also be stock market valuations that are too low). However, these conditions can persist for far longer than anyone can imagine. That is why individual investors should not be so quick to sell (or buy) major portions of their portfolio of stocks and bonds when these predictions or observations are make.

For a more in depth look at this concept, you can refer to a blog post I wrote three years ago on this very subject. The link to that blog post is as follows:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/08/04/todays-news-should-prompt-you-to-adjust-your-entire-investment-portfolio/

2) Investors focus on valuations (no emotions) while traders and speculators focus on market sentiment (emotions) and valuation (no emotions).

The majority of professionals who talk to individual investors and provide advice will explain how important it is to keep emotions out of the equation when dealing with elevated market volatility. When the financial markets are bouncing up and down by large amounts in the short term, it can be very difficult to keep a cool head and resist the urge to buy or sell stocks, bonds, or other assets. The frenetic pace of market movements makes it seems as though an individual investor needs to do something, anything in response. The standard advice is to keep one’s emotions in check focus on the long term, and stick to the financial plan. What is usually missing from that advice is a more complete explanation why.

There are two general types of financial market participants: investors and traders/speculators. These two groups have vastly different goals and approaches to the financial markets. Investors are focused on investing in stocks, bonds, and other assets in order to obtain returns over time from their investments. The long term might be defined as five years. Thus, day-to-day fluctuations in the financial markets mean very little to them. On the flipside, traders/speculators are focused on making gains in stocks, bonds, and other assets in the short term in order to obtain returns. The short term for this group might be hourly, the medium term might be daily, and the long term might be weekly. With this particular group, they need to determine both the likely direction of the financial markets due to both market sentiment and valuation.

As you might imagine, the traders/speculators have to analyze emotions or the psychology of financial market participants. Gauging market sentiment (general short term positioning of traders/speculators in stocks, bonds, and other assets in terms of their trend to buy or sell) is all about emotions. Additionally, they must be able to combine that with proper valuations for stocks, bonds, and other assets. Essentially they need to be correct twice. On the other hand, investors are focused on the long term which corresponds to valuation. Valuation over the long term is not driven by emotions. There is a very famous saying by Ben Graham who taught one of the most well-known investors of all time, Warren Buffett. Graham said, “In the short term the market is a voting machine, in the long term the market is a weighing machine.” The takeaway from Graham’s quotation is that market sentiment (i.e. emotions) can drive the financial markets wildly over the short term. However, after a period of years, financial markets always seem to follow the path back to what their true valuations are. Since emotions are not part of that equation, individual investors should feel more comfortable ignoring or at least subduing their emotions whenever the financial markets exhibit high levels of volatility.

A related part of the story is the financial media (both TV and print) almost always provide information for traders/speculators. To be perfectly honest, the financial media would not have much to talk about if long-term investing was the topic. Essentially they would recommend analyzing one’s risk tolerance, define one’s financial goals, and then build a portfolio of financial assets to reach those goals over the long term. Yes, true investing is very boring actually. The financial media needs to have something more “exciting” to talk about in order to have viewers (readers) and the corresponding advertising dollars that come from that. Therefore, the stories and article appearing in the financial media are geared toward traders/speculators. Now if you are an investor, you can either ignore this bombardment of information or take it with the proverbial “grain of salt”. Thus, you can keep your emotions in check when all the traders/speculators are wondering how to react to the market volatility right now each and every trading day or week.

For a more in depth discussion of managing one’s emotions as it relates to investors, you can refer to one of my older blog posts. The link to that blog post is as follows:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2015/06/11/two-steps-to-help-individual-investors-become-more-successful-at-investing/

3) The benefit of diversification can disappear or be reduced greatly whenever there are periods are elevated volatility.

The benefit of diversification is one of the hallmarks of the proper construction of an investment portfolio for individual investors. The basic premise (which has been proven over very long periods of time) is that investing in different asset classes (e.g. stocks, bonds, real estate, precious metals, etc.) reduces the volatility in the value of an investment portfolio. A closer look at diversification is necessary before relating the discussion back to the Brexit vote. The benefit of diversification stems from correlations between asset classes. What is correlation? To keep things simple, a correlation of 1 means that two different assets are perfectly correlated. So a correlation of 1 means that when one asset goes up, the other asset goes up too. A correlation of -1 means that two assets are negatively correlated. So a correlation of -1 means that when one asset goes up, the other asset goes down (exactly the opposite). A correlation of 0 means that the two assets are not correlated at all. So a correlation of 0 means that when one asset goes up, the other asset might go up, go down, or stay the same. Having an investment portfolio that is properly diversified means that the investments in that portfolio have a combination of assets that have an array of correlations which dampens volatility. Essentially the positively correlated assets can be balanced out by the negatively correlated assets over time which reduces the volatility of the balance in one’s brokerage statement or 401(k) plan.

What does all this correlation stuff have to do with the Brexit vote? Surprisingly, it has quite a bit to do with the Brexit vote. Note that this discussion also applies to any situation/event that causes the financial markets to exhibit high levels of volatility. During extreme volatility like investors witnessed after the Brexit vote, the correlations of most asset classes started to increase to 1. Unfortunately for individual investors, that meant that diversification broke down in the short term. Most all domestic and international stock markets went down dramatically over the course of the two trading days following the Brexit vote. Therefore, individuals who had their stock investments allocated to various different domestic and international stocks or value and growth stocks all lost money. When correlations converge upon 1 during extreme market shocks, there is really nowhere to “hide” over the short term. In fact, the only two asset classes that did very well during this period were gold and government bonds.

What is the key takeaway for individual investors? Individual investors need to realize that there is an enormous benefit to having a diversified portfolio. However, diversification is associated with investing over the long term and thereby harnessing its benefit. There are times of market stress, like the Brexit vote and aftermath, where diversification will not be present or helpful. When those times come around, individual investors need to keep emotions out of the picture and stick to their long-term financial plans and investment portfolios.

4) The surprise Brexit vote provides the perfect opportunity for individual investors to evaluate their risk tolerances for exposure to various risky assets.

The two trading days after the surprise vote by the UK to leave the EU (Brexit) were very volatile and very tough to keep emotionally calm. Individual investors were faced with a very unusual situation, and the urge to sell many, if not all of their investments was very real. That reaction is perfectly understandable. Now for the bad news, there will be another time when volatility is as great as or larger than the volatility that the Brexit vote just caused. In fact, there will be many such periods over the coming years and decades for individual investors. In spite of that bad news, the Brexit vote should be looked at as a learning experience and opportunity. Since individual investors know that there will be another period of elevated volatility, they can revisit their personal risk tolerances.

It is extremely difficult to try to determine or capture one’s risk tolerance for downturns in the financial markets in the abstract or through hypothetical situations. You or with the assistance of your financial professional normally asks the question of whether or not you would likely sell all of your stocks if the market went down 10%, 15%, 20%, or more. How does an individual investor answer that question? What is the right answer? There is no right or wrong answer to that type of question. Each individual investor is unique and has his/her own risk tolerance for fluctuations in his/her investment portfolio. A better way to answer the question is to convert those percentages to actual dollar amounts. For example, if an individual investor starts with $100,000, would he/she be okay with the investment portfolio decreasing to $90,000, $85,000, or $80,000 over the short term. Note that the aforementioned dollar amounts sync up with the 10%, 15%, and 20% declines illustrated previously.

The opportunity from the Brexit vote is that individual investors have concrete examples of the volatility experienced in their investment portfolios. It is far easier to analyze and determine one’s risk tolerance by looking at actual periods of market stress. Depending on your stock investments, the total two-day losses might have been anywhere between 5% to 10%. Let’s use a 10% decline for purposes of relating this actual volatility to one’s risk tolerance. If an individual investor was invested 100% in stocks prior to the Brexit vote, he/she would have lost 10% in this scenario. Let’s use hypothetical dollar amounts: if the starting investment portfolio was $100,000, the ending investment portfolio was $90,000. Now the vast majority of individuals do not have all of their money invested in stocks. So let’s modify the example above to an individual investor who has 50% in stocks and 50% in cash. In that particular scenario, the individual investor has $50,000 invested in stocks and $50,000 invested in cash. If stocks go down by 10%, this individual investor will have an ending investment portfolio of $95,000. Why? The individual investor only losses 10% on $50,000 which is $5,000 not the full $10,000 loss experienced by the individual investor with a hypothetical portfolio of 100% in stocks.

The importance of the illustrations above and its relation to the Brexit vote is that one can quickly calculate the actual losses from a market decline with a good degree of accuracy. So let’s say that you had 60% of your money invested in stocks prior to the Brexit vote. If the overall stock market declines by 10%, your stock investments will only decline by 6% (60% * 10%) assuming the other 40% of your investment portfolio remained unchanged. So let’s put this all together now. If you look back at the stock market volatility caused by the Brexit vote, you need to adjust the overall stock market decline by the percentage amount you have invested in stocks. That adjusted percentage loss will be close to the decline in your overall investment portfolio. Now whatever that adjusted percentage amount is, ask yourself if you are comfortable with that percentage loss over the short term. Or is that way too risky? If the adjusted percentage is way too risky for you and makes you uncomfortable, that is perfectly fine. The important piece of knowledge to learn is that you need to work with your financial professional or reexamine your investment portfolio yourself to reduce your exposure to stocks such that the adjusted percentage loss is reasonable for you to withstand. Why? Because there will be another market volatility event on the order of magnitude of the Brexit aftermath or even worse.

Keep in mind that I am not making a financial market prediction over the short term. The important point is that the history of financial markets has shown that periods of elevated market volatility (i.e. lots of fluctuations up and down) keep occurring over time. The Brexit vote provides a real-life example to determine if your risk tolerance is actually lower than you first imagined. The next cause of market volatility may be a known market event similar to how the UK vote to leave the EU was. The harder things to deal with are market volatility stemming from the unknown and unforeseeable. These market volatility events are called “black swans” which is the term coined by Nassim Taleb in his book by the same name several years back. A “black swan” can be a positive event for the market or a negative event for the market. As it relates to individual investors and risk tolerance, the negative “black swan” is applicable. Now the term “black swan” is improperly used today by many investment professionals. A “black swan” is an event that by definition is unknown and cannot be predicted. When it does occur though, there is a period of extreme market volatility afterward. Thus, you can adjust your risk tolerance to be better prepared for future events that will cause market volatility, either known events like the Brexit vote or unforeseen events. The Brexit vote aftermath should be embraced by individual investors as a golden opportunity to ensure that they are properly (or more precisely) measuring their risk tolerances.

Summary of Important Lessons for Individual Investor from the Brexit Vote:

There are very few monumental financial market events that should cause individual investors to feel inclined to immediately change their investment portfolios. Plus, they can only truly be identified by hindsight;
Investors should focus on valuation of financial assets (no emotions here), traders/speculators worry about market sentiment (emotions) and valuation (no emotions here);
The benefit of diversification can disappear or be greatly reduced during periods of extreme market volatility and financial market stress over the short term;
The surprise Brexit vote offers individual investors a valuable opportunity to see if their risk tolerances are aligned with the possibilities of short-term market declines. This real-life event can be used to redefine one’s risk tolerance to better withstand similar periods of market volatility that will inevitably occur in the future.

Are Stocks Currently Overvalued, Undervalued, or Fairly Valued? Answer: Yes.

10 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by wmosconi in academia, academics, asset allocation, Average Returns, business, CAPE, CAPE P/E Ratio, Consumer Finance, Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, Education, finance, finance theory, financial advice, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services industry, Forward P/E Ratio, Individual Investing, individual investors, interest rates, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize in Economics, P/E Ratio, passive investing, personal finance, portfolio, risk, Robert Shiller, Schiller, Shiller P/E Ratio, statistics, stock market, Stock Market Returns, Stock Market Valuation, stock prices, stocks, Valuation, volatility

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

business, CAPE P/E Ratio, Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, economics, education, finance, financial advice, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services, financial services industry, individual investing, interest rates, investing, investment advice, investments, P/E Ratio, personal finance, portfolio, portfolio allocation, portfolio management, Robert Shiller, Shiller, statistics, stock market, Stock Market Valuation, stock valuation, stocks, Valuation, volatility

Confusing and frustrating as it may be, the answer about the current valuation of stocks will always be different depending on who you ask. Various economists, mutual fund portfolio managers, research analysts, financial news print and TV personalities, and other parties seem to disagree on this very important question. Financial professionals will offer a wide range of financial and economic statistics in support of these opinions on the current valuation of stocks. One of the most often cited statistics in support of a person’s opinion is the P/E ratio of the stock market at any given point in time. Many financial professionals use it as one of the easiest numbers to be able to formulate a viewpoint on stock valuation. However, when it comes to any statistic, one must always be skeptical in terms of both the way the number is calculated and its predictive value. Any time one number is used to describe the financial markets one must always be leery. A closer examination of the P/E ratio is necessary to show why its usage alone is a poor way to make a judgement in regard to the proper valuation of stocks.

The P/E ratio is short for Price/Earnings ratio. The value is calculated by taking the current stock price divided by the annual earnings of the company. When it is applied to an entire stock market index like the S&P 500 index, the value is calculated by taking the current value of the index divided by the sum of the annual earnings of the 500 companies included in the index. One of the very important things to be aware of is that the denominator of the equation may actually be different depending on who is using the P/E ratio. Some people will refer to the P/E ratio in terms of the last reported annual earnings for the company (index). Other people will refer to the P/E ratio in terms of the expected earnings for the company (index) over the next year. In this particular case, the P/E ratio is referred to as the Forward P/E ratio. Both ratios have a purpose. The traditional P/E ratio measures the reported accounting earnings of the firm (index). It is a known value. The Forward P/E ratio measures the profits that the firm (index) will create in the future. However, the future profits are only a forecast. Many analysts prefer to use the Forward P/E ratio because the value of any firm (or index of companies) is determined by its future ability to generate profits for its owners. The historical earnings are of lesser significance.

The P/E ratio is essentially a measure of how much investors value $1 worth of earnings and what they are willing to pay for it. For example, a firm might have a P/E ratio of 10, 20, 45, or even 100. In the case of a firm that is losing money, the P/E ratio does not apply. In general, investors are willing to pay more per each $1 in earnings if the company has the potential to grow a great deal in the future. Examples of this would be companies like Amazon (Ticker Symbol: AMZN) or Netflix (Ticker Symbol: NFLX) that have P/E ratios well over 100. Some companies are further along in their life cycle and offer less growth opportunities and tend to have lower P/E ratios. Examples of this would be General Motors or IBM that have P/E ratios in the single digits or low teens, respectively. Investors tend to pay more for companies that offer the promise of future growth than for companies that are in mature or declining industries.

When it comes to the entire stock market, the P/E ratio applied to a stock market index (such as the S&P 500 index) measures how much investors are willing to pay for the earnings of all the companies in that particular index. For purposes of discussion and illustration, I will refer to the S&P 500 index while discussing the P/E ratio. The average P/E ratio for the S&P 500 index over the last 40 years (1966-2015) was 18.77. When delivering an opinion on the valuation of the S&P 500 index, many financial professionals will cite this number and state that stocks are overvalued (undervalued) if the current P/E ratio of the S&P 500 index is above (below) that historical average. If the current P/E ratio of the S&P 500 index is roughly in line with that historical average, the term fairly valued will usually be used in relation to stocks. The rationale is that stocks are only worth what their earnings/profits are over time. There is evidence that the stock market can become far too highly priced (as in March 2000 or December 2007) or far too lowly priced (as in 1982) based upon the P/E ratio observed at that time. Unfortunately, the relative correlation between looking at the difference between the current P/E ratio of the stock market and the historical P/E ratio does not work perfectly. In fact, it is only under very extreme circumstances and with perfect hindsight that investors can see that stocks were overvalued or undervalued in relation to the P/E ratio at that time.

Here are the historical P/E ratios for the S&P 500 index from 1966-2015 as measured by the P/E ratio at the end of the year. Additionally, the annual return of the S&P index for that year is also shown.

Year	P/E Ratio	Annual Return
2015	22.17	1.30%
2014	20.02	13.81%
2013	18.15	32.43%
2012	17.03	15.88%
2011	14.87	2.07%
2010	16.30	14.87%
2009	20.70	27.11%
2008	70.91	-37.22%
2007	21.46	5.46%
2006	17.36	15.74%
2005	18.07	4.79%
2004	19.99	10.82%
2003	22.73	28.72%
2002	31.43	-22.27%
2001	46.17	-11.98%
2000	27.55	-9.11%
1999	29.04	21.11%
1998	32.92	28.73%
1997	24.29	33.67%
1996	19.53	23.06%
1995	18.08	38.02%
1994	14.89	1.19%
1993	21.34	10.17%
1992	22.50	7.60%
1991	25.93	30.95%
1990	15.35	-3.42%
1989	15.13	32.00%
1988	11.82	16.64%
1987	14.03	5.69%
1986	18.01	19.06%
1985	14.28	32.24%
1984	10.36	5.96%
1983	11.52	23.13%
1982	11.48	21.22%
1981	7.73	-5.33%
1980	9.02	32.76%
1979	7.39	18.69%
1978	7.88	6.41%
1977	8.28	-7.78%
1976	10.41	24.20%
1975	11.83	38.46%
1974	8.30	-26.95%
1973	11.68	-15.03%
1972	18.08	19.15%
1971	18.00	14.54%
1970	18.12	3.60%
1969	15.76	-8.63%
1968	17.65	11.03%
1967	17.70	24.45%
1966	15.30	-10.36%

Average 18.77

The P/E ratio for the S&P 500 index has varied widely from the single digits to values of 40 or above. The important thing to observe is that very high P/E ratios are not always followed by low or negative returns, nor are very low P/E ratios followed by very high returns. In terms of a baseline, the S&P 500 index returned approximately 9.5% over this 40-year period. As is immediately evident, the returns of stocks are quite varied which is what one would expect given the fact that stocks are known as assets that exhibit volatility (meaning that they fluctuate a lot because the future is never known with certainty). Thus, whenever a financial professional says that stocks are overvalued, undervalued, or fairly valued at any given point in time, that statement has very little significance. Whenever only one data point is utilized to give a forecast about the future direction of stocks, an individual investor needs to be extremely skeptical of that statement. The P/E ratio does hold a very important key for the future returns of stocks but only over long periods of time and certainly not over a short timeframe like a month, quarter, or even a year.

An improvement on the P/E ratio was developed by Dr. Robert J. Shiller, the Nobel Prize winner in Economics and current professor of Economics at Yale University. The P/E ratio that Dr. Shiller developed is referred to as the Shiller P/E ratio or the CAPE (Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings) P/E ratio. This P/E ratio takes the current value of a stock or stock index and divides it by the average earnings of a firm or index components for a period of 10 years and also takes into account the level of inflation over that period. The general idea is that the long-term earnings of a firm or index determine its relative valuation. Thus, it does a far better job of measuring whether or not the stock market is fairly valued or not at any given point in time. However, another very important piece of the puzzle has to do with interest rates. Investors are generally willing to pay more for stocks when interest rates are low than when interest rates are high. Why? If it is assumed that the future earnings stream of the company remains the same, an investor would be willing to take more risk and invest in stocks over the safety of bonds. A quick example from everyday life is instructive. Imagine that your friend wants to borrow $500 for one year. How much interest will you charge your friend on the loan? Let’s say you want to earn 5% more than what you could earn by simply buying US Treasury Bills for one year. A one-year US Treasury Bill is risk free and, as of May 10, 2016 yields interest of 0.50%. Therefore, you might charge your friend 5.5% on the loan. Now back in the early 1980’s, one-year US Treasury Bills (and even savings accounts at banks) were 10% or higher. If you were to have provided the loan to your friend then, you would not charge 5.5% because you could simply deposit the $500 in the bank. You might charge your friend 15.5% on the loan assuming that the relative risk of your friend not paying you back is the same in both time periods. It is very similar when it comes to investing in stocks. Due to the fact that stocks are volatile and future profits are unknown, investors tend to prefer bonds over stocks as interest rates rise. This phenomenon causes the value of stocks to fall. Conversely, as interest rates fall, the preference for bonds decreases and investors will choose stocks more and prices go up. Now this assumes that the future earnings of the company or index constituents stay the same in either scenario.

With that information in mind, a better way to gauge the relative valuation of stocks in terms of being overvalued, undervalued, or fairly valued, would be to look at the Shiller P/E ratio in combination with interest rates. It is most common for investors to utilize the 10-year US Treasury note as a proxy for interest rates. Here are the historical values for the Shiller P/E ratio and the 10-year US Treasury note over the same 40-year period (1966-2015) as before:

Year	CAPE Ratio	10-Year Yield
2015	24.21	2.27%
2014	26.49	2.17%
2013	24.86	3.04%
2012	21.90	1.78%
2011	21.21	1.89%
2010	22.98	3.30%
2009	20.53	3.85%
2008	15.17	2.25%
2007	24.02	4.04%
2006	27.21	4.71%
2005	26.47	4.39%
2004	26.59	4.24%
2003	27.66	4.27%
2002	22.90	3.83%
2001	30.28	5.07%
2000	36.98	5.12%
1999	43.77	6.45%
1998	40.57	4.65%
1997	32.86	5.75%
1996	28.33	6.43%
1995	24.76	5.58%
1994	20.22	7.84%
1993	21.41	5.83%
1992	20.32	6.70%
1991	19.77	6.71%
1990	15.61	8.08%
1989	17.05	7.93%
1988	15.09	9.14%
1987	13.90	8.83%
1986	14.92	7.23%
1985	11.72	9.00%
1984	10.00	11.55%
1983	9.89	11.82%
1982	8.76	10.36%
1981	7.39	13.98%
1980	9.26	12.43%
1979	8.85	10.33%
1978	9.26	9.15%
1977	9.24	7.78%
1976	11.44	6.81%
1975	11.19	7.76%
1974	8.92	7.40%
1973	13.53	6.90%
1972	18.71	6.41%
1971	17.26	5.89%
1970	16.46	6.50%
1969	17.09	7.88%
1968	21.19	6.16%
1967	21.51	5.70%
1966	20.43	4.64%

Average 19.80 6.44%

These two data points provide a much better gauge of whether or not stocks are currently overvalued or undervalued. For example, take a look at the Shiller P/E ratio in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The value of the Shiller ratio is in the single digits during this time period because interest rates were higher than 10%. Lately interest rates have been right around 2.0%-2.5% for the past several years. Therefore, one would expect that the Shiller P/E ratio would be higher. Now the historical average for the Shiller P/E ratio was 19.80 over this period. The Shiller P/E ratio was in the neighborhood of 40 during 1998-2000 which preceded the bursting of the Internet Bubble in March 2000. The Shiller P/E ratio was at its two lowest levels of 7 and 8 in 1981 and 1982, respectively which is when the great bull market began. However, while this Shiller P/E and interest rates are better than simply the traditional P/E ratio, there are flaws. The Shiller P/E in 2007 was 24.02 right (and interest rates were around 4.0% which is on the low side historically) before the huge market drop of the Great Recession between September 2008 and March 2009. In fact, the S&P 500 index was down over 37% in 2008, and the Shiller P/E did not provide an imminent warning of any such severe downturn. Therefore, even looking at these two measures is imperfect but better than the normal P/E ratio in isolation.

To summarize the discussion, individual investors will always be told on a daily basis by various sources that the stock market is currently overvalued, undervalued, and fairly valued at the same time. One of the most commonly used rationales is a reference to the current P/E ratio in relation to the historical P/E ratio. As we have seen, this one data point is a very poor indicator of the future direction and relative value of stocks at any given period of time, especially for short periods of time (one year or less). The commentary and opinions provided by financial “experts” to individual investors when the P/E ratio is mentioned normally relates to the short term. By looking back at the historical data, it is clear that this one data point is really only relevant over very long periods of time. The Shiller P/E ratio in combination with current interest rates is a great improvement over the traditional P/E ratio, but it is even imperfect when it comes to forecasting the future returns of the stock market. There are two general rules for individual investors to take away from this discussion. Whenever a comment is made about the current value of stocks and only one statistic is provided, the opinion should be taken with a “grain of salt” and weighed only as one piece of information in determining investment decisions that individual investors may or may not make. Additionally, and equally as important, if a financial professional cites a statistic about stock valuation that you do not understand (even after doing some research of your own), you should always discard that opinion in most every case. Individual investors should not make major investment decisions in terms of altering large portions of their investment portfolios of stocks, bonds, and other financial assets utilizing information that they do not understand. It sounds like common sense, but, in the sometimes irrational world of investing, this occurrence is far more common than you imagine.

Latticework Wealth Management, LLC

~ Information for Individual Investors

Category Archives: investing information

Top Five Investing Articles for Individual Investors Read in 2019

Top of All Time

Breakthrough Drugs, Statistics, and Anecdotes: Three Things Every Individual Investor Needs to Know – Part 1 of 3

Individual Investors Should Treat Obtaining Financial Advice Like Buying a New Car

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Summary

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Part 3 of 3 – The Folly of Market Timing

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Part 1 of 3 – Understanding Stock Market Returns

What is Confirmation Bias? Why is it Dangerous for Individual Investors?

Bonds Have Risks Other Than Rising Interest Rates. Dividend Stocks are not Substitutes for Bonds.

Four Important Lessons for Individual Investors from the Brexit Vote

Are Stocks Currently Overvalued, Undervalued, or Fairly Valued? Answer: Yes.