Tag Archives: math

How to Become a Successful Long-Term Investor – Summary

30 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by 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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 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

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 2 of 3 – Understanding and Reducing Risk

25 Wednesday Sep 2019

Posted by in asset allocation, behavioral finance, Consumer Finance, Education, finance, finance theory, financial advice, Financial Advisor, financial goals, financial markets, Financial Media, Financial News, financial planning, financial services industry, Geometric Returns, historical returns, Individual Investing, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing tips, investment advice, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, 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, Stock Market Returns, Stock Market Valuation, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another extremely important part of being a long-term investor is to understand the concept of risk.  Financial professionals define risk in a number of different ways, and we will examine some of those definitions.  The overarching goal is to look at risk from the standpoint of the volatility or dispersion of stock market returns.  Diversification of various investments in your portfolio is normally the way that most financial professionals discuss ways to manage the inevitable fluctuations in one’s investment portfolio.  However, there is another more intuitive way to reduce risk which will be the topic of this second part of this examination into becoming a successful long-term investor.

The first part of this series on long-term investing was a look back at the historical returns of the S&P 500 Index (including the reinvestment of dividends).  The S&P 500 Index will again be the proxy used to view the concept of risk.  If you have not had a chance to read the first part of the series, I would urge you to follow the link provided below.  Note that it is not a prerequisite to follow along with the discussion to come, but it would be helpful to better understand the exploration of risk in this article.

The link to part one of becoming a successful long-term investor is:

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

But now we will turn our attention to risk.  Risk can be a kind of difficult or opaque concept that is discussed by financial professionals.  Most individual investors have a tough time following along.  Sometimes there is a lot of math and statistics included with the overview.  Although this information is helpful, we need to build up to that aspect.  However, there will be no detailed calculations utilized in this article that might muddy the waters further.  I believe it helps to take a graphical approach and then build up to what some individual investors consider the harder aspects of grasping risk.

Risk related to investing in stocks can be defined differently, but the general idea is that stocks do not go up or down in a straight line.  As discussed in depth in part one, the annual return of the S&P 500 Index jumps around by a large margin.  Most individual investors are surprised at seeing the wide variation.  Ultimately, the long-term historical average of the S&P 500 Index from 1957 to 2018 is 9.8%.  But rarely does the average annual return end up being anywhere near that number.

The first way I would like to look at risk within the context of long-term investing is to go back to our use of “buckets” of returns.  If you have not already read part one, I used “buckets” with ranges of 5% to see where stock returns fit in.  As it relates to risk, we are only going to look at the “bucket” that includes the historical average 7% to 12% and then either side of that “bucket” (2% to 7% and 12% to 17%).  Additionally, we will look at yearly stock returns and then annualized stock returns for three years, five years, and ten years.  Here is our first graph:

Returns on Either Side of Historical Average

The main takeaway from viewing this graph is that, as the length of time increases, more stock market returns for the S&P 500 Index group around the historical average for the index of 9.8%.  Remember that part one covered the useful information that, even though the historical average to be expected from investing in stocks is 9.8%, individual investors need to know that it can take long periods of time to see that historical average.  In fact, if we look only at one-year increments, approximately 33.9% of stock returns will fall into the range of 2% to 17%.    Or, if we use our yearly equivalent, stock market returns will only fall within that range 1 out of every 3 years.  When individual investors see this graph for the first time, they are usually shocked and somewhat nervous about investing in stocks.

The important thing to keep in mind is that as the length of time examined increased many more stock returns fall into this range.  The numbers are 65.0%, 67.1%, and 81.1%, for three years, five years, and ten years, respectively.  Converting those numbers to yearly equivalents we have about 6-7 years out of ten for three years and five years.  And, as one would intuitively suspect, the longest timeframe of ten years will have stock returns falling into the 2% to 17% range roughly 8 in every 10 years.  Now that still means that 20% to 35% of long-term returns fall outside of that range when considering all those time periods.  But I believe that it is certainly much more palatable for individual investors than looking at investing through the lens of only one-year increments.

Another aspect of risk is what would be termed downside protection.  Most individual investors are considered to be risk averse.  This term is just a fancy way of saying that the vast majority of investors need a lot more expected positive returns to compensate them for the prospect of losing large sums of money.  Essentially an easier way to look at this term is that most individual investors have asymmetric risk tolerances.  All that this means in general is that a 10% loss is much more painful than the pleasure of a 10% gain in the minds of most investors.  Think about yourself in these terms.  What would you consider the offset to be equal when it comes to losing and earning money in the stock market?  Would you need the prospect of a 15% positive return (or 20%, 25% and so forth) to offset the possibility of losing 10% of your money in any one year?  Let’s look at the breakdown of the number of years that investors will experience a loss.  To be consistent with my first post, I am going to use the “bucket” of -3% to 2% and work down from there.  Here is the graph:

Returns Less than 2%

There are 61 years of stock market returns from the S&P 500 Index for the period 1957 to 2018.  If we look at the category of 1 year, stock market returns were 2% or less 38.7% of the time (17 years out of 61 years).  However, if we move to five-year and ten-year annualized returns, there were no observations in the -3% to -8%, -8% to -13%, or less than -13% “buckets”.  When looking at losing money by investing in the stock market, a long-term focus and investment strategy will balance out very negative return years and your portfolio is less likely to be worth significantly less after five or ten years.  Of course, there are no guarantees and perfect foresight is something that we do not have.  However, I believe that looking carefully at the historical data shows why it is important to not be so discouraged by years when the stock market goes down and even stays down for longer than just one year.  Hopefully these figures do provide you with more fortitude to resist the instinct to sell stocks when the stock market takes a deep decline if your investment horizon and financial goals are many, many years out into the future.

The final concept I would like to cover is standard deviation.  The term standard deviation comes up more often than not either in discussions with financial professionals during client meetings or is used a lot in the financial media.  There are many times when even the professionals use the term and explain things incorrectly, but we will save that conversation for another post.  Standard deviation is a statistical term that really is a measure of how far away stock market returns are from the mean (i.e. the average).  It is a concept related to volatility or dispersion.  So, the higher the number is, the more likely it is that stock market returns will have a wide range of returns in any given year.  Let’s first take a look at a graph to put things into context.  Here it is:

Standard Deviation

The chart is striking in terms of how much the standard deviation decreases as the time period increases.  A couple things to note.  First, I do not want to confuse you with a great deal of math or statistical jargon and calculations.  My point is not to obscure the main idea.  Second, the 25-year and 50-year numbers are just included only to cover the entire period of 1957 to 2018 for the S&P 500 Index.  These periods of time are not of much use to individual investors to consider their tolerance for risk and the right investments to include in their portfolios.  And, as one of the most famous economists of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes, quipped:  “In the long run, we are all dead”.  My only point is that discussion of how the stock market has performed over 25 years or longer is just not relevant to how most individuals think.  It is nice to know but not very useful from a practical perspective.

The main item of interest from the graph above of standard deviation is that you can “lower” the risk of your portfolio just by lengthening your time horizon to make investment decisions on buying or selling stock.  For example, the standard deviation goes down 46.9% (to 8.95% from 16.87%) between one-year returns and three-year annualized returns.  Why do I use “lower”?  Well, the risk of your portfolio will stay constant over time and focusing on longer periods of time will not decrease the volatility per se.  However, most financial professionals tell their clients to not worry about day-to-day fluctuations in the stock market.  Plus, most Financial Advisors tell their clients to not get too upset when reviewing quarterly brokerage statements.  This advice is very good indeed.  However, I urge you to lengthen the period of your concern about volatility in further out into time.  My general guideline to the individuals that I assist in building financial portfolios, setting a unique risk tolerance, and planning for financial goals is to view even one year as short term akin to examining your quarterly brokerage statement.

Why?  If you are in what is termed the “wealth accumulation” stage of life (e.g. saving for retirement), what occurs on a yearly basis is of no concern in the grand scheme of things.  The better investment strategy is to consider three years as short term, five years as medium term, and ten years as the long term.  I think that even retirees can benefit with this type of shift.  Now please do not get me wrong.  I am not advising that anyone make absolutely no changes to his/her investment portfolio for one-year increments.  Rather, annual returns in the stock market vary so widely that it can lead you astray from building a long-term investing strategy that you can stick to when stock market returns inevitably decline (sometimes precipitously and by a large margin).  Note that all the academic theories, especially Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), were built using an assumption of a one-year holding period for stocks (also bonds, cash, and other investments).  Most individual investors do not fall into the one-year holding period.  Therefore, it does not make much sense to overly focus on such a short time period.

Of course, the next thought and/or comment that comes up is “what if the stock market is too high and I should sell to avoid the downturn?”.  I will not deny that this instinct is very real and will never go away for individual investors.  In fact, a good deal of financial media television coverage and news publications are devoted to advising people on this very topic every single day.   It is termed “market timing”.  In the third and last article in this series on becoming a successful long-term investor, I am going to examine “market timing” with the same stock market data from the S&P 500 Index.  You will clearly see why trying to time the market and buy/sell or sell/buy at the right time is extremely difficult to do (despite what the financial pundits might have you believe given the daily commentary).

The First Key to Successful Stock Investing is Understanding and Accepting Reality – Updated

16 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by in asset allocation, Average Returns, bonds, business, college finance, Consumer Finance, Education, Emotional Intelligence, finance, finance theory, financial advice, financial goals, financial markets, financial planning, financial services industry, Geometric Returns, Individual Investing, individual investors, investing, investing advice, investing information, investing tips, investment advice, investments, math, personal finance, portfolio, risk, risk tolerance, statistics, stock market, Stock Market Returns, stock prices, stocks, Uncategorized, volatility

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This particular topic is so important that I decided to revisit it again. The discussion below adds further refinements and creates an even stronger tie to behavioral finance (i.e. how emotions affect investment decisions).  Additionally, for those of you who desire more in-depth coverage of the math and statistics presented, I have included that at the very end of this article.  Let’s delve deeper into this topic and what is meant by “reality”.

The first key to successful stock investing has more to do with your emotions than a fundamental understanding of what causes stocks to move up or down. Emotions about money can be a powerful thing and cause people to behave in irrational ways.  One of the most common phrases passed on to investors as a piece of wisdom is to “buy low and sell high”.  However, study after study has shown that most individual investors fail to heed that advice.  Why does this happen?  Well, I would submit the real cause is behavioral and based upon incomplete information.

Most individual investors are told when they start investing in stocks via mutual funds and/or ETFs to expect an annual return of 8% to 9% per year. You will find that many financial calculators to help you plan for retirement on the Internet have that as one of the inputs to calculate the growth of your portfolio over time.  While that information is not too far off the mark based upon historical returns of the S&P 500 stock index, the actual annual returns of stocks do not cooperate to the constant frustration and consternation of so many investors.

That brings us to the first key to successful stock investing:  The actual yearly returns of stocks very rarely equal the average expected.  The most common term for this phenomenon is referred to as volatility.  Stocks tend to bounce around quite a bit from year to year.  Volatility combines with the natural instinct of people to extrapolate from the recent past, and investing becomes a very difficult task.  I will get deeper into the numbers at the very end of the post for those readers who like to more fully understand the concepts I discuss.  I do need talk in general about annual stock returns at this point to expand upon the first key.

Below I have provided a chart of the annual returns of the S&P 500 index for every year in the 21st century:

 

Year % Return
2001 -11.90%
2002 -22.10%
2003 28.70%
2004 10.90%
2005 4.90%
2006 15.80%
2007 5.50%
2008 -37.00%
2009 26.50%
2010 15.10%
2011 2.10%
2012 16.00%
2013 32.40%
2014 13.70%
2015 1.40%

 

What is the first thing you notice when looking at the yearly returns in the table? First, you might notice that they really jump around a lot.  More importantly, none of the years has a return that is between 8% and 9%.  The closest year is 2004 with a return of 10.9%.  If the only piece of information you have is to expect the historical average over time, the lack of consistency can be extraordinarily frustrating and scary.  In fact, individual investors (and sometimes professional investors too) commonly look back at the last couple of years and expect those actual returns to continue into the future.  Therein lies the problem.  Investors tend to be gleeful when returns have been really good and very fearful when returns have been very low.  Since the average never comes around very often, investors will forget what returns to expect over the long run and will “buy high and sell low”.  It is common to sell stocks after a prolonged downturn and wait until it is “safe” to buy stocks again which is how the sound advice gets turned around.

I will not get too heavy into math and statistics, but I wanted to provide you will some useful information to at least be prepared when you venture out to invest by yourself or by using a financial professional. I looked back at all the returns of the S&P 500 index since 1928 (note the index had lesser numbers of stocks in the past until 1957).  The actual annual return of the index was between 7% and 11% only 5 out of the 88 years or 5.7%.  That statistic means that your annual return in stocks will be around the average once every 17 years.  The 50-year average annual return for the S&P 500 index (1966-2015) was approximately 9.8%.  Actual returns were negative 24 out of 88 years (27.9% of the time) and greater than 15% 42 out of 88 years (48.8% of the time).  How does relate to the first key of stock investing that I mentioned earlier (“The actual yearly returns of stocks very rarely equal the average expected”)?

Well, it should be much easier to see at this point. If you are investing in stocks to achieve the average return quoted in so many sources of 8% to 9%, it is definitely a long-term proposition and can be a bumpy ride.  The average return works out in the end, but you need to have a solid plan, either by yourself or with the guidance financial professional, to ensure that you stick to the long-term financial plan to reach the financial goals that you have set.  Knowing beforehand should greatly assist you in controlling your emotions.  I recommend trying to anticipate what you do when the actual return you achieve by investing in stocks is well below or quite high above the average in your portfolio.  Having this information provides a much better way to truly understand and your risk tolerance when it comes to deciding what percentage of your monies to allocate to stocks in my opinion.

When you look back at the performance returns for stocks, it makes more sense why investors do what they do from the standpoint of behavioral finance. That is how emotions affect (all too often negatively) investment decisions.  If an individual investor is told at the outset that he or she can expect returns of 8% or 9% per year, the actual annual returns of stocks can be quite troubling.  Having that information only leads to a general disadvantage.  When stock returns are negative and nowhere near the average, individual investors tend to panic and sell stocks.  When stock returns are quite higher than the average, individual investors tend to be more euphoric and buy even more stocks.  This affect is magnified when there are a number of consecutive years with one of those two trends.  If stock returns are essentially unchanged, most individual investors become disengaged and really do not even see the point of investing in stocks at all.

I believe it is extremely important to know upfront that stocks are likely to hit the average return once every 17 years. That statistic alone is a real shocker!  It lets individual investors truly see how “unusual” the average return really is.  Plus, there is a better explanation for fear and greed.  Stock market returns will be negative once every 4 years.  Keep in mind this does not even include stock returns that are below the average yet still positive.  Lastly, every other year the stock market returns will be above the average (in my case I was measuring above the average with the definition of that being a stock market return greater than 11%).  It is no wonder why individual investors get greedy when it looks like investing in the stock market is so easy after seeing such great returns.  Conversely, the occurrence of negative returns is so regular that it is only natural for individual investors to panic.  Since the average only comes around approximately once every two decades, that is why confusion abounds and investors abandon their long-term financial plans.

I will readily admit sticking to a long-term financial plan is not easy to do in practice during powerful bull or bear markets, but I think it helps to know upfront what actual stock returns look like and prepare yourself emotionally in additional to the intellectual side of investing.  Now I always mention that statistics can be misleading, conveniently picked to make a point, or not indicative of the future.  Nevertheless, I have tried to present the information fairly and in general terms.

Additional Information on Stock Market Returns (Discussion of Math and Statistics):

Please note that this information may be skipped by individual investors that are scared off by math in general or have no desire to dive deeper into the minutiae. One of the first things to be aware of is what expected returns for stocks are.  An expected return is what the most likely outcome would be in any particular year.  Expected returns provide misleading results when there is a high degree of variability in the entire dataset.  In the case of stock market returns, there is an incredible amount of variability.  The industry term for variability, which is the statistical term, is volatility.  Due to the fact that the expected return almost never happens, it would be wise for the financial services industry to truly and better define volatility.  Most individual investors do not know that there is far more of a range of possible outcomes for stock market returns.  Individual investors associate hearing average returns with some volatility from Financial Advisors or financial media in the same way as the classic “bell curve”.  As discussed in further detail above, the outcomes do not even come close to approximating the “bell curve”.

One important thing to be aware of when it comes to actual performance returns of an individual’s investment portfolio is that average/expected values are not very important. In fact, they really lead to a distorted way of looking at investing.  Average/expected values are based on arithmetic returns, where the overall growth in one’s investment portfolio is tied to geometric returns.  The concept of geometric returns is overlooked or not fully explained to individual investors.  Here is the perfect example of how it comes into play.  Let’s say you own one share of a $100 stock.  It goes down 50% in the first year and then up 50% in the second year.  How much money do you have at the end of the second year?  You have the original $100, right?

Not even close. You end up with $75.  Why?  At the end of the first year, your stock is worth $50 ($100 + $100*-50%) after decreasing 50%.  Since you begin the second year with only that $50, that is why you end up having $75 ($50 + $50 * 50%).  The average annual return is 0% ((-50% + 50%) divided by 2)) for the two-year period.  Whereas your geometric return is negative 13.4%.  Essentially that number shows what happened to the value of your portfolio over the entire timeframe and incorporates the ending value.  Think of it as having $100 + $100 * -13.4% or $86.60 at the end of year one and then $86.60 + $86.60 * -13.4%) or $75.  Note that you never actually have $86.60 as the portfolio’s value at any time, but the geometric return tells you how much money you actually earned (or lost) over the entire period and how much money you end up with, otherwise known as the terminal value of your portfolio.  The geometric return will ALWAYS differ from the arithmetic return when a negative return is introduced as one of the outcomes.  As an individual investor, your primary concern is the terminal value of your portfolio.  That is the dollar value you see on your brokerage statement and is the actual amount of money you have.

Financial professionals forget to focus on geometric returns or even bring them up to clients. This omission is important to individual investors because negative returns have an outsized effect on the terminal value of an investment portfolio.  For example, in the example above, it is quite clear that losing 50% and then gaining 50% do not “cancel each other out”.  The negative percent weighs down the final value of the portfolio.  That is why it is extremely important to use the geometric return of the portfolio.  This result is due to the fact that the compounding of interest is not linear.  It is a geometric equation which is why the geometric mean comes into play.  Without going fully into the explanation of those equations, the main takeaway for investors when it comes to annual returns is that negative returns have more of an effect than positive returns.

Taken together, it is important to utilize the concept of multi-year geometric averages. Individual investors never want to simply add up the annual returns of a series of years and then divided by the number of years.  That result will overstate the amount of money in the investment portfolio at the end of the period.  The preferred approach is to use the geometric average which is referred to as the annualized average return.  That percentage is the number most relevant to investors.  Additionally, longer timeframes of these returns are best to look at given the extreme amount of volatility in yearly stock market returns.  It gives a better picture of how the stock market has moved.

When looking at the stock market returns for the S&P 500 index over five-year periods using the period 2001-2015, they yield surprising yet informative results. The five-year returns from 2001-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-2015 were 0.54%, 2.30%, and 12.57%, respectively.  Valuable information comes from looking at extended periods of time using the same time increment.  The overall return during 2001-2015 was 5.01%.  The effect of these longer timeframes smooths the stock market return data, but even then the stock market returns vary quite a bit.  Note that the overall return from the entire historical period of the S&P 500 index is roughly 9.50%.  These three selected chunks show two periods of underperformance and one year of outperformance.  The reason stock market returns tend to hover around the historical average is due to the fact that these returns are tied to the overall growth the economy (most commonly Gross Domestic Product – GDP) and corporate profits.  In the meantime though, stock market returns can vary a lot from this expected return.  However, they are unlikely to do so for incredibly long periods of time.

By incorporating the understanding of volatility and geometric returns into your understanding of the “reality” of stock market returns, you will be able to better refine your own risk tolerance and how to craft your long-term financial plan. A better grasp of these concepts makes one far less likely to react emotionally to the market, either with too much fear or too much greed.

A New Paradigm for Investing on 50 year-old Investment Advice Available on Amazon.com

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in alpha, asset allocation, Bernanke, beta, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fama, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, Markowitz, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize in Economics, portfolio, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, risk, Schiller, Sharpe, sigma, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Yellen

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am happy to announce that I have published another book on Amazon.com.  I have decided to make it FREE for the rest of the week through Saturday, December 7th (it normally retails for $4.99).  The book is another installment in my A New Paradigm for Investing series.  In this particular book, I focus on the use of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) as the primary tool by Financial Advisors to recommend portfolio allocations.  The theory is over 50 years old, and most of its assumptions have been shown to be less and less useful.  I explore the reasons why in my text.  I have tried to write in such a manner that you do not need a degree in mathematics or statistics to understand its contents.  Futhermore, you do not need to know about the intricacies of MPT in order to follow my logic.  You would find the same information in a college textbook but in a condensed format.

Note that this book is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Amazon.com prime members can borrow the book for FREE. I have provided a link below to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The book is:

1)      A New Paradigm for Investing:  Is Your Financial Advisor Creating Your Portfolio with a 50 Year-Old Theory?:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-ebook/dp/B00FQQ0CKG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381520643&sr=1-1&keywords=a+New+paradigm+for+investing+by+William+Nelson

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wealth Report @wsjexperts – Wall Street Journal #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

When It Comes to Your Investments, Are You Smarter than a 14 year-old?

12 Saturday Oct 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, Bernanke, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, GIPS, GIPS2013, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, NASDAQ, personal finance, portfolio, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Warren Buffett, Yellen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

That is a great question.  I will save you the suspense and give you the answer.  You are as smart as a 14 year-old when it comes to your knowledge of your investments.  What 14 year-old teenager am I referring to?  I am referring to myself.  I started investing when I was 13 back in November 1987.  (If you do the math, you can figure out how old I am).  After spending a year studying the financial markets, I had amassed quite a bit of understanding.  How does this relate to you?  Well, if you have been following my blog, I have not revealed any information that I did not already know by then.  Now my writing style has improved and I have incorporated innovations introduced after 1988, the topics I have written about are not that complicated.  Before you continue reading, I would like to state at the outset that I was not some sort of child prodigy when it came to finance.  I was good at math and retained what I learned.  I am no genius and have no delusions of grandeur.  As I sometimes tell my friends, “If I really knew what I was talking about, I would be running a $10 billion hedge fund”.

With that being said, you also have the good fortune of learning from approximately 25 years of mistakes in investing and misunderstanding about the financial markets and the impacts of exogenous and endogenous events.  I could go on and on about my mistakes; however, I will mention a few here.  First, I had the opportunity to invest in two shares of Berskshire Hathaway Class A (BRK.A) stock back in 1991 when it traded a little above $8,700 per share.  Of course, Berkshire Hathaway is the company run by the famous investor Warren Buffett.  As of August 5, 2013, BRK.A’s closing stock price was $177,300 or a bit over $350,000 if I would have purchased those two shares back in 1991.  Why did I miss out on this opportunity?  I did learn everything I could about Warren Buffett once my economics teacher talked about him and his investing paradigm.  It really made sense to me from the start.  Unfortunately, I pass up on purchasing the shares because I would only be able to own those two shares and one other mutual fund.  As a young man, I was hyped and yearning to pick a number of different investment choices.  Best Buy is one of the best performing stocks in the financial markets and trades over $30 now.  I purchased Best Buy about 7 years ago and paid $42.  I did sell quite some time ago, but I took a huge capital loss.     Second, I wrote a paper during my MBA program that talked about the risk management procedures of Citigroup.  As I look back on that paper written in 2005, it is curious to note that, besides AIG, Citigroup went through the pain of learning the limits of risk management and it had a bailout of epic proportions.  I guess my paper was not the best in retrospect.  Finally, I had a terrible habit of picking the current “hot hand”.  I tended to switch my mutual fund holding way too often when I was in my teens.  It was really attractive to calculate how much money I could earn in a mutual fund that made 20% per year.  Wow, I could double my money in less than four years!  As you always see now, past performance is not indicative of future returns.  I really ignored that statement and invested many times based upon hopes and extrapolation instead of rational thought.  My emotions got the best of me.

I did have quite a few wins along the way.  For example, I was invested in the famous Fidelity Magellan mutual fund when it was run by Peter Lynch.  Peter Lynch is a legend among mutual fund managers.  At one point in time, Fidelity Magellan had more assets than any other mutual fund in the country.  Oddly enough, that was its eventual downfall.  Another example would be that I was able to learn how to successfully manage my father’s 401(k) portfolio from 1988 to the present.  I have seen many bull and bear markets and never had his eventual retirement portfolio take a significant hit in terms of poor returns.  My experience investing over the last 25 years has shown me that there will be many times when the financial pundits say this time is different, new industries are going to blow away the Old Economy, or that news events should cause investors to reallocate investment portfolios dramatically.  Even though I have been investing for 25 years, there have been very few seminal financial market events, the global economy may be different but the laws of finance and economics still hold (or they eventually bring prices back to earth), and new industries tend to bring more innovation and tools for existing, mature industries.  An illustration would be the early Internet companies lost money and burned through enormous amounts of cash.  However, the technologies they introduced allowed existing businesses to use the Internet in unique ways to either generate additional revenue or improve productivity.  A direct example would be how airplanes revolutionized leisure and business travel, but the airlines have been a wealth-destroying industry.  On the other hand, there are a myriad of business that used the services of airlines.

My overall point is that if you take one hour per week for about four months, you will be able to get through the five books I recommended on investing.  Additionally, you can spend another 30 minutes looking at a few financial websites just to increase your knowledge of investment products, finance terms, and keep abreast of news in general.  As a reminder, the list of five books can be found here:  https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/07/23/spend-20-hours-learning-about-investments-to-prepare-20-years-of-retirement-2/ .  As another reminder, some recommended financial websites can be found here:  https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/08/04/todays-news-should-prompt-you-to-adjust-your-entire-investment-portfolio/ .

My entire goal with this blog is to save you lots of time.  Rather than being bombarded by disparate information regarding the financial markets and how to approach investing, I am trying to give you a shortcut.  I am hopeful that, if you have a roadmap that is clear, you will be more motivated to learn about investments and eventually become more comfortable with the process of building an investment portfolio to meet your financial goals, while ensuring that your emotions do not get the best of you.  At the end of the day, many individual investors pay fees to financial professionals to save themselves from enemy #1.  Who?  I mean that sometimes individual investors act rashly and keep buying and selling stocks and bonds at inopportune times just because a bad news event comes along or via peer pressure.  Remember that, if you have read all my previous posts, you are more than likely in the 90th percentile of individuals understanding of how the financial markets work.  Keep in mind there have not been that many posts to my blog, so I hope you realize that it is not as painful as you might have once thought learning about managing your investment portfolio and the financial markets is.

As an aside, please feel free to reach out to me if you have a recommendation for a topic I can discuss.  Please remember that this is a website geared toward individual investors who are novices or have not been investing for too long.   Thus, I am not looking to discuss how one might use ARIMA modeling to understand how macroeconomic variables affect the financial markets or individual stocks/bonds.  I appreciate you keeping it relatively simple.  With that being said, if enough people contact me in regard to one specific topic, I will definitely take a closer look.  Thank you in advance for your participation and time thinking about what would be more useful to you.  Furthermore, I am hoping that I cover topics that apply to everyone.  If the collective investment intelligence of the group steps up a few notches, I will cover the topic.  Please send me an email:  latticeworkwealth@gmail.com

A New Paradigm for Investing Available on Amazon.com

11 Friday Oct 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, Bernanke, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, GIPS, GIPS2013, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, NailedIt, NASDAQ, personal finance, portfolio, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Warren Buffett, Yellen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I am happy to announce that I have published another book on Amazon.com.  The book is another installment in my A New Paradigm for Investing series.  In this particular book, I focus on the use of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) as the primary tool by Financial Advisors to recommend portfolio allocations.  The theory is over 50 years old, and most of its assumptions have been shown to be less and less useful.  I explore the reasons why in my text.  I have tried to write in such a manner that you do not need a degree in mathematics or statistics to understand its contents.  Futhermore, you do not need to know about the intricacies of MPT in order to follow my logic.  You would find the same information in a college textbook but in a condensed format.

Note that this book is available for download onto a Kindle.  Additionally, there is a Kindle app for iPhones and Android devices which is free to download.  Amazon.com prime members can borrow the book for FREE. I have provided a link below to make it easier.   My email address is latticeworkwealth@gmail.com should you have any questions/comments/feedback.

The book is:

1)      A New Paradigm for Investing:  Is Your Financial Advisor Creating Your Portfolio with a 50 Year-Old Theory?:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Paradigm-Investing-Financial-ebook/dp/B00FQQ0CKG/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381520643&sr=1-1&keywords=a+New+paradigm+for+investing+by+William+Nelson

I would like to thank my international viewers as well.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would recommend following for the content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

The Wealth Report @wsjexperts – #wsjexperts

The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds

Research Magazine @Research_Mag

Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline

Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA

Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

Pedro da Costa @pdacosta

Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield

The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

Euro-banks @EuroBanks

Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

Charlie Wells @charliewwells

AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

Bob Burg @BobBurg

Melody Campbell @SmBizGuru

TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

MuniCredit @MuniCredit

D.J. Rob-Ski @DJRobSki

How Risky Are Stocks? Do You Understand Volatility? Part 1 of 2

08 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by in bonds, business, Education, finance, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Warren Buffett

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Investors are told over and over that stocks are risky investments.  How true is that though?  If you watch the financial news each day, it seems like there is no reason why stocks go up, down, or remain unchanged at times.  For every financial pundit that gets the direction of the market correct, there are many others that predicted things incorrectly or have been saying that the “sky will fall” for the past five years.  I will admit that stocks are very risky on a daily basis.  However, if you are not running a hedge fund or are a trader on a Wall Street firm’s proprietary desk, the “vicissitudes and vagaries” of the daily moves in the stock market are of no concern to you.  In fact, being too concerned about daily/weekly/monthly/quarterly movements in stock prices will actually hurt your long-term performance.  Investing is not a sprint.  It is a marathon!  If it seems as though the professionals on Wall Street do better than you, please keep in mind that the financial media rarely interviews people that were totally wrong on the market.

I do not like to pick on anyone; however, I will provide one example just to make a point.  Mark Faber, a long-time fixture on Wall Street, predicted that the S&P 500 index would drop to the 1266 level back in November 2012.  Refer to http://moneymorning.com/2012/11/08/stock-market-today-why-marc-faber-predicts-a-20-slide/.   He was recently on CNBC in August 2013 and predicted that the S&P 500 index would by 20% this year.  So is he actually more bullish on his bearish prediction about one year later?  Who knows how to characterize that one?  It is important to learn about stock price movements which are termed volatility in the jargon of Wall Street.  Your Financial Advisor will refer to it over and over when he/she advises you on how to construct your portfolio.

Why does volatility matter to you?  Well, in the very short run, stocks are one of the riskiest investments.  I recently read that over the last 50 years stocks were up 53% of the time and down 47% of the time.  So your odds of being right about one day is essentially a bit better than calling a coin flip.  Now hopefully you are not a speculator.  If you are trying to double your money this year or in even a shorter period of time, you need not read any further.  However, if you would like to learn how volatility affects portfolio construction and portfolio performance over the long term, please read on.

I pulled down some annual returns from the S&P 500 for the period 1926-2012.  Note that the S&P 500 was preceded by a number of other indexes of smaller components, so it is unwise to use this data in full.  Whenever anyone uses statistics to make an argument (myself included), you always need to be very skeptical.  So do NOT make me an exception.  If you look at the S&P 500 index’s performance over the 50 year period from 1961-2010, the annualized performance is a bit less than 9.7%.  Wow, that sounds really good!  However, it seems counterintuitive because the S&P 500 was down over 36% in 2008.  Plus, you may have heard that the 2001-2010 period is often referred to as the “Lost Decade”.  Stocks earned basically nothing over that timeframe.  You need to remember that the 9.7% figure is composed of five decades with different characteristics.  For a primer on how compounding of returns works, you can refer to one of my earlier posts:  https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/07/08/double-edged-sword-of-the-power-of-compounding/.  The aforementioned annualized return of the S&P 500 index over the last 50 years is composed of the following returns for each decade:  8.1% (1961-1970), 8.5% (1971-1980), 13.8% (1981-1990), 17.3% (1991-2000), and 1.4% (2001-2010).  You will most certainly remember the financial crisis of 2008 and the Internet Bubble of 2001.  These major events in the stock market took a huge toll on performance returns over the last decade in this series.  With that being said, Time magazine had a cover story in 1982 where they declared the de facto death of equities.  Oddly enough, it turned out to be the beginning of the strongest bull market in history.  Why is it important to decompose this data?

The importance lies in human nature.  An annualized return of 9.7% means that an investment in stocks should essentially double every five years.  Well, if your Financial Advisor invokes market history when building your portfolio, he/she may set your expectation that you can expect to double your money in stocks every 5 years.  What if it takes longer or you do not double your money after even a ten-year period like 2001-2010?  Humans tend to seek patterns and be risk averse.  Many of the great bubbles over time have come because financial professionals extrapolate from the past, be it with stock prices, corporate earnings, or housing prices more recently.  We look at the immediate past for a guide to the future.  This analysis is called ex post facto, and, as you can see above, it can get you into a lot of trouble.

Many investors used the 1980s and 1990s as a guide to what would happen in the 21st century.  In fact, there were books written and predictions of why the Dow Jones Industrial Average (Dow Jones) would reach 36,000 which is more than twice its current level as of September 2013.  I have met many investors that are still shying away from buying stocks because of the Internet Bubble of 2001 and the financial crisis of 2008.  Now I am not making a prediction about the future direction of the stock market, my only observation is that people tend to wait too long to get back into the market if they attempt to time the market properly.  Everyone wants to buy low and sell high.  Furthermore, they want to sell all their holding right when the market reaches its highs.  Buying stocks and holding them for the long term is not really all that much fun.  When I was 13 years old and buying stocks in the late 1980s, I know I wanted to double my money each year.  I got frustrated really quickly; however, I kept plugging away and investing more every month.

After the experience many had in the stock market from 1966-1982, they felt it was unwise to invest in stocks at all.  The Dow Jones was essentially unchanged during that period.  Very few Financial Advisors were recommending the purchase of stocks in the early 1980s.  Conversely, most every Financial Advisor was recommending the purchase of stocks throughout the late 1990s.  As humans, we tend to seek out patterns in history and, even subconsciously, think that the past will repeat itself.  You may think that you do not fall into that category, but I urge you to think about your experience with the stock market in 2001, 2002, and 2008.  Did you sell all your stocks, hold them, or buy more stocks during those years?  I can remember 2003 where it was very unfashionable to still invest in stocks.  It is easy to say that you will not succumb to the pressure to sell stocks, but, after the stock market fell over 35% in 2008, many investors just had enough.  Imagine you had $1,000,000 on January 1, 2008 and opened your brokerage statement on December 31, 2008 only to see the balance was $640,000.  Hard dollar figures are much more impactful than testing your risk tolerance by wondering if you would sell your stocks if the market went down 10%, 20%, or 30%.

Your Financial Advisor will talk to you about diversification and the benefit of holding securities in many different asset classes.  Moreover, you will be told over and over again that stock price volatility is bad and hurts your returns.  I will agree that stocks are volatile, but the assertion that Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) makes about risk/return can lead to odd answers.  Here is a homework assignment.  Ask your Financial Advisor if he/she remembers how stocks performed during 1987.  Of course, everyone remember the huge crash in October, but very few remember that the stock market was actually up a bit over 2% that year (S&P 500 index).  Why does that even matter?

Well, stock price volatility is measured by statistics.  Think of the bell curve in your days in school.  The bell curve has been used in education which basically states that most of the students will be average and get a grade of C.  There will be other students that get B’s and D’s as well.  Of course, there will be a small group of students that fail a class or exam or do extremely well and get an A.  MPT tells investors that volatility is bad.  It is bad in terms of the decisions you might make, but there are many odd answers given by the theory.  For example, the average daily return of stocks in was roughly 0.03%.  The main measure of volatility is standard deviation, and you do not need to worry how to calculate it.  Standard deviation simply measures how far from the average a series of numbers in a population is like daily stock returns.  The standard deviation for daily returns was about 2.0%.  The annualized standard deviation was 31.8% (just so you know standard deviation is not additive in nature, so it takes some mathematical manipulation to get to that answer).  Why did I present these numbers?  I presented them to make another observation.  In 1973 and 1974, the S&P 500 index was down 14% and 26%, respectively.  However, the annualized standard deviation for each of those years was 15.6% in 1973 and 21.6% in 1974.  Thus, those years were less volatile than 1987, but an investor would have lost a large amount of money in each year.  Would you rather make money during the course of a year or lose money over the course of the year with less volatility?  If you are a long-term investor, daily fluctuations in the stock market should not guide your decisions.  Otherwise, you will end up selling all your stocks just because prices are going up and down a lot.  The most important thing is the terminal value.  The terminal value just means what the return will be at the end of the period without regard to the volatility over the course of the year.

The validity or, more aptly usefulness, of MPT becomes more apparent when we look at daily returns.  MPT makes a lot of assumptions, one of which is that stock prices will follow the normal distribution.  That is just a fancy way of saying the bell curve.  Now if you know about statistics, you can make predictions about a set of data based upon the historical experience of that data.  I downloaded the daily returns of the S&P 500 from 1957-2012 because I had some extra time on my hands and was bored.  The average daily return of the index was 0.03% with a standard deviation of 0.98%.  If you assume the normal distribution holds, you can make the assertion that 99% of all observations should be within a low daily return of -2.25% and a high daily return of 2.31% (Formula is average – standard deviation * 2.33 and average + standard deviation * 2.33).  You might ask if that is really true.  This way to express the data means that the daily return for the stock market should be equal to or between those two figures 99 out of every 100 trading days.  In statistical terms, it is referred to as a 99% confidence interval.  What about the market crash in 1987?  The S&P 500 index dropped 20.5% on October 19, 1987.  How would you express that statistically?  In order to have a daily return that far away from the average, it equates to approximately 21 standard deviations from the average.  How likely is that?  It is pretty much the same odds of flipping a coin 20 times and having it come up heads each time.  Keep in mind that this date was not the only big drop over this period.  For example, there were over 20 times when the S&P 500 index dropped by 5% or more in a day during that period.  The likelihood of that happening over the course of 55 years (1957-2012) is infinitesimal.  If you would like to learn more about this type of odd result, I would encourage you to read the book, The (Mis)Behavior of Markets, http://www.amazon.com/The-Misbehavior-of-Markets/dp/B008A0LNBM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1378664066&sr=8-2&keywords=The+Misbehavior+of+markets.

Suffice it to say that the path of stock prices does not follow the normal distribution.  Now academics will admit that is the case and have made modifications to MPT.  Additionally, most academics will use the lognormal distribution or other distributions to explain the volatility of stock prices.  However, the mathematics becomes exponentially more difficult and challenging.  With that being said, the financial advice given to you from your Financial Advisor is likely to be taken from the first iteration of MPT.  If you have heard your financial professional talk about beta, alpha, sigma, mean, r-squared, and the like, he/she is constructing your portfolio by making reference to the ideas laid out by MPT.  Now I will not go so far as to say MPT is incorrect.  Much smarter folks than me developed it.; believe me!  However, the great Warren Buffett gave a speech back in 1984 that encapsulated why MPT he does not subscribe its tenants.  To see a transcription of the speech, refer to:  http://www.bestinver.es/pdf/articulos_value/The%20Superinvestors%20of%20Graham%20and%20Doddsville%20by%20Warren%20Buffett.pdf.

In the next part of this discussion, I will attempt to show you how to look at the volatility of stock prices in the context of your portfolio.  If you do not need to withdraw money from your portfolio on a short-term basis, MPT has less and less applicability for you.  MPT assumes that all investors have a one-year time horizon.  Therefore, if you do not plan on needed to withdraw money over the course of a 12-month period, this discussion definitely will apply to you.  You should be looking at your portfolio in terms of one-year and five-year increments.