Tag Archives: statistics

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

24 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by 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

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

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 rise.  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.

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.

Advertisements

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

10 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by 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

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

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.

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

01 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in asset allocation, beta, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fama, finance, financial planning, Free Book Promotion, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, Markowitz, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, passive investing, personal finance, portfolio, risk, Sharpe, sigma, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

I have decided to make my recently published book FREE for today only, March 1, 2014(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.  Moreover, 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 here.  It actually is quite surprising how little Financial Advisors know about MPT in general and how the ideas apply to individual investors.

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 as well. 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 of my blog that can be found at https://latticeworkwealth.com/.  I also wanted to especially thank some selected followers of my @NelsonThought and @LatticeworkWlth Twitter accounts (each of whom I would strongly recommend following for their content and insight):

Followers on @NelsonThought:

–  The Wall Street Journal Wealth Report @WSJwealthreport – #wsjexperts

–  Institutional Investor @iimag

–  The Royce Funds @RoyceFunds – Small Cap value investing asset manager

–  Research Magazine @Research_Mag – Latest industry information for wirehouses and ETFs

–  Barron’s Online @BarronsOnline – Weekly financial news magazine of Dow Jones

–  Cleveland Fed Research @ClevFedResearch

–  Euromoney.com @Euromoney

–  Pedro da Costa @pdacosta – Central banking and economics reporter at The Wall Street Journal

–  Muriel Siebert & Co. @SiebertCo

–  Roger Wohlner, CFP® @rwohlner

–  Ed Moldaver @emoldaver

–  Sylvia Maxfield @sylviamaxfield – Dean of the Providence College of Business

–  The Shut Up Show @theshutupshow

–  Berni Xiong (shUNG) @BerniXiong

Followers on @LatticeworkWlth:

–  Tracy Alloway @tracyalloway – US Financial Correspondent at Financial Times

–  Vanguard FA @Vanguard_FA – Vanguard’s ETF research and education

–  EU External Action @eu_eeas – Latest news from the European External Action Service (EEAS)

–  Direxion Alts @DirexionAlts

–  Charlie Wells @charliewwells – Editor at The Wall Street Journal

–  Jesse Colombo @TheBubbleBubble – Columnist at Forbes

–  Alastair Winter @AlastairWinter – Chief Economist at Daniel Stewart & Company

–  AbsoluteVerification @GIPStips

–  Investment Advisor @InvestAdvMag

–  Gary Oneil @GaryONeil2

–  MJ Gottlieb @MJGottlieb

–  Bob Burg @BobBurg

–  TheMichaelBrown @TheMichaelBrown

–  Phil Gerbyshak @PhilGerbyshak

– MuniCredit @MuniCredit

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 2 of 2

20 Friday Sep 2013

Posted by in asset allocation, bonds, business, Charlie Munger, Education, finance, financial planning, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investments, math, personal finance, portfolio, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility, Warren Buffett

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

In the first part of this discussion, I talked at length regarding the volatility of stock prices.  Most investors are fearful of stock prices jumping all around for seemingly random or unknown reasons.  Many times extreme volatility can be explained.  Other times different news sources will attribute these fluctuations to totally different or even opposite reasons.  No wonder it is frustrating for individual investors.  Now traders and speculators need volatility to make money.  Additionally, Wall Street trading desks generate purchase and sale orders if stock prices are constantly in flux.  However, if you have a longer timeframe for holding the underlying components of your portfolio, it is quite easy to get hung up in this daily “circus”.  It is hard to have what I term “intestinal fortitude”, which is a fancy way to say guts, in the face of this environment of information overload.

Most financial professionals will construct a portfolio and recommend purchases/sales based upon Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).  If you have heard the terms beta, alpha, r-squared, and tracking error, you are already familiar with MPT.  I will not get into the history behind the construction of MPT, but it started over 50 years ago.  Harry Markowitz is credited with creating the outline of the theory, and there has been a plethora of academic work done since then by some of the greatest academicians of all time.  With that being said, coming up with an academic theory and applying it to the real world are two different stories.  In brief, MPT talks about how to create a portfolio on the efficient frontier which maximizes return and minimizes risk (where risk is defined as the volatility of stock prices).  The portfolio consists of a combination of the risk free asset (Treasury debt) and an additional percentage of stocks.  However, there are a number of assumptions which underlie the theory.  In order to get the mathematics to work, a number of simplifying assumptions need to be made.  Otherwise, the calculations are so difficult that only a handful of mathematicians and statisticians would be able to understand the theory.  For some background information on the issue of stock price volatility, I encourage you to reread the first part of this article:  https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/09/08/how-risky-are-stocks-do-you-understand-volatility-part-1-of-2/.

Let’s take a look at the six key underlying assumptions of MPT as described by Dr. John C. Hull who is the Maple Financial Group Chair in Derivatives and Risk Management at the Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto in his book entitled Risk Management and Financial Institutions Third Edition.  As an aside, most students with an MBA in Finance or MS in Financial Engineering will recognize Dr. Hull’s name from his book on Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives, which is a standard text in most programs:  http://www.amazon.com/Options-Futures-Derivatives-DerivaGem-Package/dp/0132777428/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379691849&sr=8-1&keywords=john+hull+options+futures+and+other+derivatives+9th .  Dr. Hull lays out the assumptions on pages 10-11 of the aforementioned book.  They are as follows:

1)       Investors only care about the expected returns and the standard deviation of their portfolios assuming the standard normal distribution (bell curve).  He admits that many academics and practitioners believe that the expected returns of stock prices are non-normal and exhibit skewness and excess kurtosis.  Without giving a formal definition of the two, suffice it to say that skewness depicts whether or not more observations are above or below the average.  Kurtosis is simply whether or not there are observations than the simple bell curve would not predict.  Investors are more concerned with extreme negative returns above and beyond what the bell curve would predict;

2)      The second assumption is that stock price changes are not correlated to each other.  However, think about the industry factors that affect Apple and Samsung.  It is likely to be that global demand for smartphones will affect both these stocks in similar ways;

3)      The time horizon for all investors is one period which is typical one calendar year;

4)      All investors can borrow and lend at the same risk free interest rate;

5)      All investors are taxed at the same rate in all locations;

6)      All investors make the same calculations about the estimated expected returns, standard deviations, and correlations between returns for all investments available to investors.

We can clearly see that these assumptions severely limit the practical application of MPT to constructing a portfolio of investments that will provide a satisfactory rate of return given ones risk tolerance and financial goals.  Why are these assumptions made?  Well, I can assure you that even with these assumptions the math gets quite complicated.  For example, ask your Financial Advisor how William Sharpe proved that you can eliminate the covariance between stocks in order to come up with portfolios that lie on the efficient frontier to “simplify” Markowitz’s original theory.  Note this is just one “easy” part of coming up with the expected return of a portfolio composed of percentages of the risk free asset and all stocks.  If your Financial Advisor can explain that concept to you, you need not read any further.  I would be quite impressed and listen more to what he/she says.  If not, I would urge you to continue reading.

If some or all of the six assumptions do not apply to you, why would you want a portfolio custom made for you that uses a 50 year-old theory?  Personally, I do not know either.  So let’s proceed with how it relates to individual investors.  I will concentrate on investors in or near retirement or saving for retirement in my discussion below.

If your time horizon is longer than one year, you can make some modifications to MPT in order to fit your financial goals, risk aversion, and timeframe.  How?  Well, if you are an individual investor, you can choose to see the world in a different manner when it comes to investing.  The day-to-day and even quarterly fluctuations of stock prices should not concern you too much.  Yes, I realize it is easier said than done.  However, you can choose to make tactical and strategic decisions about the composition of your portfolio.  Most financial professionals would tell you to invest for the long term anyway, right?  Well, tactical decisions should be made in the context of an annual review of your portfolio.  Strategic decisions should be made with an outlook on the next five years or so.  This is probably what you have heard anyway.  Here is the twist though:  if you look at the stock price fluctuations of the S&P 500 index over the last 50 years, there will be some scary results.  If we take the period April 1, 1957 through June 28, 2013 and use MPT statistics, you can expect that 1 out of every 10 quarters your quarterly return from the S&P 500 index will be less than -11.5% or greater than 15.1%.  Note the returns are based upon quarterly fluctuations.  You can expect to experience a return in any given quarter which is less than -11.5% every 5 years or so.  Given your risk tolerance, how would you feel if your portfolio lost this amount in a single quarter?  Most investors, especially retirees, would have a difficult time accepting this volatility in expect returns.  Should you sell all your stocks at this point?  Well, I try never to give portfolio advice, but, if you are fearful of losing more than 10% of your money investors in stocks, I think you should strongly reconsider your risk tolerance.  That negative return is any given quarterly window is not too extraordinary in the real world.

I talked about the standard deviation of stocks on an annual basis at great length in the first part of this article.  How can we use the same statistical techniques to look at a portfolio over the long term?  Your Financial Advisor is used to speaking with you once a quarter and at the end of the year to review the performance of your portfolio.  What if you are wondering what you should do over the next five years? If you are 43 years old, why should you worry about daily stock price returns in 2014?  You should think about stock price returns but not to the extent of watching the stock market every single day, month, or quarter to try to glean magical insight into the future direction of stock prices.  I have been investing in the stock market since 1987, and the history of the stock market is littered with incorrect predictions about the stock market.  In fact, it can be dangerous to listen to some of the market prognosticators of “gloom and doom”.  For example, if you hear that you should buy gold because the entire financial system is going to collapse, I would ask you to perform a thought experiment.  If the financial system breaks down such that we are bartering for goods with gold and silver coins, ask yourself how long that money will last.   How long will it be until there is a scene out of NBC’s television show Revolution?  If there is an armed gang of thugs roaming the streets, I am pretty sure that your coins will not be in your possession for very long.  Note that is my personal opinion, but, if you construct your portfolio based upon extreme scenarios, you have to perform extreme scenarios to “stress” your portfolio.  I think it is a better use of time to think about uncertainty as being an ongoing component of investing.  There will never be 100% certainty about economic and financial events.

We can use the same statistics invoked by the academicians who created MPT to our advantage if the time horizon is extended to five year increments.  For example, over the time period 1961-2010, the average annual return for stocks in the S&P 500 index over each five-year period was 9.7% per year.  Now the minimum and maximum annual returns for each five-year increment were 0.5% (2001-2005) and 18.2% (1996-2000), respectively.  Now please observe that the annual returns of 1973, 1974, 1987 (as shown in part 1 of 2 was actually positive), 2001, and 2008 are included in that time series.  How does this occur?  The extreme increases and decreases of stock returns are smoothed out over a long period of time.  We had the Internet Bubble in 2001 which was preceded by the period of time in the late 1990’s which former Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan termed irrational exuberance (note that this term was coined by him in December 1996; please refer to this link for Greenspan’s famous speech:  http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1996/19961205.htm).  The fluctuation of stocks over a particular year can be quite volatile and can persist for much longer than expected by top-notch economists and asset managers.  However, if you look at these observed returns, you come up with much smoother results.  Your financial professional encourages you to invest for the long term, so why don’t you look at the expected returns over the long term for stocks when creating your portfolio?  If you are making tactical (medium term) and strategic (long term) changes to your portfolio, doesn’t it make sense to ignore the daily changes in stock prices?  To me, these are rhetorical questions.  Given the financial advice you receive or information you receive from the financial media now, does it sound like they consider these questions to be rhetorical?

The last point I will leave you with is a brief look at the annual returns you might expect over any five-year holding period in stocks.  Looking at the ten observations of five-year annual returns between 1961-2010 for the S&P 500 index, you can expect that 1 year in every 100 your five-year annual return will be outside -5.9% and 25.2%.  Therefore, every 200 years, there should be a five-year annual return less than -5.9% which is otherwise thought of as downside risk.  The worst five-year annual return for stocks since 1931 was 1936-1940 in which the average annual return was a bit less than -0.5%.  The five-year annual return for stocks between 1931-1935 was 2.2% which incorporated the height of the Great Depression.  Therefore, I would argue that you are thinking about investing as a long-term exercise in helping you reach your financial goals, stocks may be less risky than you think.  Or at the very least, you should ask your Financial Advisor why they do not use annual and five-year annualized (geometric basis of course) expected returns for stocks when recommending how you should position your portfolio.  It is a valid question if you are a long-term investor.  Note that I did not even include diversification in this discussion.  Since you are able to choose small cap stocks, international stocks, high yield bonds, and real estate, you can look at an individual portfolio in an even more positive light.

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.