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

28 Saturday Sep 2019

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifteen Year Correlation

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

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

One Year Correlation

Three Year Correlation

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

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

Five Year Correlation

Ten Year Correlation

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

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

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

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

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

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

24 Sunday Jul 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Important Lessons for Individual Investors from the Brexit Vote

10 Sunday Jul 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Tuesday May 2016

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Average 18.77

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

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

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

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

Average 19.80 6.44%

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

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

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

16 Wednesday Mar 2016

Posted by wmosconi 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

asset allocation, finance, financial advice, financial markets, financial planning, individual investing, individual investors, investing, investment advice, investments, math, mathematics, personal finance, portfolio, portfolio allocation, portfolio management, statistics, stock market, stocks, total returns, variance, volatility

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 21^st 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.

What is the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room for Retirees? It is 12.5.

26 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by wmosconi in active investing, active versus passive debate, asset allocation, bonds, business, Education, Fiduciary, finance, financial advisor fees, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investing, investments, stocks, bonds, asset allocation, portfolio, investment advisory fees, investments, math, passive investing, personal finance, portfolio, risk, stocks, volatility

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

bonds, business, Certified Financial Planners, CFP, finance, Financial Advsiors, financial planning, individual investing, investment advisory fees, investments, personal finance, Registered Investment Advisors, retirement, RIA, stocks, volatility

The 12.5 I am referring to is 12.5%, and it relates to investment advisory fees. I have discussed the effects of investment advisory fees at length in previous posts. In general, most individual investors pay fees to financial services firms that are too high in comparison to the value provided in many cases. For example, the vast majority of individual investors do not need complex, strategic tax planning, estate planning and legal advice, or sophistical financial planning. However, the firms that most people invest with offer those services within the fee structure. There is very little in the way of options to select a larger wealth management firm that will provide only asset allocation advice at a reduced fee because the individual investor does not need the other services when it comes to tax, legal, and sophisticated financial planning. I wrote an article several months ago in regard to how you can look at the value added by your financial professional. It is worth a review in terms of what he/she can do for you that you cannot simply do yourself using a passive investing strategy. Here is the link:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/10/26/are-your-financial-advisors-fees-reasonable-are-you-actually-adding-more-risk-to-your-ability-to-reach-your-long-term-financial-goals-here-is-a-unique-way-to-look-at-what-clients-pay-for/

I would like to focus on a different way of looking at investment advisory fees. My primary focus will be on retirees; however, the logic directly applies to those in the wealth accumulation phase of life trying to save for retirement. As I have mentioned previously, the standard fee for investment advisory services is normally 1% of assets under management (AUM). This structure simply means that an individual investor pays $1 in fees for every $100 invested. Another way to look at it is that you will pay $10,000 annually if your account balance is $1,000,000 ($1,000,000 * 1%). I would like to go through an illustration to show what this means in terms of your investment performance, overall risk profile, and the ability to reach your long-term financial goals.

Most individual investors do not write out a check to their financial professional. Rather, they have the investment advisory fees paid out of the investment returns in their portfolios. My example does not make any difference how you pay your fees, but it can be somewhat hidden if you are not writing out a check. The fees just appear as a line item on your daily activity section of your brokerage statement; most investors skim over it. In order to make the mathematics easier to follow, I am going to use a retiree with a $1,000,000 account balance and a 1% AUM fee annually. My entire argument applies no matter what your account balance is or your AUM fee. You just need to insert your personal account balance and AUM fee which may be higher or lower. So let’s get started.

In my hypothetical scenario of a $1,000,000 portfolio subject to a 1% AUM fee, this retiree will have to pay $10,000 to his/her financial professional for investment advisory services rendered. Well, we can look at this fee from the standpoint of the portfolio as a whole in terms of investment performance necessary to pay that fee. The portfolio will need to increase by at least 1% to pay the fee in full. Now most financial professionals will tell clients that they can expect to earn 8% per year by investing in stocks. So using that figure (which is close to the historical average), we can get to the fee by allocating $125,000 of the overall portfolio to stocks in order to increase the portfolio on average by 8% to be able to pay the $10,000 fee ($125,000 * 8% = $10,000).

What does that mean in terms of your overall portfolio allocation to stocks? You can imagine that, whatever your total allocation to stocks is, 12.5% of that amount is invested simply to pay fees. For example, if you are just starting out in retirement at age 65 and have 60% allocated to stocks, 12.5% of the expected return (8%) from stocks in your total portfolio will go to pay your annual investment advisory fees and 47.5% of the expected return (8%) from stocks in your total portfolio will add to your account balance.

The math works out this way: $1,000,000 * 60% = $600,000 // $600,000 (invested in stocks) * 8% (expected return from stocks) = $48,000 // $48,000 – $10,000 (AUM fee at 1%) = $38,000. An alternative way to do the math is to take the total allocation to stocks and subtract the necessary allocation to stocks to pay the AUM fee, and that result is the investment return for the year that remains in your account balance which is $38,000 (So take 60.0% – 12.5% = 47.5% // $1,000,000 * 47.5% * 8% = $38,000).

The paragraph above has major impacts for your portfolio. Firstly, it illustrates how much additional risk you are taking on in your portfolio as a whole. In order to breakeven net of fees, you need to invest 12.5% of your portfolio into stocks. Retirees are in the wealth distribution phase of life, and most are living off the investment account earnings (capital gains, dividends, and interest) and principal. Since retirees have no income from working and will not be making any additional contributions, they are impacted greater than other investors in the way of volatility. Stocks are more volatile investments than bonds but offer the promise of higher returns. It is the simple risk/reward tradeoff. Second, it shows that the higher the fees for retirees the more vulnerable they are to volatility as a whole. Since retirees need to withdraw money on a consistent/systematic basis, a higher allocation of their portfolio to riskier investments are more vulnerable than other investors that have longer timeframes prior to retirement (wealth accumulation phase). If there are major downturns in the stock market, retirees still have to withdraw from their accounts in order to pay living expenses. They do not have the luxury of not selling. Yes, a retiree could sell bonds instead of stocks but then the allocation of stocks has to rise by definition as a percentage of the entire portfolio.

There is a way to rethink the investment strategy for a retiree. In today’s investing environment, there are many more investment offerings that offer financial products at much lower expenses than traditional active mutual fund managers. These include ETFs and index mutual funds. The expenses typically are less than 0.20% (in fact, most are significantly lower than this). Additionally, there has been the proliferation of independent Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) and Certified Financial Planners (CFPs) over the past 10-15 years who charge fee-only (hourly) or flat fee. Most of these financial professionals charge significantly lower fees than the traditional 1% AUM fee. In fact, it is possible to cut your fees by 50% at least. Now the flipside may be that you might not have the ability to consult with some about certain sophisticated tax, legal/estate, and financial planning strategies. However, most retirees do not need that advice to begin with. The average retiree only needs a sound asset allocation of his/her investment portfolio given his/her risk tolerance and financial goals. To learn more about independent RIAs and CFPs, I have included these links:

1) RIA – http://www.riastandsforyou.com/benefits-of-an-ria.html

2) CFP – http://www.plannersearch.org/why-cfp/Pages/Why-Hire-a-Certified-Financial-Planner.aspx

The main benefit in terms of reducing fees is not only that the retiree keeps more money, but, more importantly, he/she can reduce the overall risk of the portfolio. Let’s go back to our hypothetical example of a retiree with a $1,000,000 who is charged a 1% AUM fee or $10,000 per year. If the total investment advisory fees are reduced by 50%, the total annual fee is 0.5% or $5,000 per year. What does this mean? In our first example, the retiree had to allocate 12.5% of his/her portfolio of stocks to pay the $10,000 annual AUM fee (assuming an 8% expected return). If the fees are 50% less, the retiree now only has to allocate 6.25% of the portfolio to stocks in order to pay the annual investment advisory fees ($1,000,000 * 6.25% = $62,500 // $62,500 * 8% = $5,000).

Now if we go back to the longer example of a simple 60% stock and 40% bond portfolio, the retiree in this case is able to invest 53.75% in stocks and 46.25% in bonds and still pay the annual investment advisory fees. The math is as follows: ($1,000,000 * 53.75% = $537,500 // $537,500 * 8% = $43,000 // $43,000 – $5,000 new annual fees = $38,000). You will note that the retiree has $38,000 in his/her portfolio after the annual fees are paid out. This dollar amount is equal to the other hypothetical retiree who had to pay a 1% AUM fee. The example illustrates that both investors have the same expected increase to their portfolio but the retiree with the lower fees is able to get to that figure with a portfolio that is less risky because he/she is able to allocate 6.25% less to stocks.

Another way to look at this scenario is that the retiree in the second case with 50% lower fees could have alternatively chosen to reduce his/her stock allocation by 5%. For example, the retiree could have started with a portfolio allocation of 55% instead of using the 53.75% stock allocation. In this example, the retiree would have an expected return after fees that is $1,000 higher than the retiree from the first example and take less risk. The math is as follows: ($1,000,000 * 55% = $550,000 // $550,000 * 8% = $44,000 // $44,000 – $5,000 = $39,000 // $39,000 – $38,000 = $1,000). The retiree in this example would have a higher expected return from his/her entire portfolio of 0.1%. While this figure might not sound like much, the more important point is that this return is achieved with less risk (only 55% allocation to stocks versus a 60% allocation to stocks).

A financial professional might argue that he/she is able to create an asset allocation model for an average retiree that will end up having investment returns higher than that recommended by the independent RIA or CFP. Of course, this might be the case. However, in order to have the retiree be indifferent between the two scenarios, the portfolio recommended by the financial professional charging a 1% AUM fee must be able to return 0.5% more annually at an absolute minimum. Now this does not even consider the riskiness of the retiree’s portfolio. In order to have a portfolio earn an additional 0.5% per year, the client will have to accept investing in riskier asset classes. Therefore, given the additional risk, the retiree should require even more than an additional 0.5% overall return to compensate him/her for the potential for higher volatility.

As you can see, the level of fees makes a big difference. The more you are able to cut the fees on your retirement account (and any account for that matter) the less risky your portfolio can be positioned. In the aforementioned example, the overall reduction in the exposure to stocks can be a maximum of 12.5% to stocks. Now the average retiree will most likely not want to forgo any investment advice from a financial professional. However, in the case of person able to lower his/her investment fees by 50%, he/she was able to reduce his/her investments in stocks by 6.25% (12.5% * 50%). In fact, you can figure out the possible reduction in exposure to stocks by multiplying the 12.5% by the reduction in fees you are able to achieve. For example, let’s say that you are able to reduce your investment fees by 70%. You would be able to reduce your allocation to stocks by 8.7% (12.5% * 70%).

The entire point of this article is to show you how you can be able to reduce the volatility in your portfolio and not sacrifice overall investment returns. If investing in stocks during your retirement years makes you nervous, this methodology can be used to help you sleep better at night because you have less total money of your entire retirement savings allocated to stocks. However, you are not sacrificing investment returns. Always remember that in the world of investment advisory fees, it truly is a “zero sum game”. All this means is that the investment advisory fees are reducing your net investment portfolio gains. The gain in the value of your portfolio either goes to you or your financial professional. The more you learn about how investment advisory fees, the types of financial professionals available to advise you offering different fee schedules, and how the financial markets work, the more gains you will keep in your portfolio.

The Results are in for my January CNBC Experiment: It Proves Nothing and Everything. What?

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, beta, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, currency, Education, EM, emerging markets, Fed, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, foreign currency, forex, fx, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investments, math, NailedIt, personal finance, portfolio, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, Suitability, volatility, Yellen

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

bonds, business, cnbc, currency, education, EM, emerging markets, finance, financial planning, forex, fx, individual investing, interest rate risk, interest rates, investing, personal finance, rising interest rates, stocks, thought experiment, volatility

Sometimes the most important lessons in the individual investing sphere are complicated and simple at the same time. At the very beginning of January, I recommended a little experiment that related to the financial market coverage on CNBC. The specific details of this “thought experiment” can be found in the original blog post from January 1st:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2014/01/14/happy-new-year-beginning-thoughts-and-information-for-international-viewers-2/

The brief version of the exercise related to watching Monday and Friday coverage of the current events in the global financial markets during the month. The simple exercise was to watch CNBC’s Squwak Box every Monday during the course of the month. The second part was to watch the last hour of the Closing Bell segment. What was the logic? The Monday show is a three-hour program, and there are many current issues considered and opinions from various market participants (e.g. traders, money managers, economists, investment strategists, research analysts, etc.). Monday is critical due to the fact that the market participants cannot trade on Saturday and Sunday. You might think of it as “forced” time to think and/or reflect about how current events are affecting investment opportunities and risks. Friday’s reflections from the same market participants is focused more on trying to explain the “vagaries and vicissitudes” (i.e. volatility of the stock market and changing opinions) of the markets ups and downs over the course of the week. Furthermore, many commentators and guests try to explain why the predictions on Monday did not or did match up with the ideas expressed at the beginning of the week.

The overall point of this experiment was to “drive home” the fact that trying to time the market or predict its direction over the short term is extremely challenging and can seem hopeless. Toward the end of December, the general investment thesis for the majority of money managers was that the stock market was poised to have a very positive January due to the fact that the financial markets did not really dive after the Federal Reserve announced the reduction of the tapering program, commonly referred to as QE (quantitative easing). Additionally, the main belief was that bonds were one of the least attractive investments to own. Most people assumed that the 10-year US Treasury Note was headed up to the 3.0% level. Things seemed pretty simple and not too many headwinds in the near future. So what happened during January?

The main event that most people remember was the currency difficulties of a number of emerging market countries. The financial media focused a lot on the Turkish lira (TRY) and the Argentine peso (ARS). Turkey had political problems, and Argentina has a huge problem as it relates to political leadership (or the absence thereof) and dwindling currency reserves. There were other currencies that experienced trouble as well like the South African rand (ZAR). The other important development was that the Japanese yen (JPY) reversed its direction and strengthen versus the US dollar (USD). Oddly enough, the Argentine Merval stock index was one of the best performers over the course of the month. No one saw this coming to such an extent. You might term this an exogenous event as anything that occurs outside of your current model to build a portfolio or invest in individual stocks/bonds. It is largely unknown and hard to predict. (As an aside, this is NOT the same thing as a “black swan”. That term is overused and conflated with many other things. Refer to Dr. Nassim Taleb for a further definition of the termed that he famously coined years ago). These events tend to be unknowns and have a greater impact because the general level of the perception of risk changes almost instantly and affect market sentiment and momentum. Market participants need to alter their models rather quickly in order to account for the occurrence of these events.

The other big event was the movement of the yield on the 10-year US Treasury note. Instead of following a general path of rising, the interest rate actually fell. The yield on this instrument drifted down roughly 40 basis points (0.4%) from the 3.0% level. What most people fail to realize is that interest rates go down if economic data turns out to be worse than expected normally (e.g. December jobs of 70,000 and the lowest labor force participation rate since the 1980s), but, more importantly, there is a “flight to quality” phenomenon that occurs over and over again. There tends to be a bit of a “mini panic” when unexpected and impactful events occur. If all else fails, institutional investors like hedge fund managers tend to buy US Treasury bills, notes, and bonds for safety. The additional demand causes bond prices to go up and, by definition, yields will go down.

The combination of bad economic data and dealing with the currency woes in the emerging markets causes many short-term traders and speculators to buy these risk-free assets and figure out how to trade later. It is sort of an example of reflexivity. The bottom line for individual investors is that many sold bonds and purchased dividend stocks instead. The exact opposite happened: bond yields went down and dividend stocks sold off. The worst short-term investing strategy was to search for yield in the stock market rather than the bond market due to rising interest rates. For more information you can refer to one of my former posts on how to look at the various risk factors associated with bonds. Trust me, there is a lot more to bonds than simply interest rate risk. Here is the link to a former blog post that addresses this very issue:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2014/01/02/a-bond-is-a-bond-is-a-bond-right-should-you-sell-bonds-to-buy-stocks/

There were many other smaller events that happened over the course of the month that affected the general volatility experience in the financial markets. At the end of the day, even the “experts” had a monumental task trying to explain all the macroeconomic events, currency movements, and interest rate implications throughout January. If the task was so difficult for them, it is normally advisable for individual investors to not follow the market daily and get caught up in temporary “greed and fear” of traders and speculators. Investment ideas and predications can change from day to day and even minute to minute in the short term. It is much more important for individual investors to develop a long-term financial plan that will allow them to reach future financial goals. You then blend that with your risk tolerance. For example, how likely would you have been to sell the positions in your portfolio given the volatility experienced during the course of January? An outlook of five years is normally a great start for that plan. If you look out into the future with a longer timeframe like an annual basis in terms of adjusting the components of your asset allocation, you are less likely to constantly trade the securities in your personal portfolio. The frenetic pace of traders/speculators and the volatility of the stock and bonds markets makes it seem that you MUST do something, anything!

If you would like to learn a bit more about behavioral finance, you can refer to this blog post from last year (note context of examples referred to is from August 2013 when the piece was published):

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

One of the most important things to learn in investing is how to control your emotions. It is easy to map out your investment strategy and risk tolerance on paper. Many asset managers who have experienced a multitude of secular bull and bear markets refer to this phenomenon as your EQ versus your IQ. Thus, when actual “money” is involved, volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets brings forth challenges that even the best money managers have a hard time keeping up their nerve. The other takeaway is that people’s investment recommendations can change on a dime. Market participants can be very hopeful on one day and think the sky is falling the next day. Trying to time the market is so difficult that you end up developing a portfolio allocation for your investments that assumes that general events with transpire. All the planning in the world cannot account for all possibilities of geopolitical and global events that might really cause the market to go down more than normal in a short time period.

The whole point of this “thought experiment” was to encourage you to take a long-term view of investing in the financial markets. It is a lot less stressful, less complicated, and tends to lead to better overall investment returns (i.e. you do not “sell low and buy high” as much because everyone tells you to). For more information on stepping back and thinking about the long term, I have included a final blog post. You always need to remember that your financial professional (or yourself if you manage your own investments) who advises you about investment decisions is forever impacted by the start of their investment career. They tend to be biased and make investment recommendations based upon how things used to be when they started in the business. It is very hard to separate your “biases” from the present day. Here is the link:

https://latticeworkwealth.com/2013/08/18/before-you-take-any-investment-advice-consider-the-source/

Well, I hope you learned a few things by participating in my experiment and maybe even had a little bit of fun. Please feel free to leave a comment or send me an email directly at latticeworkwealth@gmail.com with more specific feedback and/or questions. Sometimes you can learn a great deal just by being an observer of financial market volatility. What is the nothing part of this learning journey? The moral of the story is that everyday guests appearing on CNBC or other commentators will let you know that the stock market with either go up, go down, or stay unchanged. Obviously everyone knows that simple concept to begin with. Thus, it is hard to choose who to listen too because of so many divergent opinions. Lastly, you should realize that this same experiment would have worked with the other business networks and large financial news publications like the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Barron’s.

Not all Index Mutual Funds and ETFs are Created Equal: Part 1 of 2

28 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, beta, bonds, business, Education, emerging markets, finance, financial planning, Individual Investing, investing, investments, personal finance, portfolio, risk, stock prices, stocks, Suitability, volatility

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

asset allocation, Bogle, bonds, EM, emerging markets, ETF, ETFs, finance, index mutual funds, passive investing, personal finance, stocks, volatility

I am definitely a big advocate of passive investing in either index mutual funds or exchange traded funds (ETFs). However, the proliferation of products over the last 10 years or so has made things quite a bit more complicated than the old days of John Bogle introducing the first large offerings of index mutual funds at Vanguard over 30 years ago. I figured it would be worthwhile to address a few topics in this regard.

There are two issues that are central to my discussion that individual investors need to be aware of. The first issue is that the underlying stock or bond holdings of these offerings can be very different even if the names sound exactly the same. The second issue is that many of the new registrations for ETFs or recently issued securities are more akin to what is termed enhanced indexing or “smart” beta. These types of choices are not active mutual funds or ETFs in the traditional sense. Moreover, they are not passive either. These newer products will slice and dice a universe of securities or use “proprietary” methods to actually beat the index. Now by definition an index investor knows that he or she will underperform the index when costs are taken into account. Any “passive” product that claims that the advisor can beat the index is therefore more akin to an active approach. There are many different terms to describe. I will postpone the discussion of that salient topic in the second part of this post though.

There is a great example in recent days of why this is important. An ETF is the best way to analyze the issue because they must be transparent daily. The holdings of any ETF are publicly available to see each day. Additionally, each ETF will hold all the components of a particular index. Therein lies the extremely vital piece that most individual investors are unaware of. There happen to be multiple indexes that attempt to capture the stock and/or bond investment performance of a particular piece of the financial markets. The definition of that universe is what matters to investors. A timely example is the stock performance of emerging markets which has been incredibly volatile of late. However, not all ETFs follow the same definition of what an emerging market country is.

The two main emerging market ETFs are offered by Vanguard and BlackRock. The Vanguard offering is through their VIPER series and is called the Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (Ticker Symbol: VWO). The BlackRock offering is through their iShares series and is called the iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (Ticker Symbol: EEM). Most individual investors (and some financial professionals) think of these ETFs as being the same. However, they are actually quite different. Why? Well, the difference in the names kind of gives the answer away. The Vanguard ETF is tied to the FTSE Emerging Markets Stock Index, while the BlackRock ETF is tied to the MSCI Emerging Markets Stock Index. Both of these ETFs invest in all the components of stocks in those two respective universes. The definition of emerging markets by these two index providers is quite different.

The main difference between the two is how they classify stocks traded in South Korea. MSCI considers South Korea to still be an emerging market and 15.8% (as of January 27, 2014) of the ETF is allocated to that country. FTSE considers South Korea to be mature enough to be thought of as a developed economy and no longer should be viewed in the same light as other countries in the emerging markets. They have reached a level of sophistication in terms of the economy, banking system, and breadth in trading of the stocks there. Thus, Vanguard does not allocate any money to South Korea. There are some other slight differences in countries within the two indexes but the aforementioned percentage is definitely significant. If you are ever confused why the total returns of the VWO and EEM ETFs do not equal even after taking into account investment fees, that is the primary reason why. Over the course of an entire year, the difference in the total return can be striking depending on the performance of the KOSPI (South Korea’s main stock index).

Investing in the Vanguard version instead of the BlackRock version can be more risky since the relatively more mature stock market of South Korea is not included. As I have mentioned in the past, I do not advocate the purchase of any particular stock, bond, index mutual fund, or ETF. With that being said though, it is important to know the differences between two similarly sounding offerings. If you want to have exposure to the emerging markets, you should not simply look at investment fees. The expense ratio on the VWO is 0.18% and the 0.67% for the EEM. Most people would say that the VWO is better because the fees are lower. However, you are not comparing apples to apples due to the South Korea inclusion issue.

The main takeaway here is to read the prospectus for any index mutual fund or ETF. Or, at the very least, you should pay careful attention to the fact sheet provided for either. You should look at what index the index mutual fund or ETF advisor is using. You can go to the link of that index provider to see what is included (in terms of individual stocks or bonds or countries, etc.), so you are aware of what you are buying. It is much easier to avoid a purchase of a particular security than to have to sell after an unexpected loss because you purchased the “wrong” thing based upon your risk tolerance and financial goals, and how that particular asset was going to complement your overall portfolio allocation.

I have included links to the major index providers for ease of reference. There are many others, but these are the major players in the passive investing world. They are as follows:

1) Standard & Poor’s – http://us.spindices.com/

2) Russell Investments – http://www.russell.com/indexes/americas/default.page

3) MSCI – http://www.msci.com/products/indices/

4) FTSE – http://www.ftse.com/Indices/

5) Barclays – https://ecommerce.barcap.com/indices/index.dxml

Happy New Year, Beginning Thoughts, and Information for International Viewers

01 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by wmosconi in asset allocation, bonds, business, Consumer Finance, Education, Fed Taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, financial planning, Individual Investing, interest rates, investing, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, personal finance, portfolio, rising interest rate environment, rising interest rates, risk, statistics, stock prices, stocks, volatility

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

asset allocation, bonds, economics, finance, financial planning, individual investing, investing, investing ideas for 2014, investments, stocks, volatility

I am looking forward to sharing more information regarding investing, finance, economics, and general knowledge about the financial services industry in 2014. I am hopeful to increase the pace with which I publish new information. Additionally, I am happy to announce that I reached viewers in 40 countries in all six continents. Countries from Japan, France, Germany, and Russia to Ghana, Colombia, and even Nepal.

Since the number of my international viewers has grown to nearly 20% of overall viewers of this blog I wanted to allocate a short potion of this post to the international community. Some of my comments are most applicable to the US financial markets or the developed markets across the globe. If you are living in a country that is considered part of the developing markets, I would strongly recommend that you seek out information in your country to see how much of my commentary is applicable to your stock or bond market and situation in general. It is extremely important to realize that tax structure, transparency of information, and illiquidity of stock and bond markets can alter the value of what I might say. During the course of the coming year, I will attempt to add in some comments to clarify the applicability. However, as the aforementioned statistic regarding the global diversity of viewers of this blog suggests, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that I will not hit on all the issues important to all international individual investors.

I encourage you to take a close look at your portfolio early on in 2014. It is a perfect time in terms of naturally wanting to divide up investing into calendar increments. As you listen to all the predictions for the New Year, I would encourage you to look at your personal portfolio and financial goals first. The second step is to always look at that economist’s or analyst’s predictions at the beginning of 2013. Now I am not implying that incorrect recommendations in the previous year will mean that 2014 investing advice will be incorrect as well. However, the important takeaway is that trying to account for the entire unknown factors both endogenous (speed of the Fed taper) and exogenous (geopolitical risk in the Middle East and Asia) affecting the global financial markets with a high degree of precision is exponentially difficult and challenging.

There will always be unknown items on the horizon that make investing risky. You hear that we need to get more visibility before investing in one particular asset class or another. It usually means that the analyst wants to be even more certain how the global economy will unfold prior to investing. I will remove the anticipation for you. There will only be a certain level of confidence at any time in the financial markets. One can always come up with reasons to not invest in stocks, bonds, or other financial assets. The corollary also is true. It can be tempting to believe that it is now finally “safe” to invest even more aggressively in risky stocks, bonds, or other assets. As difficult as it might be, you need to try to take the “emotion” of the investing process. Try to think of your portfolio as a number rather than a dollar amount. Yes, this is extremely difficult to do. But I would argue that it is much easier to look at asset allocation and building a portfolio if you think of the math as applied to a number instead of the dollars you have. Emotional reaction is what leads to “buying high and selling low” or blindly following the “hot money”; that is when rationality breaks down.

Here is an experiment for you to do if you are able. There are two shows I would recommend watching once a week. The first show is Squawk Box on CNBC on Monday which airs from 6:00am-9:00am EST. The second show is the Closing Bell on CNBC on Friday afternoon which airs from 3:00pm-5:00pm EST. You only need to watch the last hour though once the stock and bond markets are closed. Note that these shows do air each day of the week. It is not necessary and, more importantly, will negate the experiment if you watch them every day. Now depending on whether or not you have the ability to tape these shows first and skip through commercials, this exercise will take you roughly 12-16 hours throughout the month of January. You will be amazed at how different the stock and bond markets are interpreted in this manner.

When you remove the daily bursts of information, I am willing to bet that you will notice two things:

Firstly, Friday’s show should demonstrate that many “experts” got the weekly direction of the market wrong. It is nearly impossible to predict the direction of the stock market over such a short period.

Secondly, Monday’s show should illustrate what a discussion of all the issues that have relatively more importance are. Now this is not always a true statement though. Generally though, financial commentators and guests appearing on the show will have had the entire weekend to reflect on developments in the global financial markets and current events. Since the stock, bond, and foreign exchange markets are closed on Saturday and Sunday, there is “forced” reflection for most institutional investors, asset managers, research analysts, economists, and traders. The information provided is usually much more thoughtful and insightful.

I believe that the exercise will encourage you to spend less time attempting to know everything about the markets; rather, it may be more helpful to carefully allocate your time to learning about the financial markets.

Best of luck to you in 2014. As always, I would encourage anyone to send in comments or suggestions for future topics to my email address at latticeworkwealth@gmail.com.

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

03 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by wmosconi 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

alpha, asset allocation, Bernanke, beta, bonds, business, consumer finance, economics, education, Fama, Fed, Fed taper, Fed Tapering, Federal Reserve, finance, investing, investments, math, Modern Portfolio Theory, MPT, Nobel Prize, Nobel Prize in Economics, personal finance, portfolio, portfolio management, Schiller, Shiller, statistics, stocks, volatility, Yellen

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 7^th(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

Latticework Wealth Management, LLC

~ Information for Individual Investors

Tag Archives: volatility

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

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

Four Important Lessons for Individual Investors from the Brexit Vote

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

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

What is the 800-Pound Gorilla in the Room for Retirees? It is 12.5.

The Results are in for my January CNBC Experiment: It Proves Nothing and Everything. What?

Not all Index Mutual Funds and ETFs are Created Equal: Part 1 of 2

Happy New Year, Beginning Thoughts, and Information for International Viewers

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