Learning from Investment Mistakes, Part 2

“Individual investors tend to invest in a small number [of stocks] and they don’t know how to construct a portfolio. Professional portfolio managers control risk.” Jim Peterson, vice president at the Schwab Center for Financial Research.

My last post discussed the basic stock-bond allocation decision. This is a technique that many investment advisers use, but it is not the way most people approach investing. Most people are looking for an idea, a story or concept that they can build upon to make a winning investment, something that captures their imagination. They want to be a part of the next big thing, discovery or cure.

From time to time, a friend or acquaintance will tell me his or her investment philosophy. Years ago, one such friend offered the advice that you should “buy what you know.” That, of course, assumes that familiarity translates to good investment analysis. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is always the case.

Take, for example, people in Rochester, N.Y., who over-weighted their portfolios with Eastman Kodak and Xerox – more’s the pity for their retirement accounts. I submit that where you live (or where you grew up or where you work) should not be the guiding factor to which stocks you buy. Suppose you had lived in Houston and bought a ton of Enron stock or lived in Charlotte and invested heavily in Wachovia Bank stock?

Another past story line I’ve heard was “buy dominant technology companies with market power” as in Cisco, Microsoft, and other highflying tech stocks. That bit of advice was proffered in 2000, incidentally, just before all those “dominant technology companies” tanked.

More recently, a friend said that he liked GE, simply because Warren Buffett had invested in it. (And Buffett must know what he is doing, after all.) Fine, but Mr. Buffett’s company bought preferred shares with powerful guarantees and plenty of sweeteners; a much better deal than you or I or any “ordinary” investor will ever get buying GE common stock on the open market.

Some people follow trends, buying what “is going up” (which really means buying what has already gone up; granted, a small difference in interpretation, but a big difference in results). A good example of this is gold, which I have been asked about recently. (I’ll write more about gold in a future post.)

And, naturally, I’m also approached by the pessimists, who talk only of deficits, higher taxes in 2011 or 2012, third world debt, possible terrorism, etc., etc.

What is to be made from all these divergent concerns and predictions? In my opinion, not much. Hot tips and stocks with a good “story” or narrative are not necessarily going to reward you as an investor, because you cannot get the past performance that you have already witnessed.

Conclusion

My approach has always been and will continue to be this: If you are an investor, then you should invest. You should not allow yourself to be influenced by the news – good or bad – or by what your friends are doing or not doing. Investing is about cost control, having a globally diversified portfolio (preferably one holding thousands of securities), and taking the amount of risk that is right for you.

It is simple, but it is not easy.

To be continued…

Learning from Investment Mistakes

What, if anything, have we learned from the recent steep stock market decline?  One lesson, I hope, is that planning and designing a portfolio that is appropriate for you and that you can live with is very important.  Read on to learn about an approach that may help you decide on the right portfolio design for you.

The Stock-Bond Decision

When meeting with clients, I emphasize that choosing a basic stock-bond mix is a very important first step in effective and productive portfolio design. Unfortunately, I sometimes encounter people who have allocated their portfolio at either extreme – 100% in stocks or 100% in money market accounts/bonds.  Very few advisors would ever recommend either approach.

Although the stock-bond decision may appear simple, it can have a profound impact on your wealth.  Studies have proven that nearly 90% of a portfolio’s long-term results are directly linked to asset allocation, and the right stock-versus-bond mix should be your first deliberate and strategic decision.

The Rationale

Because neither I nor anyone I know can predict the future, I believe in having a diversified portfolio that includes both stocks and bonds.  I “dial down” total risk by adding fixed income to the stock market mix.  Quite simply, the greater the bond allocation relative to stocks, the less risky the portfolio, but the lower the total expected return.  On the other hand, the greater the stock allocation relative to bonds, the higher the portfolio’s expected return, and the higher the associated risk.

So, how do you confidently allocate between stocks and bonds?  One method is to use model portfolios to illustrate the risk-return spectrum over time. For simplicity and clarity, the highest risk portfolio holds 100% in a stock index, while the least volatile portfolio holds 100% in high quality bonds. Between these extremes lie other stock-bond allocations, such as 80/20, 60/40, 50/50, 40/60, and 20/80.  Comparing past results side by side is illuminating and quite helpful in the decision making process.

Certainly, relying on historical performance is not foolproof, because past results are not a guarantee of future performance.   But if you compare the average annualized return and volatility (standard deviation) of each model portfolio since 1970 (for example), you have an idea of what relative risk you can expect and whether or not you can accept the potential loss.

Lately, I have found that showing how portfolios did in 2008 is very helpful in illustrating the risk-reward tradeoffs.  Analyzing just that specific year shows that diversification neither assures a profit nor guarantees against loss in a declining market, at least in the short term.

For example, a portfolio with a stock allocation of 80% declined 30% in 2008, while a portfolio of 60% stocks “only” declined by 21%.  Many people can live with a 21% decline, knowing that markets do rebound and the long term outlook is positive.  On the other hand, suffering a 30% loss (or more) could have tipped some investors into panicking and getting out of the stock market entirely, much to their chagrin today.

Refining the Stock Allocation

After establishing the basic stock-bond mix, I turn my attention to refining the stock allocation.  Depending on an investor’s individual profile, I may overweight or “tilt” the allocation toward riskier asset classes that have a history of offering average returns above the market.

Research published by Eugene Fama and Kenneth French reveals that small cap stocks have had higher average returns than large cap stocks, and “value stocks” have had higher average returns than growth stocks.  By holding a larger portion of small cap and value stocks in a portfolio, an investor increases the potential to earn higher returns for the additional risk taken.

The final step in refining the stock component is to diversify globally.  By holding an array of equity asset classes across domestic and international markets, you can reduce the impact of underperformance in a single market or region of the world.  And lest you worry about the global recession, last year developed and emerging markets grew at a rate higher than domestic markets, by 27.7% and 74.1%, respectively.

Conclusion

Over short periods of time, returns on stocks are quite variable; in other words, in any year we don’t know whether stocks will produce good results or not.  But, over a longer period of time – and this has been historically proven – stocks provide higher average returns than low-yielding bonds.  That’s why I generally recommend that investors with a long investment life ahead of them focus on achieving the higher long-term returns through investment in stocks.  As your time horizon or risk tolerance changes, you can reallocate your portfolio’s risk more in favor of bonds.

Summary

The stock-bond decision drives a large part of a portfolio’s long-term performance. During discussions with clients, I have found that examining different stock-bond combinations can help them visualize the risk-return tradeoff as they consider the range of potential outcomes over time. Once a mix is determined, it can guide more detailed choices of asset classes to hold in the portfolio. And, as one’s appetite for risk shifts over time, the allocation decision can and should be revisited.

Inspiration from Warren Buffett

There are many reasons why people listen to Warren Buffett.  Besides being the second richest American (right after Bill Gates of Microsoft), Buffett is widely considered the most respected (i.e. best) investor there has ever been.

But there are other compelling reasons for listening to him; simply put, he speaks in a way that anyone can understand.  It’s a Midwestern common sense, seasoned with well-earned and certainly, much deserved, confidence. He’s cheerful, loves what he does, and apparently cares very little about consumption.  He is extremely grateful for the opportunity he has had in the United States and the life that he has lived.  He has already given away billions and plans to give away still more to charitable foundations.

Buffett was a guest on the November 13th episode of the Charlie Rose TV show.  Unfortunately, only excerpts of that show are available for online viewing. Go to the Charlie Rose website and search for Warren Buffett. What you’ll find are his ideas on financial regulation, his reasons why he bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, and his assessment of the global economy. There is also a “Web Exclusive” interview.

A full written transcript is available here.

I’d like to focus on his basic optimism about the future of the United States, because in my opinion, you need three things to be a successful long-term investor.

• Faith in the future.
• Patience.
• Discipline.

Here are some relevant quotes from the November 13th program.

(Regarding consumer demand)  Well, it will come back eventually. … Our system will still work. … We talked last year about the patient, you know, being on the floor with a cardiac arrest … and we’re not out of the hospital yet.   But we will come out of the hospital.  This — the things that made America what it is have not disappeared, and they will — they will assert themselves with time.

The American economy will come back.  It won’t be tomorrow, and, you know, it won’t be exactly the same.  But in the end, we have not — we’ve not changed the American people in their capacity to innovate or their excitement about — about becoming more prosperous, and coming up with new ideas.  Businesses will be formed.  Businesses will expand.  But not much tomorrow.

If you look back a couple of hundred years, we’ve gotten where we are not because we’ve gotten smarter or not because we work harder.  We’ve got it because we found ways to unleash more of the human potential.   And what does that?  Well, a rule of law helps.  A market system helps.   Equality of opportunity helps.  All of these things that are still a fundamental part of the American system. As a matter of fact, the American system is now better than it was a couple of hundred years ago, because until the 19th Amendment, you know, we’ve had half the talent in the United States that wasn’t entitled to do much. So we’ve got a great system.  (Emphasis added.)

Well, I have everything I want in life, so there’s nothing to spend it on.  I mean, I could have 10 houses instead of one, would I be happier?  No way.  I could have 10 cars instead of, you know, two in the house.   I wouldn’t be happier.  You know, it would drive me crazy.  I could have a 400-foot boat, you know, and then I’ve got to have a crew of 50 or 60, and some of them (inaudible), sleeping together — I mean, who knows what would be going on. So I don’t — if I wanted to be a ship’s captain, you know, I’d have gone into a different profession.  I have everything in life I want.

I love working — I love working with the people I work with.   I love just viewing the human scene, but I mean, I have an ideal life.  I get to do what I want to do every day.  So, you know, and money can’t — can’t buy any more than that.

As I said earlier, you need three things to be a successful investor:

Faith in the future. Optimism is the only realistic attitude; you cannot be fearful and succeed as an investor.

Patience. Moving in and out of the market or among various investments does not accomplish anything.

Discipline. Do not be driven by headlines or events.  Ask not, “What’s working now?”  Ask, “What always works?”

I believe Warren Buffett to be instructive and inspirational on all three counts.

More About Ric Edelman

When in my last post, I criticized some of Ric Edelman’s practices and fees, I felt a bit queasy.  Was I being unfair?

I reached my conclusions by reading the handout material and by what he said in a seminar.  I also studied his web site, which disclosed his fees.  But I did not have direct access to a client’s portfolio, so I felt somewhat tentative in my judgments.  But today’s post by Allan Roth An Interview with Ric Edelman – Is High Cost Indexing an Oxymoron? confirmed my suspicions.

Roth analyzed an Edeleman client’s portfolio, and he also spoke to Edeleman. Roth reached the same conclusions I had about the high fees, and he also questioned Edelman’s recommendation of not paying off a mortgage.  Finally he confirmed my belief that Edelman was not paying attention to asset location, since he found the same allocations in the IRA accounts as in the client’s taxable accounts.

But enough criticism.  The rest of this post is about Edelman’s book The Lies About Money, which I can recommend.  In the first two chapters he persuasively lays out the case for diversification and for not trying to time the market.  This is a very important message which many investors still do not get.  Then he explains the advantages of mutual funds.

But it in his fourth chapter, The Demise of the Retail Mutual Fund Industry, that he shines.  He essentially demolishes (active) retail mutual funds.  For starters, he discusses the frequent manager changes, the costs of active management, and the dangers of style drift.  And this is just the beginning; he discusses 25 reasons why you should not use a typical (active) retail mutual fund.

Not satisfied with that, Edelman actually put together A Mutual Fund Scandal Timeline outlining the abuses that have been alleged or proven from 2003 to 2007.  It takes him a “mere” 40 pages to summarize the questionnable practices and allegations of abuse.  If that is not enough to make you question whether your mutual fund or stockbroker is actually your friend, then nothing will.  So buy the book or get it out of the library simply for Chapter 4.

Conclusion

The financial services business is fraught with conflicts of interest, high fees, misleading ads, and general confusion for the typical investor.  Sorting through this mess is not easy.  As William Bernstein says, “Both mutual fund companies and brokerage houses know more ways than you can count of fleecing you without your knowing it.”

To be continued.

Edelman Financial: Bigger Isn’t Necessarily Better

Because Edelman Financial Services is opening six offices in the New York/ New Jersey area, I accepted an invitation to attend a seminar by Ric Edelman, the well-known author, radio host and investment manager.  The talk was held at the luxurious Hilton Hotel in nearby Short Hills last week.

Here is my review.  As a public speaker, I gave him an A+.  He was entertaining and informative, and offered a very clear piece of advice: Buy-and-hold a diversified portfolio of low-cost institutional mutual funds. Certainly, I would recommend his firm over a broker from Ameriprise, Smith Barney, Merrill Lynch, etc.

Still, I would only give him a B to a B+ as an investment manager.  I realize that it takes a certain amount of chutzpah (nerve) for a solo practitioner like me to judge someone whose firm manages approximately $4 billion and has thousands of clients – my goodness, Barron’s rated him the No. 1 financial advisor in the whole country – but I believe it is my responsibility to give you my opinion.  Read on, and see if you agree with my assessment.

Points of Agreement

First of all, let me state the areas of agreement.  I think his basic message is absolutely correct.  Most individual investors have so many misconceptions and make so many mistakes that their results are generally terrible.  Edelman provides a useful service in summarizing the theory, evidence, and his personal experience to educate the public on what really works.  He correctly points out that investing in safe instruments such as CDs is just about guaranteed to cause penury in retirement, because the “safe” investments don’t keep up with inflation, especially after taxes are considered.

He convincingly explains in great detail the necessity for wide diversification, proper asset allocation and rebalancing.  He also shows that listening to the media is bad for your investment results.  Good for him!

Like so many good investment managers, Edelman recommends having a long-term strategy and the importance of being invested at all times.  He was quite convincing in explaining how past performance is no guarantee of future results.  His down-to-earth “toaster” comparison was so good that I plan to use it myself when the occasion arrives.

He also explained in detail why retail mutual funds are just way too expensive.  These are not just opinions, but are based on facts.

He graphically illustrated the high cost of being “out of the market” for even a short time.  According to the data, provided by Standard & Poor’s, the average yearly return of the S&P 500 from 1994 to 2008 was 6.5% per year, if you were invested all 3,827 days.  If you missed the 10 best days, that’s right only 10 days, your return was actually 0%.  What a convincing comparison for a buy-and-hold all-the-time strategy.

So in general, I applaud Ric Edelman for being on the right track.

Where we disagree

My first criticism is that, although Edelman emphasized the long term cost that inflation inflicts on client portfolios, pointing out that over the long term inflation has been 3.2%, he says that it is “too early” to be concerned about inflation. He is “monitoring the situation” and will change his strategy when he thinks it is appropriate. In my opinion, this is a very strange approach for someone who believes that you cannot forecast the future.

Since markets react very quickly to new information, I worry that Edelman will not be able to change his strategy at just the right time. Why try to “time the market” by saying that inflation is not a concern now? To paraphrase an old Wall Street saying, “No one rings a bell to let you know when you should be worried about inflation.”

The question and answer portion of the seminar revealed a position that I take exception to.  Edelman suggests that paying off a mortgage quickly is a mistake, because clients can invest the money for a higher return.  While this is a controversial area, I believe that it is comparing apples to oranges, because mortgage debt is a certain obligation, while investment gains are variable.  As with many personal financial issues, the right answer is “it depends.”  There are too many variables in one individual’s life to hand out one-size-fits-all investment advice.  For some people, paying off a mortgage is the right thing to do, depending on their tax situation and their risk tolerance.  The peace of mind a debt-free retirement provides is valuable to some people who are no longer trying to maximize returns.

And, frankly, I am concerned that he is recommending something that will give him more assets to manage and therefore increase his fees, without mentioning the conflict of interest.

When I decided to look up Ric Edelman’s previous books, including The Truth About Money and The Lies About Money, I was surprised to see reviewers on Amazon.com chastising him for his previous rejection of index funds.  While Edelman now (appropriately) denounces actively managed retail mutual funds (because they are a rip off to investors with their high fees and hidden expenses), it’s unconscionable that it took him such a long time to realize that. 

It appears that Edelman had been attacking the notion of index funds for years.  Interestingly, he now follows a correct passive approach to investing, which is very similar to index investing.  He just isn’t willing to admit his conversion (or his past mistakes, for that matter).

In addition, I have read that Edelman doesn’t require that his advisors be Certified Financial Planners.  If true, this is a very serious shortcoming. Real financial planners address more than just investments, and while the CFP certification is not a panacea, it does indicate the seriousness to master your craft. More than passing a 10-hour test, the continuing education requirements are invaluable.

Fees and Value

Edelman Financial Services uses low-cost institutional mutual funds and ETFs, as do I.  The firm charges annual management fees of 2% on the first $150,000, 1.65% on the next $250,000, 1.25% on the next $350,000, 1% on the next $250,000, etc.  There is no additional cost for buying and selling mutual funds, which is a plus.  Another good thing is that they are willing to take on clients with modest amounts to invest, as low as $50,000.

However, while all-in costs are less than you might pay a typical stockbroker, I believe that for individuals with as little as $250,000 or $300,000 to invest, his fees are higher than those of a typical independent fee-only financial planner.

An investor with $500,000 will have to pay Edelman $8,375 per year as compared to a typical $5,000 fee to a smaller financial planning firm. An investor with $1,000,000 will pay Edelman $14,000 per year as compared to $10,000 for most boutique firms.  And many of the fee-only planning firms use the same low-cost institutional mutual funds and ETFs that Edelman does.

Conclusion

I have received mixed reviews from other financial planners regarding Edelman Financial Services.  Some call his portfolios cookie-cutter, which may or may not be a fair description.  Others have pointed out that there is very little attention paid to asset location, as compared to asset allocation. One financial planner told me that there was no effort to do tax loss harvesting, but another one said “it depends” on the client.  These are issues that many investors will not even be aware of, but the answers can influence after-tax returns.

Certainly Edelman’s services are better than working with a typical stockbroker, who might put you into a bunch of expensive retail mutual funds or sell you a variable annuity.

However, investors should understand that they are paying a premium for a celebrity’s name on the door.  And something a potential client should definitely ask is how much financial planning will be done, in addition to investment management.  The answer to that may also be “it depends.”

For a second opinion, and to help do a cost comparison, use “Find an Advisor” at the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors’ (NAPFA) web site and interview other financial advisors.

Evidence-based Investing, Part Two

“When you look at the results on an after-tax, after-fee basis over reasonably long periods of time, there’s almost no chance that you end up beating an index fund. The odds…are 100 to 1.” – David Swensen.

Passive investing, sometimes called index investing, is, as the name suggests, the exact opposite of active management of a portfolio.  The latter attempts to “beat the market” by various means, including selecting securities that are (hopefully) underpriced, trading holdings, and sometimes, by getting out of (and eventually back into) the market entirely.  Passive investing, on the other hand, employs a consistent strategy of buy and hold.  The $64 billion (adjusted for inflation) question is which approach is better?

The evidence proves that active fund managers actually under-perform their relevant benchmarks.  Specifically, over a 10-year period, approximately 75% to 80% of all mutual funds fail to “beat the market.” Attempting to be one of the 20% to 25% who succeed is known as “playing the loser’s game.”

And the longer the period under consideration, the worse the odds become. A study published in 2008 found that from 1975 to 2006 only one in 166 mutual funds outperformed the stock market.  That was 0.6% of the total. 99.4% failed to outperform the market.

Keep in mind that mutual funds that use active management charge more in management fees.  First of all, they have higher operating expenses, because they spend more money on research and on active trading.  And by claiming that they can outperform their peers, they can charge more, so they do.  But as an investor, you start with a handicap if the mutual fund you are using has higher expenses.

I don’t doubt that some of the active managers sincerely believe that they can deliver on their promises.  But logically, and statistics proves this out, they can’t all be above average.  So buyer beware.

Another consideration is that active management generates short-term profits, which are more highly taxed than long-term capital gains.  So, even some investment managers who think they can add value by actively managing a portfolio decline to manage a taxable account.  They believe that, after taxes, an actively managed portfolio will always underperform a passively managed portfolio.

Given the stakes in determining whether you can ever “beat the market” it’s not surprising that so much has been written on the subject.  And since we are talking about 50 years of research, it isn’t easy to summarize the evidence.  So I’ve chosen one (somewhat facetiously titled) article, How to Beat the Market in Three Easy Steps, which I think is well-written and which will give you a flavor for the logic and practical implications of passive investing.

Here are some quotes from the article by Karl N. Huish, Esq., CFP®

To be an active investor, you must say, ‘I am right, and most of you are wrong.’

One huge challenge is separating talent from luck.  Wall Street is filled (and overflowing) with bright, capable fund managers, with gold-plated MBAs and Ph.Ds in economics, mathematics, computer science and physics.  IQ tests and education resumes will not be enough to distinguish the true geniuses from the merely intelligent.  Most of these funds are advertised by top-flight marketing companies.  How do we dis­tinguish the sheep from the goats?

Can past performance help us?  This is the miscon­ception upon which many investors stumble.  It turns out that [surprise!] past performance is not indicative of future performance. A recent large study (3,700 public and corporate plans, representing $737 bil­lion invested) found that manager hiring and firing decisions made by retirement plans, endowments and foundations was a complete waste of money and time: the fund managers performed better than the market before being hired, but underperformed the market af­ter hiring.  In other words, their market-beating per­formance was luck, not skill.

David Swensen is the manager of the Yale University Endowment, which is the highest performing endowment fund over the past 20 years.  To many he is considered the greatest current institutional investor – a modern mastermind. … He stated the fol­lowing:

‘When you look at the results on an after-tax, after-fee basis over reasonably long periods of time, there’s al­most no chance that you end up beating an index fund. The odds…are 100 to 1.’

Mr. Swensen – the best in the business – isn’t very con­fident about beating the market rate of return, as re­flected in an index fund.  How confident are you that you or your advisor can identify those active funds that will – taking all costs into consideration – outperform the passive alternatives?

What Does the Research Say?

Well, what about the data?  It turns out that David Sw­ensen is just about right.  In a 2008 published study, Professors Laurent Barras, Olivier Scaillet, and Russ Wermers used the most advanced statistical testing in science (using tests from computational biology and astronomy), to drill down into the performance of active mutual funds for a 32-year period, from 1975- 2006.  The researchers found that, on a pre-expense basis, 9.6% of mutual fund managers showed genuine market-beating ability. But after expenses were de­ducted only 0.6% of fund managers outperformed the market.”

Conclusion

My Investment Philosophy is based on the belief that a passive approach is the best way to invest my clients’ money.  I follow that same strategy for my own portfolio, as well.   I am not convinced, however, that using simple index funds is the best strategy, largely because of their trading inefficiencies.

But that’s the topic of another post.

Evidence-based Investing, Part One

Just as evidence-based medical care utilizes fact-based best practices in treating illness and disease, it is possible to use research from the academic community in making investment decisions.  Evidence-based investing is really a bridge between academic finance research and practical portfolio management. That’s a mouthful, but what it comes down to is attempting to maximize potential returns, while limiting risks and avoiding common mistakes.

It all started in 1952 when Harry Markowitz published a seminal paper called Portfolio Selection.  He wrote about risk and return and the value of diversification. It may seem commonplace now, but at the time it was groundbreaking.

Markowitz simply said that investors should be more concerned with the characteristics of their portfolio than in choosing individual investments.  He concluded that while investors cannot control the “risk” of individual stocks, they can control the variability (risk) of an entire portfolio with proper diversification.  Of course he proved his point with a lot of mathematics and statistical analysis.  But underneath it was an elegant exposition of a simple concept that your grandmother not only understood, but probably often quoted – don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Academic research has ballooned since the 1950s.  There have been thousands of studies trying to explain how investors do (and should) behave. The old rule of “publish or perish” certainly applies to professors of Economics and Finance, yet many of the papers were published in journals that very few investors even know existed, such as the Journal of Finance, The Journal of Financial Economics, and the Journal of Portfolio Management.

Harry Markowitz earned a Nobel Prize in 1990 along with Merton Miller, and William F. Sharpe for their work in “Financial Economics.”   The body of work developed by them and others has become known as Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).  This approach is not foolproof, and the advice is based on models, not truth written in stone.  And, of course, MPT can be misinterpreted and used incorrectly, sometimes (unfortunately) to sell questionable investment products.  Nevertheless, the practical implications of MPT – focusing on risk and return – are extremely valuable for investors.

You really don’t have to understand all of the details of terms such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model, Alpha, Beta, the Sharpe Ratio, and Portfolio Optimization; there’s no test, after all.  But you should be aware of the major conclusions and practical applications.

One major topic previously discussed in this blog is the difference between active and passive management of investments.  This dichotomy comes straight out of the research that academic economists have performed.

Similarly, you don’t have to read the research of Eugene Fama and Ken French, nor do you need to understand the Fama-French three-factor model, but it would certainly be helpful if your investment manager did.

Actually, Fama and French are quite accessible on their blog.  If you check out the Fama/French Forum, which I highly recommend, you will notice a logo that says “hosted by Dimensional.”

Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) is a company best known for applying academic research to portfolio management.  DFA has been referred to as “the best mutual fund company you’ve never heard of.”

To be continued.

Emotions and Investing

To be a successful investor requires not only a plan, but the discipline to follow it.  There are many pitfalls and stumbling blocks on the journey to “investments success” including our own brains, which, unfortunately, occasionally play tricks on us.  Our decisions may cause results that are ultimately contrary to our own best interests.

In a previous post, When Our Brains Short-Circuit, I wrote how our brain can affect our long-term investing performance, because we can be afraid of the wrong things.  There is actually much more to be said on the the discipline known as Behavioral Finance.  And given the extremely difficult year we (investors and advisors, both) have all suffered through, now would be a good time to reassess our actual risk tolerance and try to understand how our emotions affect our investment results.

For an excellent summary of the practical implications of Behavioral Finance, I recommend a video presentation by Scott Bosworth of Dimensional Fund Advisors.  His 20 minute talk, with slides, is called Behavioral Biases and Investment Implications. It combines theory, research and experience, but rest assured it’s not so technical that you’ll need a PhD to sit through it.

Bosworth discusses common biases, how they affect decision-making, and how investor behavior impacts investment results.

Here is my take on his presentation.

Overconfidence and Extrapolation

Overconfidence and over-optimism can cause investors to make irrational investment decisions; for example they may buy stocks that have gone up in price, simply because they have gone up in price.  And many people believe they are smart enough to forecast the future, even though the future is unpredictable.

Hindsight Bias

Selective recall leads us to believe that past events should have been easy to predict.  Consequently, we believe that future events should also be easy to predict.  They are not.

Fear and Panic

When stock prices go down, investors feel the pain and fear more is on the way.  The media feed on this fear.  They are interested only in getting more advertisers, not your investment success.  TV pundits, with their incessant and contradictory predictions, only serve to confuse you further.

After a steep decline, many investors just want to unload their stocks – they’ll sell at any price.  The problem is that this common behavior merely locks in losses.

Moreover, getting out of the market can create more stress (not less) in your life, because at some point you have to decide when to go back into the market.  Just when is that?  After you are no longer afraid?  After the market has gone up by 20%, 30% or more?  After you’ve missed the rebound entirely?

Conclusion

The natural inclination of investors is to buy high and sell low.  That is more than unfortunate. It is also why the research shows that investors typically under-perform the stock market, all of the time.  Buy-and-hold investors, on the other hand, typically earn higher returns than those investors who try to time the market.

Unless you have a trusted advisor with a strong long-term philosophy, you may not survive the stock market’s turmoil.  And make no mistake, the emotional responses of investors is a challenge that financial advisors have had to confront this last year.

Educating clients, instilling discipline and maintaining the right strategy are what good advisors provide.

I Told You So!

“Stock picking and market timing are expensive, risky, and ultimately futile exercises.” – William Bernstein.

As you may recall, on Friday, March 6th I wrote that it was a mistake to be scared out of the stock market.  The stock market actually hit its bottom on the next business day, Monday, March 9th.  Since then, prices have soared, not in a perfectly straight line, true, but the increases have indeed been spectacular.

What does that mean?  That I can predict stock market prices?  No, absolutely not.  That remains an “unacquired” skill.

What it does mean, though, is that I follow a buy and hold philosophy, because getting out of and into the stock market again and again is a losing strategy, simply because you are not going to do it well.  One benefit of working with a fee-only financial advisor is avoiding the emotional swings that accompany volatile stock prices.

Please read my March 6th post, Nobody is Buying Stocks?  in which I mocked the total negativity that was seemingly everywhere in the media.  I pointed out just how overblown the language used at the time was:

“With so much uncertainty, investors are parachuting out of companies…”

“No one is taking a back-seat approach. Everyone is just selling.”

“It’s like an unending nightmare.”

Please take a moment to read the entire post (if you haven’t already), but here is the conclusion if time is pressing:

“No one knows what tomorrow will bring, but unless capitalism ceases to function, stockholders will be rewarded in the long term for owning stocks and for taking risks. Yes, there is risk in owning stocks, as we have recently experienced. Since we’ve already seen the risk, how about staying around for the reward?

An old Wall Street proverb is that “Nobody rings a bell at the top or the bottom of a market.”

Are you waiting for that bell to ring?  Don’t.”

As I pointed out, since March 9th stock prices have soared.

Understand, though, stock prices can go down again.  In fact, I can  guarantee that.  Once again, I am not clairvoyant, and I rarely make predictions.  But, I have counseled a buy and hold strategy for many years. There is no evidence that anyone can get in and out of the market at the right time and improve on a buy and hold approach.

Heaven help the person who got out of the market earlier this year.  The March 6th post quoted financial advisor Bijon Mishras who said, “I want to wait for a firm turnaround, and be as safe as possible.” I wrote, “Whoa, Nelly. Remember this quote and see how it turns out.”  So, Bijon, is now the time to get back in?

On March 16th I wrote a series which started with Is Buy and Hold Not Working? Part 1.  I said that timing the market was impossible, “The evidence shows that most investors get it wrong over and over again.”

“Historically, stock markets have had sharp increases following a bear market.  The difficulty is identifying when that move is for real.  Bear market rallies, bear traps, etc. tend to keep investors gun-shy, so a sustainable bull market rally will only be identifiable in hindsight.

Nevertheless, individuals who keep their investments in cash or Money Market funds will miss out on most of the move.”

Conclusion

I’ll stick with what I said on March 27th, “Given what does not work, what is the recommended approach?  In my opinion, it is a diversified, low cost, buy-and-hold portfolio matched to your time horizon and risk tolerance.”

A good advisor should help you do that and also avoid the “big mistakes” of buying high and selling low.  Is that worth the annual amount you pay a fee-only advisor?  I certainly think so.  Do the math.

Read more

Don’t Buy Stocks, Part 2

“Individual investors tend to invest in a small number [of stocks] and they don’t know how to construct a portfolio.  Professional portfolio managers control risk.” – says Jim Peterson, vice president at the Schwab Center for Financial Research.

In the June 10th post, I wrote about the dangers of buying stocks in companies you think you know well, and I extolled the virtues of diversification.  One reader posted a comment saying that he believed that owning 30 to 35 individual stocks was “sufficient” diversification.   I’m not so sure.

Today’s Hot Tip: Don’t Buy Stocks! an article by Howard Gold, written in 2008, reinforces my arguments.  He interviewed several professionals to make his point.  Here is a summary of his article.

William Bernstein, a money manager and the author “estimates that because of close correlations between markets, even 100 carefully chosen stocks can’t match the diversification of holding just a couple of index funds and ETFs that cover the global market.”

If you’re still not convinced, just how much work are you willing to put into picking stocks?

According to Gold, “even individuals who have good stock-picking skills rarely can do the necessary research to post consistently good results over time.”

He quotes a study by the Schwab Center that “tracked the portfolios of Schwab clients who had $5,000 in household equity and whose accounts were either at least 95% individual stocks (including foreign shares and ETFs) or 95% open-end equity mutual funds.

The survey, taken over 2005-2006, produced stunning results:

The fund investors substantially outperformed the stock pickers, with less than half the risk and after all expenses.

Though it covered only two years—and the investors may have held other assets at other financial institutions—it did take in a huge number of the 3.5 million clients of Charles Schwab, about as good a sample of the US investing public as you can find.”

Doing Your Homework

“You have to have tremendous energy to devote to the stock-picking process,” says David Swensen, chief investment officer of Yale University. “Individuals don’t have the time or the resources.”

In his book “Unconventional Success: A Fundamental Approach to Personal Investment,” Swensen advises individuals to stick to a set of broadly diversified index funds.

“If you try to manage your own money and invest in your own stocks, and you don’t…do every single piece of homework necessary, you won’t beat the market, and you’ll probably lose money,” says one well-known investing guru.  “If you don’t have the time or the inclination to do this work, then I’m begging you, please don’t try to invest in individual stocks.”  (Emphais added.)

Who said that?  Vanguard founder John Bogle?  No, it’s Jim Cramer, who pounds the table for individual stocks amid the booyahs and silly hats on his weekday Mad Money show on CNBC.

“Investing is fun for a lot of people, and if they want to try their hands [at stock picking], they should go for it,” says Peterson. “Just make sure that the majority of your portfolio is diversified.”

Gold’s observation is that the rest of us should “get our thrills and chills elsewhere.”

Conclusion

You can only achieve real diversification by investing in both stocks and bonds.  Moreover, within each category, you need to have many individual securities to be truly diversified.

Suppose you believe that your portfolio should include the following asset classes: large-cap U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, large-cap international stocks, small-cap international stocks, stocks from emerging markets, and Real Estate Investment Trusts.  How can you possibly achieve this diversification without hundreds of individual securities?  In my opinion, you can’t, which is why you need mutual funds.

The portfolios I construct for my clients typically have mutual funds with thousands of securities.  That is diversification.

Next Page »