What Investors Should Learn From 2011

The year 2011 will go down as one of the most volatile ever.  We witnessed political upheaval and wide swings in market prices.  Everything seemed to conspire to undermine investors’ composure.

Yet, the major U.S. stock market indices avoided a downturn in 2011 after two strong recovery years.  Those who bailed out after any one of the market  tumbles would have missed the year’s many improbable, unpredictable recoveries. 

So, what lessons can we learn from such a volatile year? 

1.  Be humble about making predictions. Even the experts can get it wrong – just ask Pimco’s Bill Gross.

2.  Don’t even try to time the market. That’s difficult even in the best of times and these aren’t those. 

3.  Stay diversified and disciplined; that’s always the best course, regardless of volatility.

4.  Don’t buy into the crisis du jour mentality of the media.  Shock and awe sells; judicious analysis does not.

Weston Wellington, Vice President of Dimensional Fund Advisors, does an excellent job of summarizing the year’s events and the lessons we can learn from 2011.

 

Year-End Review

Equity investors around the world had a disappointing year in 2011 as thirty-seven out of forty-five markets tracked by MSCI posted negative returns. The US did well on a relative basis and was the only major market to achieve a positive total return, although the margin of victory was slim. Total return for the S&P 500 Index was 2.11%, and the positive result was a function of reinvested dividends—the index itself finished the year slightly below where it started.

Throughout the year, investors seeking clues regarding the strength of business conditions or the prospects for stock prices were confronted with ample reason to rejoice or despair. Optimists could cite the strong recovery in corporate profits and dividends, the substantial levels of cash on corporate balance sheets, low interest rates and inflation, a booming domestic energy sector, continuing strength in auto sales, and record-high share prices for leading multinationals such as Apple, IBM, and McDonald’s. Pessimists could point to persistently high unemployment, slumping home prices, tepid growth in retail sales, worrisome levels of government debt at home and abroad, and political gridlock in both Congress and various state legislatures.

Although the broad market indices showed little change for the year, there were opportunities to make a bundle—or lose one. Among the thirty constituents of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, thirteen had double-digit total returns, including McDonald’s (34.0%), Pfizer (28.6%), and IBM (27.3%). But losing money was just as easy: The three worst performers in the Dow were Hewlett-Packard (–37.8%), Alcoa (–43.0%), and Bank of America (–58.0%). If nothing else, the substantial spread between these winners and losers discredits the argument we often hear that all stocks are now marching in lockstep and that diversification is ineffective.

Achieving even modest results in the US market required more discipline than many investors could muster, since investor sentiment fluctuated dramatically throughout the year and the temptation to enhance returns through judicious market timing often proved irresistible.

For fans of the “January Indicator,” the year got off to a promising start as stock prices jumped higher on the first trading day, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to a twenty-eight-month high. Bank of America shares jumped 6.4% that day, the top performer among Dow constituents. With copper prices setting new records and factory activity worldwide perking up, the biggest worry for some was the potential for rising prices and higher interest rates that might choke off the recovery. “Overheating is the biggest worry,” one chief investment strategist observed. By April 30, the S&P 500 was up 8.4%, reaching a new high for the year.

Stocks wobbled through May and June but strengthened again in July. On July 19, the Dow Jones Industrial Average had its sharpest one-day increase of the year, jumping over 200 points, paced by strong performance in technology stocks. Just a few days later, however, stocks began a precipitous decline that took the S&P 500 down nearly 17% in just eleven trading sessions. The century-old Dow Theory—a sentimental favorite among market timers—flashed a “sell” signal on August 3, and on August 5, Standard & Poor’s downgraded US government debt from AAA to AA+. As investors sought to assess the implications of sovereign debt problems in both the US and Europe, stock prices fluctuated dramatically, with the S&P 500 rising or falling over 4% on five out of six consecutive trading days in early August. Rattled by the sharp day-to-day price swings, many investors sought the relative safety of US Treasury obligations in spite of the rating downgrade, pushing the yield on ten-year Treasury notes to a record low. Stock prices hit bottom for the year on October 3 as some market participants apparently lost all confidence in equity investing. A Wall Street Journal article cited a number of individual investors as well as professional advisors who had recently sold all their stocks and did not expect to repurchase them anytime soon. “I feel like a deer in the headlights,” said one.

As it turned out, the article appeared in print on the second day of a powerful rally that sent the Dow Industrial Average surging over 1,500 points during the next 19 trading days, putting it back into positive territory for the year.

What can we learn from a difficult year like 2011? As Dimensional founder David Booth is fond of saying, the most important thing about an investment philosophy is that you have one. Many investors (as well as some allegedly professional advisors) apparently decided to switch from a buy-and-hold philosophy to a market timing strategy in the midst of an unusually stressful period in the financial markets. We suspect few of those adopting the change would have been able to clearly articulate their investing beliefs and why they had shifted.

Legendary investor Benjamin Graham offered the following observation nearly forty years ago: “There is no basis either in logic or in experience for assuming that any typical or average investor can anticipate market movements more successfully than the general public, of which he himself is a part.”

Good advice then, good advice now.

By Weston Wellington, Vice President of Dimensional Fund Advisors

Sources

---

Mark Gongloff, “Investors’ Forecast: Sunny With a Chance of Overheating,” Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2011.

Jonathan Cheng and Sara Murray, “Stock Surge Rings in Year,” Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2011.

Matt Phillips and E.S. Browning, “Tech Sends Stocks Soaring,” Wall Street Journal, July 20, 2011.

Steven Russsolillo, “‘Dow Theory’ Confirms It’s an Official Swoon,” Wall Street Journal, August 4, 2011.

Damian Paletta, “U.S. Loses Triple-A Credit Rating,” Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2011.

Tom Petruno, “Investors Stampede to Safety,” Los Angeles Times, August 19, 2011.

Kelly Greene and Joe Light, “Tired of Ups and Downs, Investors Say ‘Let Me Out’,” Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2011.

Benjamin Graham, The Intelligent Investor (New York: HarperCollins 1949).

The S&P data are provided by Standard & Poor’s Index Services Group.

MSCI data copyright MSCI 2011, all rights reserved.

Yahoo! Finance, www.yahoo.com, accessed January 3, 2012.

 

The Proper Role of Bonds in Your Portfolio

Over the years, as I have spoken to quite a few people about bonds, the various conversations have often taken a different direction, depending on the “environment” at the time.  Take, for example, 1999, when common stocks were on a tear; then I had to explain the reasons why anyone would want to invest anything at all in the bond market.  And in recent times, in this “environment” I’ve actually had to talk investors out of investing too much of their money in bonds. 

These are both examples of what Behavioral Economists call “recency.”   Meaning that we tend to place more emphasis (and trust, appropriately or not) on more recent data even as we ignore older data. 

A more general problem, I’ve found, is that investors don’t understand the role that bonds should play in an investment portfolio.  When you buy a bond you are essentially lending money to some entity, whether it’s a corporation, a municipality, a state, or a country.  In exchange for what is essentially your loan, you are promised a regular payment, usually on a semi-annual basis, plus the full amount of the money you lent returned to you at a given date.  Depending on the circumstances, you may or may not realize the promised returns. 

Bonds are considered “fixed income;” investing in them generally means that you will not gain as a result of growth in the economy.  Bonds are considered safe and therefore have a lower expected return than stocks.  But bonds have two inherent risks, namely interest rate risk and, more importantly, credit risk/default risk.  Interest rate risk means that when interest rates rise, bond prices will fall, given the inverse relationship between them. 

Default risk describes what happens when the entity has gotten into financial trouble and does not return your original investment.  Take for example, Greece; certainly you have heard how the threat of Greece defaulting on their bonds is playing havoc with markets there and across the globe. 

Portfolio strategists view bonds as a way to provide stability to a portfolio.  Accordingly, this approach argues for only buying high quality bonds, i.e. those with the highest credit ratings.  The reason is that you won’t want an economy which is going through a “soft patch” to adversely affect both your stock portfolio and your bond portfolio at the same time.  The whole idea is that bonds should provide a safer haven than stocks, albeit with a lower expected return.

Conclusion

It is my belief that, as part of a sensible portfolio, fixed income investments must be limited to high quality issues.  I also believe that it’s a mistake for investors to overemphasize bonds in a portfolio, simply because they are afraid of a bad economy or bearish stock market.

Over the long term, stocks have always outperforned bonds.  And over time, it is the erosion of purchasing power that is the biggest risk for most people.  Most bonds do not protect you from the ravages of inflation.

In the long-term, you need both equity investments for growth and bond investments for stability.  How you make that allocation decision is the most important determinant of how your portfolio will behave in the future.

To be continued.

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.

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.

Don’t Buy Stocks, Part 1

Did the title get your attention?  You’re probably wondering, am I changing  my approach and now making a stock market prediction?  Have I turned bearish (pessimistic) as so many people are?  No.  Plain and simple.

What I want to do is save you from the potential losses caused by buying individual stocks.  Sadly, this is not merely an academic discussion, since I have known many people who have been crushed by losses in individual stocks.  It upsets me to know that the devastation could have been avoided.

Buying individual stocks certainly gives you something to talk about over drinks with your friends.  But I don’t believe that the cocktail chatter advantage means you should actually buy individual stocks.  I don’t invest in individual stocks for myself, and I don’t recommend it for my clients.

People always have their reasons as to why their favorite stock is just “great.”  Some have done their research and have created a model that predicts that the stock that they are going to buy will double in the next four years.  Others have been following the same company for decades and are convinced that now is the time to buy.

Usually they’re talking about well known companies, such as General Electric, Johnson & Johnson or General Motors.  Did I get you?  I made that last one up.  In actuality, no one has ever told me that he was planning to buy General Motors.  That’s good, because looking back, we now know that GM, even though it was once considered a solid “blue chip” stock, was not in fact such a smart investment .

And there’s the rub. Looking back, it is crystal clear that we should’ve bought Microsoft when it first went public.  We should’ve bought Google.  Anyone with the time and inclination can do the research and figure out which stocks they should’ve bought.  But it’s not so easy going forward.

For one thing, there’s an excellent chance that whatever you have learned that convinced you that a particular stock is a good buy is already known by everyone else.  Therefore, the current price already reflects the brilliant insights you so cherish.  But another reason is that stocks are inherently risky.  If you are not using mutual funds to achieve diversification, but only buying a few stocks, you’re adding to your risk, unnecessarily.

Chances are you’re buying the stock of a company that you know quite well. If you live in Seattle there’s a good chance that Microsoft and Starbucks are in your portfolio.  Great.  And if you live in Rochester, New York there’s an excellent chance that you had Eastman Kodak and Xerox in your portfolio. Not so great, we now know.

In Atlanta, many people have invested in Coca-Cola.  By the same token, people in Houston had invested in Enron.  Where you live, and what you are familiar with, are not good reasons for investing.

Neither is loyalty.  Maybe your grandfather gave you some stock before he died and told you never to sell it.  I’m sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but don’t listen.  That stock with a family pedigree could be the next General Motors.

Or maybe you used to work for a great company and you have accumulated a lot of stock in your former employer.  But were you lucky enough to have worked for Exxon or unlucky enough to have worked for Citigroup or Bear Stearns?  Why let luck play such an important factor in your investment success?

By now you get the idea.  I’ve probably been way too repetitive.  But this is a really important concept.

As Nick Murray, author of Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth, says “Diversification is the conscious decision never to be able to make a killing, in return for the priceless blessing of never getting killed.”

To be continued.

Investment Lessons from a Big Dog: No New Tricks

“By following a disciplined policy of maintaining a well-diversified set of portfolio exposures, regardless of market zigs and zags, investors establish the conditions for long-run success.” – David Swensen.

I recently attended a meeting hosted by a very large financial services company about their approach to investment management. This presentation was given to a group of financial planners in Northern New Jersey, and the goal was to identify those planners who would like to outsource the money management portion of their practice.

This company manages almost $200 billion in assets for pension funds, wealthy individuals, not-for-profits, and financial institutions. They had a marvelous bound handout with great graphics. And they used some very impressive terminology such as Distribution-Focused Strategies and Total Return Investing.

However, after listening to their sales pitch and reading through the propaganda, I remain unconvinced that they are doing anything that innovative, at least when compared to that which an experienced financial planner already does. Because using them would only add an additional layer of fees and not provide any significant value, I was not interested in using their services.

Their presentation, though, brought up several valid points that you should consider in managing your own affairs or when finding a financial planner. Summarizing the key points to consider in creating a portfolio:

• Your Goals
• Your Time Horizon
• Your Risk Tolerance

All of these are inter-related, and it is important to remember that the real risk is not meeting your goals.

In creating and managing a portfolio, the basic factors are the same for everyone:

• Asset Allocation
• Costs
• Tax Management

Keeping these basic, yet profound, concepts in mind will serve you well over the long term.

The Total Return Investing concept is actually valid and quite useful, and worth explaining. What is implied from that term is that investment decisions should be based on total returns, not just interest and dividends. Many people looking for an amount to replace a paycheck in retirement, for example, often focus only on the yield of their portfolio. This translates to dividends and interest income.

There are three reasons, though, why the Total Return Investing strategy is at a disadvantage.

First, while interest and dividends appear to be something you can count on, only about 20-25% of stocks actually pay dividends. If you excluded the rest merely because they don’t pay out dividends, you are excluding the majority of companies.

Second, dividends are not always secure; they can be reduced or eliminated. Loading up on stocks that pay a high dividend can be riskier than you thought.

Third, when investors realize that the projected income is not going to be “enough” to meet their goals, they frequently “reach” for yield by either buying riskier bonds that promise to pay higher returns, or they buy longer term bonds, which ordinarily pay more in interest. Unfortunately, as we have seen recently, if you buy riskier bonds you may suffer a substantial loss, rather than get a higher yield. And if you buy longer term bonds, you will lose principal if and when interest rates go up.

Fourth, you are not likely to keep up with inflation, if you concentrate too much on current yield. To keep up with inflation, you need to own equities.

I am not suggesting that you should avoid bonds in your portfolio, only that they are usually not sufficient for most people.

As I said, these concepts are standard operating procedure for experienced investment managers. I just thought that their importance bore repeating.

photo credit: mahalie