From a reader who is a dear friend of mine:

There are obvious many disparate approaches to asset allocation.  Similar to the disparate approaches of any style of investing, each asset allocation approach has its own particular pitfalls.  Some of these you can plan for and perhaps hedge against or at least mitigate the potential negative impact from those pitfalls, while some booby traps spring up out of nowhere.  Risk Parity issues revolve around leverage, negative skew, and potential negative returns from certain levered asset classes.  Long-term strategic asset allocation may suffer from the quality of initial assumptions and typically relies on stable volatility profiles and correlations between asset classes.  And so on.  Every professional investor – let’s take an endowment for instance – diversified its portfolio among several asset classes and styles of management.  But what is interesting to me is that I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an institutional (or even HNW) investor diversify its portfolio among multiple asset allocation approaches.  Theoretically, splitting up a portfolio between 3-5 different AA approaches (strategic, risk-based, tactical with an opportunistic value lens, tactical with a momentum/trend-riding lens, etc.) mitigates the pitfalls of each one.  What are your thoughts here?  I have a few of my own, but I don’t want to muddy your own intellectual waters ahead of time. 

My personal approach to asset allocation is similar to Warren Buffett, or Value Line.  I invest mostly in stocks, and keep a bunch of safe assets for liquidity.  As the market rises, I add to my safe assets.  As the market falls, I buy stocks.  In October of 2002, things were so bad that I depleted my safe assets, an everything was in stocks.

In general, I think most complex asset allocation strategies are overly complex.  In general, there are safe and risky assets.  Asset allocation should first focus on the division between the two.  Typically the safe assets are high quality bonds and cash equivalents.  Sometimes there are more opportunities, sometimes fewer.  Safe asset levels should reflect that.

The second focus of asset allocation should be liquidity needs.  Even if there are a lot of promising opportunities to deploy cash, if the liability that funds the assets needs cash, have cash ready for it.  If you invest in limited partnerships or private companies where the assets are locked up for a period of time, have a sense of what your maximum level of illiquidity is (what will you with certainty never need to tap?), and ladder the investments so that like a laddered bond portfolio, you always have some illiquid investments maturing each year, providing fresh cash for deployment where current opportunities are most promising.  These top two ideas are very basic, but even experts neglect them at times.

The third focus of asset allocation is choice of risk assets, which is how I view your question.  There my view of asset allocation is like that of GMO.  Forecast future returns off of free cash flow yields; invest accordingly.

Don’t pay much attention to volatility, but aim for what is most likely, and bend a little in the direction of what can go wrong.  Most of the time, over longer periods of time, what is most likely happens on average; that’s why it is most likely.

Maybe “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”  I have enough trouble trying to work with momentum versus mean reversion.  I would lean toward having one AA strategy that fits with my broader asset management practices.  But on the other hand…

Suppose we did have five asset allocation models, and what their results were encouraging various investors to do.  If we thought that one of the models had been too hot of late, and was attracting too much money, and distorting ordinary market relationships, maybe that could give us a signal to make sure our asset allocation de-emphasized the results of that method.  Timing of course would be difficult, it always is, but seeing the results of the five methods could provide a fuller view of choices faced by our competitors.

I’m not sure that using the average of a number of asset allocation models will provide the best result, but I think that understanding what other players in the market are doing could lead to better decisions.

I’m open to your thoughts, and the thoughts of other readers here.  Anyone have a better idea?

I have great admiration for Warren Buffett, even though I am critical of him at a number of points.  When I read the piece in Fortune where he talks about asset allocation issues, I agree with him 75%.  Where should money be invested?  Stocks.  And as for me, 75% of my net worth is there.  Nonetheless, I see value in bonds, gold, and cash, even though I don’t own any gold, aside from my wedding ring.

Gold is valuable because of its scarcity, and that it is beloved by most cultures in the world.  Gold is beautiful.  Compare it with other metals, gold stands out because it has little economic usefulness.  But that is a feature, not a bug, because it makes gold immune to economic cycles.

Review the gold medal gold model.  The price of gold reacts to real interest rates.  When they are low, the price of gold flies because the cost of carrying gold is negative.  If I could say one thing to Buffett on the topic, I would say read this article, and you will learn why the price of gold is rational and correct in this environment.  Negative real interest rates means the government does not care about the value of its currency, and thus scarce things (think of truly scarce collectibles in the 70s) appreciate in value dramatically versus the depreciating dollar.

Gold is valuable, very valuable when governments and central banks are profligate.  But what of bonds?  Those are the opposite.  They are valuable when governments get more serious about their finances, or when people are scared about the future, and buy long bonds because they want certainty of cash flows in the future.

Also, be for real, Warren.  The dominant asset class inside BRK is bonds.  You hold a lot of them in your insurance companies.

Do I believe in stocks?  Yes, if they are my stocks — the value premium of buying beaten-down companies is dependable.  It doesn’t work every year, but it works most years.

My main point is this: stocks are great, but they are not a panacea.  Gold and things like it are needed for inflation.  Bonds are needed for deflation.  Cash offers flexibility.  These are all useful to investors at the right times.

And, Warren, you have done better than most.  Your stock portfolio has beaten others over the last 40 years.  Most stock portfolios have not beaten bond portfolios, though admittedly by a smidge.

So, is this the time to buy stocks?  I am more bullish than bearish, so yes, but edge in, and be ready to adjust.

Here are two articles to read on risk parity:

Pro: Pick Your Poison

Con: The Hidden Risks of Risk Parity Portfolios

I’m on the “con” side of this argument, because I am a risk manager, and have traded a large portfolio of complex bonds.  For additional support consider my article Risks, Not Risk.  Or read the second half of my article, “The Education of a Corporate Bond Manager, Part X.” There is no generic risk in the markets.  There are many risks.  Interest rate risk and credit risk are different topics.   There are bonds that have interest rate risk but not credit risk — long Treasuries.  There are bonds that have credit risk but not interest rate risk — corporate floating rate notes, my favorite example being floating rate bank trust preferred securities.

It is not raw price volatility that drives investment results as much as the underlying drivers of the volatility.  For fixed income, I described those in the two articles linked in the last paragraph.  During non-credit-stressed times, a bank’s 30-year floating rate trust preferred security is roughly as volatile as a five-year noncallable bond that it issues.  But during times of credit stress, the first security becomes volatile, whereas the second one doesn’t.  The first moves in line with 30-year swap yields, LIBOR, and long junior bank spreads.  The second moves in line with 5-year Treasury yields, and short senior bank spreads.  The underlying drivers have little in common, and when things are calm, their volatilities are similar, because the drivers aren’t moving.  But when the drivers move, which in this case is one correlated driver, credit stress (30-year swap & junior bank spreads go a lot higher), the volatilities are very different, the first one being high and the second one low.

Thus equating volatilities across a bunch of asset subclasses, investing less in the volatile, and levering up the non-volatile, is hard to do.  History embeds all the curiosities of the study period, and calls them normal, and that past is prologue.

From the Pick Your Poison article above, what I think is the (lose) money quote:

Gundlach insists most money managers misunderstand junk bonds, comparing them to 5-year Treasurys to determine how rich their yields are, when the correct comparison should be to 30-year Treasurys.

How can Gundlach compare junk bonds, which do better when the economy heats up, with long-term Treasurys, which get killed when the economy revs up and the Fed raises interest rates?

That’s irrelevant, he responds. The thing to look at is volatility, because that tells you the odds you will have to sell at a loss when you need to raise cash in an emergency. On that basis, junk bonds that were trading at a seemingly reasonable spread of 5 percentage points, or 500 basis points, to 5-year Treasurys in mid-2011 were actually trading at an intolerably low 250-basis-point spread to the proper bond. (By then DoubleLine had cut its junk bond allocation from 10% to 1%.) Sure enough, junk fell 12% as the year went on, and the spread to 30-year Treasurys has doubled since mid-2011.

“It’s called risk parity,” Gundlach says. “There’s only two investors who seem to understand it—me and Ray Dalio,” the highly successful manager of $122 billion (assets) Bridgewater Associates.

Personally, I don’t think Gundlach makes his money that way for his funds, but in case he does, how should a good bond manager view junk bonds?

First, ignore Treasuries — they aren’t relevant to the price performance of junk bonds.  I’ve run the regression of Treasuries vs junk bond index yields many times.  It’s barely significant for BBs, and insignificant thereafter.  Second, look at stock market indexes of industries that lever up and issue junk debt.  Junk corporate debt is a milder version of junk stocks, i.e., the stocks that issue junk debt.

Third, a corollary of my first reason, realize that risks with junk aren’t driven by spreads, but yields.  With highly levered, or very junior debt, it does not trade on a spread basis, but on a price basis.  Anyone looking at spreads will see too much volatility versus yields and prices.

But mere volatility won’t tell you the riskiness.  Indeed, when economic times are good, junk will do well, and long Treasuries do poorly.  Now, maybe that makes for a very noisy hedge, but I wouldn’t rely on it.

And, volatility is a symmetric measure, which as bond yields get closer to zero, the symmetry disappears.  Most asset classes display negative skew and fat tails, which also makes volatility problematic as a risk measure.

Going back to my first piece on the topic, if I were applying risk parity to a bond portfolio, it would mean that I would have to buy considerably more of shorter and higher quality instruments, and lever them up to my target volatility level, somehow with spreads large enough that they overcome my financing costs.  Now, maybe I could do that with mispriced mortgage securities, but with the problem that those aren’t the most liquid beasties, particularly not in a crisis if real estate is weak.

I guess my main misgiving is that levered portfolios are path-dependent, as pointed out in the GMO piece above.  You can’t be certain that you will be able to ride through the storm.  The ability to finance short-term disappears at the time it is most needed.

Now, if you can get leverage after the bust, and invest in beaten-up asset classes, you can be a hero.  But that’s a time when only the most solvent can get leverage, so plan ahead, if that’s the strategy.  If an investor could consistently time the liquidity/credit cycle, he could make a lot of money.

As the GMO piece concludes, the only benchmark that everyone could hold would be a proportionate slice of all of the assets in the world, which implicitly, would strip out all of the leverage, because one would own both the shares of the company, and the debt it owes, and in the right proportion.

So I don’t see risk parity as a silver bullet for asset allocation.  I think it will become more problematic, as all strategies do, as more people show up and use it, which is happening now.   First in the hands of the master, last in the hands of a sorcerer’s apprentice.  Be careful.

PS — I have respect for the skills of Gundlach and Dalio.  I’m just skeptical about what happens to risk parity when too many use it, and use it without understanding its limitations.  And, here is a nice little piece about Bridgewater and its strategies.

Trying a new format here, I think readers will like it better.  Most things are better after additional effort.  Think of this as a news links by subject post.

Economics

• If you look in the back, it seems that there were 58 respondents. From page 13: Methodology & Panel Selection Invi… http://t.co/p8sVZl9g Feb 06, 2012
• Will the great interest rate gamble pay off? http://t.co/hgj5XSKc People want to believe that you can get something for nothing; ain’t true. Feb 05, 2012
• Central Planning at the Federal Reserve http://t.co/X8qmqU6C Fed: we can create prosperity by holding interest rates down, right? $$ #wishes Feb 05, 2012
• Labor Force Participation Rate: 28-year Low http://t.co/kLgQ61iK Everyone still happy about the lower unemployment rate? $$ Feb 05, 2012
• Bill Gross: Free Money Ain’t Really Free http://t.co/LXWxpxp5 It will lead to stagflation, IMO, depending on what fiscal policy does $$ Feb 05, 2012
• Life & Death Proposition http://t.co/XuZS5Snn Where does credit go when it dies? Back where it came. It delevers, slows & inhibits ec growth Feb 02, 2012
• US unemployment “progress” http://t.co/WoIVZPGp If you add back the discoraged workers, all of the improvement in U-3 goes away $$ Feb 02, 2012
• The Perniciousness of ZIRP http://t.co/dYlFMbLe Gonzalo Lira on how ZIRP loses effectiveness b/c people think it’ll b there a long time $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Why Neoclassical Economics Doesn’t Work In The Age Of Deleveraging http://t.co/D3IAhTyv Steve Keen explains y Krugman & others r wrong $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Warning: Goat Rodeo http://t.co/JQ2FV9LS Hussman makes his case that equities are overvalued and could pull back 25% $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Who Owns World’s Financial Assets? & Why R US Households So Fascinated W/Stocks? http://t.co/5rp52OM4 American Exceptionalism in investing Feb 01, 2012
• As an aside, that is one reason why the US net foreign debt hasn’t spiraled up. We own equities abroad & they own our debt. $$ declines + Feb 01, 2012
• $$ declines reduce the value of our debts, but not the value of r foreign holdings. I think the US will come out of this crisis rel well $$ Feb 01, 2012

Housing

• Home Prices Tumble http://t.co/N1gdNslr No surprise here with all of the dark supply; houses come onto mkt when ppl can bear loss $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Too lazy to be knowns http://t.co/flXRR6fM I know many who understood what would happen if home RE prices fell, but none who got the size $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Freddie Mac’s “inverse floater” allowed more loan origination http://t.co/5devKZ17 Other side to the Propublica story http://t.co/KjXJHU1x Feb 01, 2012
• I’m no fan of the GSEs; I think they should be abolished, but the GSEs have always made a variety of bets on prepayment over time. $$ Feb 01, 2012

International

• On China, Henry Kissinger and Fareed Zakaria see Domestic Tension and Risk of Geopolitical Conflict http://t.co/1bhvrI3U Ferguson is wrong. Feb 05, 2012
• Tightening lending standards vary materially across the Eurozone http://t.co/ciWUK9cm Conditions tight in Italy & France, but not Germany $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Japan Auto Sales Notch Record Jump http://t.co/0VzF4WST Another small bright spot. Of course, bouncing back from a low level $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Socialist Hollande, Who Wants Full European Treaty Renegotiation, Increases Lead Over Sarkozy http://t.co/J3qCpZZ3 Eurozone Wild Card $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Hong Kong Homes Face 25% Drop as Loans Fall in Year of Dragon http://t.co/ifg1146H And this is with wealthy mainlanders fleeing China. $$ Feb 01, 2012

Markets

• RBC Takes On High Frequency Predators http://t.co/MfA5qdxm Where there is offense, there will b defense; nothing goes unanswered in the mkts Feb 05, 2012
• Global Strategists Abandoning Bearish Views http://t.co/dOXCUMA7 Makes me think we r getting close to a turning point. Feb 02, 2012
• Dividend stocks: Buyer beware http://t.co/SvMCHtCj Makes the valid & missed point: high qual div paying stocks r stocks & can lose $$ #yeah Feb 01, 2012

Credit

• 6 High-Yield Canaries-in-the-Coalmine http://t.co/4pz6SSQc 6 reasons y high yield is overheated http://t.co/fKnHmBqD & http://t.co/UPVev0iD Feb 02, 2012
• QOTD: Regulators Watching Aggressive Yield Chasing http://t.co/iWimo3eg FINRA warns of undue risk in income seeking. Advisors take note $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Contra: The Safest 7% Yield in America http://t.co/VrXoLEFH Poor analysis does not take into account the highish leverage on mtge repo $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Shipping Loans Go Bad for European Banks http://t.co/y5Z0wt3R Highly glutted area w/many dead firms walking; how far down will the losses go Feb 02, 2012

Politics

• Group lists top stock investments by members of Congress http://t.co/CarxUCjS Top 50 hldgs -> in top 100 cos by mkt cap. Hard2manipulate $$ Feb 05, 2012
• Obama Re-Election Odds Versus the Stock Market http://t.co/F5EETcve Example of 2 variables that r correlated b/c they anticipate GDP changes Feb 05, 2012
• RE: @abnormalreturns Gold is mostly political philosophy. How much control do you want the government to have over mo… http://t.co/hRxIkaoo Feb 03, 2012
• Getting back to the gold standard http://t.co/pCk8Ij6j Gingrich & Ron Paul have said they would like to appoint James Grant as Fed Chairman Feb 02, 2012

Companies

• Carlyle’s proposed IPO disaster http://t.co/OqGke8eN So there’s no board. Most boards don’t do much. Mgmt will have no board 2 shield them Feb 05, 2012
• For These Fans, a Day With Buffett Offers Wealth of Photo Opportunities http://t.co/UpcwVKe7 I think Buffett is enjoying life more now. Feb 05, 2012
• Buffett Railroad Boosts Capital Plan to $3.9B http://t.co/9XEw2gyT Buffett changes; organic investment in capital-intensive biz $$ #olddog Feb 01, 2012
• Pep Boys Seen Gaining 27% as Cheapest Value Lures Bids http://t.co/GyfH7qRL Could a bidding war start? Company is undermanaged $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Jefferies Allows Bonus Recipients to Swap Stock 4 Cash With 25% Discount http://t.co/pfGB3Vmc Fair way2 let employees disconnect from $JEF Feb 01, 2012

Financial Services

• I’ve just started “Acts of God and Man,” by Michael Powers. In the intro, he goes through the various meanings of th… http://t.co/tX7uAlWl Feb 05, 2012
• When evaluating Investment Funds, use Dollar-weighted Returns http://t.co/N5g7PI0d This is a neglcted concept that is enjoying a rebirth $$ Feb 02, 2012
• After a Delay, MF Global’s Missing Money Is Traced http://t.co/4s6U8yOe Investigation moves to how to recover the $$ and who is at fault. Feb 01, 2012
• http://t.co/wBbJTe3D FINRA Alert: Do you use complex products? What additional work do you do 2 assure that they are being used properly? $$ Feb 01, 2012
• Banks Need Higher Interest Rates to Start Making Money http://t.co/SneRACCi Flat front end of yield curve squishes bank interest margins $$ Feb 01, 2012
• 401(k) Plans Step Into the Sunshine http://t.co/fvKeup2L But as with DB plans, as costs rise, companies will offer them less. $$ Jan 31, 2012

Value Investing

• The SEC’s “90% Convergence” Fantasy http://t.co/bkWaAS5S US GAAP has many flaws, but we know them. IFRS will introduce abusable flexibility Feb 02, 2012
• But on the bright side, value investors may do relatively better as financials become less trustworthy; the accruals anomaly will sing $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Need to consider (Cost of goods sold)/user $$ RT @ErikSchatzker: Facebook gets $4.39/yr of revenue per user. ESPN gets $4.69/mo. Feb 02, 2012
• Berkowitz: Fund Plunge ‘Makes Little Sense’ http://t.co/pcoPLahW BB, appoint someone in your group 2 seek out opinions contrary 2 yours $$ Feb 01, 2012
• @ADayforRabbit I have argued in the past that BB is not paying attention to the delevering, which is a real headwind for the banks. $$ Feb 02, 2012
• New Fund Hopes to Prove Outspoken Analyst’s Thesis http://t.co/cuVpRzvO I bet @rcwhalen does well like my friends @ Hovde or M3 Partners $$ Feb 01, 2012

Hedge Funds

• Are Hedge Funds Worthwhile Investments? http://t.co/Lw2EhRPr Yet another “Hedge Fund Mirage” citation; the book is having a lot of influence Feb 02, 2012
• Are the hedge fund and private equity boys pulling a fast one? http://t.co/TNXFJo62 Beginning 2c the args of “Hedge Fund Mirage” everywhere Feb 02, 2012
• Did Hedge Funds Trigger the Financial Crisis? http://t.co/lNIb2dgF Secured asset classes can be overlevered; when they collapse, big mess $$ Feb 01, 2012

Miscellaneous

• Do the Job You’re Meant to Do http://t.co/wR3OX20N LIfe is too short to work with people you don’t respect, or tasks unfit for you $$ Feb 02, 2012
• Millionaire adopts girlfriend as daughter http://t.co/zffGCWbu Asset shelter. Does incest rely on consanguinity or on legal relationship? Feb 02, 2012
• Charles Murray Reiterates Willpower http://t.co/smeXZKNh Lack of self-control can destroy relationships, jobs, firms & lives $$ Feb 02, 2012
• I ran into @twitalyzer today. Lots of interesting analytics for tweeting. Here are some for me: http://t.co/HDdcFYaU & http://t.co/8uFFOMuP Feb 01, 2012
• At the first blogger summit at the UST, I recommended to the powers that be that they issue floaters. I also recommen… http://t.co/R3U8OHSi Feb 01, 2012
• California Faces Cash Shortfall by March on Low Receipts, Controller Says http://t.co/QxH1a6Re Could be interesting given the elections $$ Feb 01, 2012

Many investment ideas are promising so long as few do them.  Yes, there is an opportunity, but it is limited.  “Shh, don’t tell everyone about it.”

Thus, the concept of “risk parity.”  Lever every asset class up until it has the same volatility as common stocks. Under theoretical conditions, one could make extra money doing this, and with less risk than just a common stock portfolio.

That makes sense when few are doing it, but not when many are doing it.  When I worked for Hovde Capital Advisors, I highlighted to the group how hedge funds were forcing every asset class to the same level of riskiness.  A Grants Interest Rate Observer article on Leveraged Non-prime Commercial Paper is etched on my mind as emblematic of that era.

Risk parity can work so long as the total riskiness of the system does not get too high, as it did in 2007-8.  But if it does get too high, the assets that are levered face disadvantages versus volatile unlevered assets.  Failures of leverage feed on themselves, and lead to a real washout.  Failures of growth stocks don’t do that to the economy.

Risk parity turns managers into bankers, or worse yet, asset managers that specialize in non-AAA investment grade portions of structured securities deals.  Most asset managers are not used to thinking like bankers, largely because they think in terms of total return, and because they don’t have a balance sheet.  Their capital can run at will, unlike banks that have deposit stickiness, savings accounts, CDs, ability to borrow from the FHLBs, etc.  The banks can hold the assets to maturity, they have a buffer against losses in their capital, and don’t have to mark to market in an assiduous manner (though they *should* have to do so).

Think of the mortgage REITs in the most recent crisis — the ones that did the best were the least levered and had the longest terms for their repo lines.  In the short run, that costs more than the vain idea that one can roll over their repo lines every night, and that repo haircuts won’t rise.  Crises lead to a failure of both ideas, together with a set of forced sellers driving down the price of assets being repo-ed, which sometimes leads to a cascade where repo terms get progressively tighter, and only those that were the most conservative at the start of the crisis survive.

There is a Wall Street aphorism, “The fool does at the end of a bull market what the wise man does at its beginning.”  Risk parity falls into that bucket.  Early adopters of new asset classes and liability structures typically do well, but when they become mainstream, the dynamics can be ugly, as we learned in 2007-present.

So ignore the idea of risk parity.  Risk managers are not bankers, they don’t have the capacity to play leveraged spread games to maturity.  Risk parity if practiced on a large scale will produce wipeouts akin to the recent crisis.

Rebalancing of any sort in investing presumes an underlying stability to the economic system, and thus, market returns.  Rebalancing will not protect against socialism, war, or an overleveraged position.

The concept of rebalancing requires the idea of reversion to mean.  It will not protect you when profound shifts are happening, where the market are moving to a new equilibrium different from the old one.

Many shifts in the markets are precipitous; they don’t allow for slow adjustment.  That’s why many lose out when sharp shifts occur.  Especially in leveraged positions, the question comes: “Do I take my loss, invest more, or just let it ride?”

The best answer is forward-looking, only asking what is most likely.  The best preparation is also forward-looking, but with a glance to the past, asking what could happen at worst, which is worse than the worst of the past.

There are times when it seems that stability is no more, or that the boundaries for stability are far larger than normal, such as now.   At such a time, it may pay to follow market trends, realizing that there many participants like you that are struggling to figure out the situation that everyone is in.

The point is to be forward-looking.  Ignore the past.  Ask what is most promising over your favored time-horizon.

So when it makes sense, add to a position that has lost money.  When it doesn’t make sense, sell the whole position and realize the loss.  Could this be simpler?

(Note: Nominal = Real + Inflation)

This article is meant to tie up some loose ends, and suggest the outline of what might be a clever way to do asset allocation.  Who knows?  At the end, there might be a surprise.

I’ve done two articles recently on the effects of inflation expectations and real interest rates on two asset classes in the short run — gold and stocks.  Tonight, I want to extend that two directions, to bonds and cash, and whether the effects aren’t different in the long run.

First, bonds in the short run.  Interest rates rise, bond prices fall.  Interest rates fall, bond prices rise.  Doesn’t matter whether that comes from real rates rising, or inflation.  That’s pretty simple, because most bonds are mostly interest-rate driven.

Second, cash in the short run.  Leaving aside financial repression, for the most part cash assets return in line with inflation.  Cash is simple… so what happens in the short run is also what happens in the long run.

Okay, now let’s lengthen the time horizon.  In the long run, gold keeps pace with inflation, nothing more, nothing less.  Bond returns rise if interest rates rise over the long term because of higher reinvestment rates for cash flow, and again, it doesn’t matter whether that comes from inflation or real rates.  Opposite if interest rates fall.

Think of 1979-82: by the time bond yields were nearing their peak levels, bond managers were making money in nominal terms with rates rising because the income from the coupons was so high, and it set up the tremendous rally in bonds that would last for ~30 years or so.

In that same era, stock multiples collapsed.  But eventually stock prices stopped going down even with competition from bond yields, because the earnings yields were so large that book values roared ahead, supporting prices.  That also set up the tremendous rally in stocks that would last for 18 years, until it finally overshot, giving us the present lost decade-plus.

But high rates, whether from inflation or real rates, presage high future bond and equity returns.

One nonlinearity here: in the intermediate-term, rises in real rates kill stocks, but rises in inflation nick stocks.  Why?  Inflation may improve nominal revenues at the same time that it raises the cost of capital, but rises in real rates indicate capital scarcity, raising the cost of capital with no increase in revenues.

=-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=–=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=–==-=-=-

Harry Browne proposed a “permanent portfolio” back in 1981, composed of equal portions of cash, bonds, gold, and stocks.  Reading about the idea in Barron’s in the late 1980s, I did not think much of the idea.  I think differently now.  After my last few articles on related issues, mentioned above, I realize that each of the four asset classes react differently to macroeconomic stimuli in the short run, with a lot of overshooting.  A mean-reverting strategy has a lot of power in this context, and it is double-barreled, in that it lowers volatility and raises returns.

My clients will receive the full details on this as an asset allocation strategy, but my readers have enough from this that if you want to do a little work you can figure this all out yourselves.

All that said, I am surprised at how well the strategy works.  Too easy, and easy strategies rarely work.

Eddy Elfenbein wrote a good post recently on the stock market versus inflation expectations.  When I read it, I said to myself, “Wait, is the relationship between nominal and real rates really 1:1, or is it more complex?”  Though it is not certain, the regressions that I ran indicated that 1:1 was not falsified by the data.  The regression:

Inflation expectations determined the much of the value of the S&P 500 for the last nine years.

And you can see the relationship here as well:

The short answer is “yes, inflation expectations have driven stock valuations for the last nine years.”

I’ve been spending time on issues like this for a variety of reasons, and I’ll try to explain them in the near term, but that’s all for now.

A friend of mine asked me the following:

I read an article or a comment from a blog that inked to your sight.  the statement was akin to this. ” The market is dead.  The lack of growth over ten years shows the deadness of the market.  If the market had kept pace with inflation over the last ten years it would be at 32,000 not the 11,000 we see today.”

I am not all that concerned that this is a true statement, nor am I convinced that their is any better long term investment then a good market strategy.  but I do not have the wisdom to know how to answer this sort of claim in my mind.

The Other Question also comes from a blog that linked to your site:  http://pragcap.com/the-importance-of-understanding-macro

“Whitney Tilson’s latest monthly letter provides us with some insightful lessons for the current market environment.  Regular readers will know that I believe there is no such thing as a one size fits all investment strategy or a holy grail approach.  Instead, investors must understand the macro environment and apply the correct strategy to fit that particular environment.  That micro approach could involve buy and hold, trading, value investing, etc.  But the likelihood of success using one strategy in all environments is unlikely. The current turmoil and unusual asset class correlation is making for a very difficult environment for value investors.  Tilson explains (thanks to Zero Hedge):”

Later on he states the following: “Value investing might not be dead (it’s certainly not dead for those who have the ability to implement it in the actual way that Warren Buffett implements it – no, not the “buy and hold” myth that Wall Street has sold to everyone), but we can be almost certain that it’s more important than ever to understand the macro.  If there’s one great lesson to learn from the recent turmoil that should be it….”

Is the above author stating the difficulty of being a value investor, or is this a man trying to validate his own lack of plan or strategy in a difficult market?  Besides a difficult month for some value investors what is their augment against it.  Would your “bloodless” strategy of quarterly trading be the answer their the accusation of the “buy and hold myth.”

With respect to the tripling of the index level due to inflation, that seems really high to me, akin to a 10% inflation rate.  I think that government inflation statistics are biased low, but by 1-2%/year not 6-8%/year.

On value investing, I rely on Ben Graham’s dictum that the stock market is a voting machine in the short run, and a weighing machine in the long run.  Periods of high correlation where the voting machine dominates eventually go away, and when they go away the weighing machine comes back and patient holders of cheap quality stocks get rewarded.

Value investing has gone through far deeper periods of underperformance such as the one in the late ’90s where many famous value investors got fired, just before the paradigm was about to shift, and value outpace growth by more than the underperformance.

“Buy and hold” is always lionized in a bull market, and castigated in a bear market.  That’s normal.  I grew up in the ’70s watching Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser, and at that time, traders were dominant in a static market.  That was not true in the ’80s and ’90s.

My quarterly trading strategy strikes a balance between too-frequent trading that most mutual fund managers do, and the never trade strategies that those who misunderstand value investing do.  Most investors trade at the wrong times, giving up on a stock merely due to bad performance, or buying because it is fashionable.  But if the business is fundamentally sound, it can be held through periods of weakness, and even add to the position.

That’s what I do, and it has worked well for me.  May it work so well for my clients.

I lead a finance class for church.  I think we have talked of it before.  I do not deal much with investing. Mostly I work with cleaning up the personal finances of the families.  Paying down debt, increasing savings, Setting and living below your income, budget, basic investing, using your tax shelters, and avoiding risky investments.

I have a family who some years ago purchased $8000 worth of Microsoft stock.  This has over the course of their holdings dropped between $8-10 a share.  Their financial situation requires cash, cash they do not have.  They need to pay off debts, and their current income gives them very little wiggle room to pay extra on debts.  They asked me what to do with the Microsoft stock, that is now down about $1500 from when they purchased it.  Microsoft stock has remained at a price of $23-29 a share for over a year now.  with the average being somewhere around $24-27 My thoughts have been: That the stock has corrected for the time being and

$25 is probably the true value.  IF $6500  would make a big diffrence in you budget, let you pay down alot of debt and free up some extra cash in your budget to pay off other debts, then sell the stock now.  $1500 is a cheap price to pay for a not so wise investment decision, if it can be use to improve your overall financial standing.  I told him he might ask his broker to sell as soon as it hits $26.

I have however read that Microsoft is a company that has put up good sales and profits in the past few years and that their stock price might be well undervalued.  should I encourage him to hold or sell.  Not asking you to predict the future, simply wanting to get counsel on the advise I have given.

If you think this is good advice let me know.  He is able to get by without the funds immediately, but it will be best if he sell them and use them eventually.

Microsoft is a test for value investors.  What do you do with a company that is cheap on a price-to-earnings basis, but tends to waste free cash flow on foolish acquisitions, investments, and stock buybacks?  My view is that you reject Microsoft; there are better things to buy.

But what of the decision of Microsoft versus cash?  Look, one of the first principles of investing is never invest what you can’t afford to lose.  If you might need the money to spend in the near term, don’t invest it in stocks.

Reconsider my article, Build the Buffer.  Until someone can meet all cash needs easily, including small disasters, he should not be investing in stocks.

With that, I would say that he should sell the stock to the degree that he needs liquidity.  Ability to pay cash in advance is worth far more than equity market returns.

This should be a short post.  There are many reasons proffered for the increase in global equity market correlations — I would like to offer one more: competitive devaluation of currencies, a.k.a., the race to the bottom.  Almost all nations are looking to cheapen their currencies in order to encourage exports.  There is a a global “conspiracy” where consumers are discriminated against by producers and their governments.

The US is involved in this but is more willing to absorb foreign goods than most, making the US is the main reserve currency.  Send us you neomercantilistic goods and services, we will give you promises of future payment.

But when everyone wants to do the same thing, cheapen currencies to promote export-led growth at home, that same thing is impossible, because not all currencies can be cheap at the same time.

But as the process goes on, with so many of the world’s large countries engaged in similar policies at their Treasuries and Central Banks, it is no surprise that with one dominant global policy, there is one global market behavior, oscillating rapidly from panic to euphoria as stimulus measure go from less to more certain.