Estimating Future Stock Returns, September 2017 Update

Estimating Future Stock Returns, September 2017 Update

Posted on by David Merkel

Another quarter goes by, the market rises further, and the the 10-year forward return falls again.? Here are the last eight values:?6.10%, 6.74%, 6.30%, 6.01%, 5.02%, 4.79%, and 4.30%, 3.99%. ?At the end of September 2017, the figure would have been 4.49%, but the rally since the end of the quarter shaves future returns down to 3.99%.

At the end of June the figure was 4.58%.? Subtract 29 basis points for the total return, and add back 12 basis points for mean reversion, and that would leave us at 4.41%.? The result for September month-end was 4.49%, so the re-estimation of the model added 8 basis points to 10-year forward returns.

Let me explain the adjustment calculations.? In-between quarterly readings, price movements shave future returns the same as a ten-year zero coupon bond.? Thus, a +2.9% move in the total return shaves roughly 29 basis points off future returns. (Dividing by 10 is close enough for government work, but I use a geometric calculation.)

The mean-reversion calculation is a little more complex.? I use a 10-year horizon because that is the horizon the fits the data best.? It is also the one I used before I tested it.? Accidents happen.? Though I haven’t talked about it before, this model could be used to provide shorter-run estimates of the market as well — but the error bounds around the shorter estimates would be big enough to make the model useless. It is enough to remember that when a market is at high valuations that corrections can’t be predicted as to time of occurrence, but when the retreat happens, it will be calamitous, and not orderly.

Beyond 10-years, though, the model has no opinion.? It is as if it says, past mean returns will occur.? So, if we have an expectation of a 4.58% returns, we have one 4.58%/yr quarter drop of at the end of the quarter, and a 9.5% quarter added on at the end of the 10-year period. That changes the quarterly average return up by 4.92%/40, or 12.3 basis points.? That is the mean reversion effect.

Going Forward

Thus, expected inflation-unadjusted returns on the S&P 500 are roughly 3.99% over the next ten years.? That’s not a lot of compensation for risk versus investment-grade bonds.? We are at the 94th percentile of valuations.

Now could we go higher?? Sure, the momentum is with us, and the volatility trade reinforces the rise for now.? Bitcoin is an example that shows that there is too much excess cash sloshing around to push up the prices of assets generally, and especially those with no intrinsic value, like Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Beyond that, there are not a lot of glaring factors pushing speculation, leaving aside futile government efforts to stimulate an already over-leveraged economy.? It’s not as if consumer or producer behavior is perfectly clean, but the US Government is the most profligate actor of all.

And so I say, keep the rally hats on.? I will be looking to hedge around an S&P 500 level of 2900 at present.? I will be watching the FOMC, as they may try to invert the yield curve again, and crash things.? They never learn… far better to stop and wait than make things happen too fast.? But they are omnipotent fools.? Maybe Powell will show some non-economist intelligence and wait once the yield curve gets to a small positive slope.

Who can tell?? ?Well, let’s see how this grand experiment goes as Baby Boomers arrive at the stock market too late to save for retirement, but just in time to put in the top of the equity market.? Though I am waiting until S&P 2900 to hedge, I am still carrying 19% cash in my equity portfolios, so I am bearish here except in the short-run.

PS — think of it this way: it should not have gone this high, therefore it could go higher still…

Notes from an Unwelcome Future, Part 1

Notes from an Unwelcome Future, Part 1

Posted on by David Merkel
Photo Credit: Tim Harding

==============================================================

Dear Readers, this is another one of my occasional experiments, so please be measured in your comments.? The following was written as a ten-year retrospective article in 2042.

==============================================================

It was indeed an ugly surprise to many when the payments from Social Security in February 2032 did not come.? Indeed, the phones in Congress rang off the hook, and the scroll rate on incoming emails broke all records.? But as with most things in DC in the 21st century, there was no stomach to deal with the problem, as gridlock continued to make Congress a internally hostile but essentially passive institution.

Part of that gridlock stemmed from earlier Congressional reforms that looked good at the time, but reduced the power of parties to discipline members who would not go along with the leadership.? Part also stemmed from changes in media, which were developing in the 1980s because the media was increasingly out of sync with the views of average Americans, but came to full fruition after the internet became the dominant channel for news flow, allowing people to tune out voices unpleasant to them.? Gerrymandering certainly did not help, as virtually all House seats were noncompetitive.? Finally, the size of the?debt, and large continuing deficits limited the ability of the government to do anything.? The Fed was already letting inflation run at rates higher than intermediate interest rates, so they were out of play as well.

Despite occasional warnings in the media that began five years earlier after the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration suggested in his 2027 year-end report that this was likely to happen in 4-6 years, most media and people tuned it out because it was impossible in their eyes, and face it, actuaries are deadly dull people.? Only a few bloggers kept up a drumbeat on the topic, but they were ignored as Johnny One-Note Disasterniks.

Shortly thereafter, the obligatory hearings began in Congress, and?the new Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration was first on the list to testify.? First he explained that when the Social Security was developed, this safeguard was added in case the income and assets of the trust were inadequate to make the next payment, that payment would be skipped.? He added that by law, skipped payments would not be made up later.? After all, Social Security is an earned right, but mainly a statutory right and not a constitutional right.? Then he commented that without changes, a payment would likely be skipped in 2033 and 2034, two skips each in 2035 and 2036, and by 2037 three skips would be the “new normal” until demographics normalized, but that would likely take a generation to achieve, as childbearing was out of favor.

There were many other people who testified that day from AARP, its relatively new but strong foe AAWP (w -> Working), and various conservative and liberal think tanks, but no one said anything valuable that the Chief Actuary didn’t already say: without changes to benefits or taxes (contributions, haha), payment skipping would become regular.? It was a darkly amusing sidelight that members of the House of Representatives managed to trot out every “urban myth” about Social Security as true during their hearings, including the bogus idea that everyone has their contributions stored in the own little accounts.

The eventual compromise was not a pretty one:

  • Cost-of-living adjustments were ended.
  • Benefits were means-tested.
  • Late retirement adjustment factors were decreased.
  • All the games where benefits could be maximized were eliminated.
  • Immigration restrictions were loosened for well-off immigrants.
  • The normal retirement age was raised to 72, and
  • “Contributions” would now be assessed on income of all types, with no upper limit.? That said, the rate did not rise.

That ended the payment skipping, though it is possible that a skip could happen in the future.? As it is, much of the current political climate is marked by intergenerational conflict, with Social Security viewed derisively as an old-age welfare plan.? A visitor to the grave of FDR did not find him doing 2000 RPM, but did note the skunk cabbage that someone helpfully planted there.? As it was, quiet euthanasia, some voluntary, some not, took place among the elderly Baby Boomers, tired of being labelled sponges on society, or picked off by annoyed caretakers.

It should be noted that as benefits were cut in real terms, friends and families of the some elderly and disabled helped out, but many elderly people led lives of poverty.? Perhaps if they had expected this, they would have prepared, but they trusted the malleable promises of the US Government.

The open question at present is whether it was wise for society to promote collective security schemes.? As it is, with seven states in pseudo-bankruptcy, many municipalities in similar straits if not real bankruptcy, and many countries suffering with worse demographic problems than the US, the problems of these arrangements are apparent:

  • Breaking the link between childbearing and support in old age discouraged childbearing.
  • Every succeeding generation of participants got a worse deal than those that came before.
  • Politicians learned to prioritize the present over the future, and use monies that should have been put to some productive future use into the benefit of those who would consume currently.
  • Complexity encouraged gaming of the system, whether it was maxing benefits, or faking disability.
  • Retirement ages that were too low made the burden too heavy to the workers supporting retirees.

Future articles in this retrospective series will touch on some of the other problems we have recently faced, as many involuntary collective security measures have hit troubled times, and the unintended effects of too much debt, both governmental and private are still with us.

The Crisis Lending Fund

The Crisis Lending Fund

Posted on by David Merkel
Photo Credit: Barron’s

===================

Last week, there was an article in Barron’s describing how many mutual fund families take advantage of a provision in the law allowing them to have funds lend to one another.? Quoting from the article:

Under normal circumstances the Securities and Exchange Commission bars funds from making ?affiliated transactions,? but there?s a loophole in the Investment Company Act of 1940 for funds to apply for an exemption to make such ?interfund loans.? Until recently, few fund families applied for this exemption. None had before 1990. From 2006 to 2016, the SEC approved just 18 interfund lending applications. But since January 2016, the agency has approved 26. Most major fund families?BlackRock, Vanguard, Fidelity, Allianz?now can make such loans. Stiffer regulations of banks, which are now less willing to offer funds credit lines, partly explain the application surge.

I’m here tonight to suggest making a virtue out of necessity, because one day this practice will be banned after another crisis if something goes afoul.? Let the mutual fund companies that do this set up a special “crisis lending fund,” and put in place the following provisions:

  • The various funds that can borrow from the crisis lending fund must pay a commitment fee for the capital that could be lent.? Make it similar to what a bank provides on a revolving credit line.
  • When funds are not lent, it is invested in Treasury securities, or something of very high quality, in a five-year ladder.
  • When funds are lent, they receive a rate similar to rates current on single-B junk bonds.
  • The lending to other funds is secured, such that if the loans are collateralized by less than 200%, the loans must be paid down.? I.e., if the fund has $200 million of net asset value, there can be at most $100 million of loans, from all parties lending to the fund.

This would be an attractive, somewhat countercyclical asset for people to invest in.? Who wouldn’t want a fund that made additional money during a crisis, and was safe the rest of the time as well?

Just a stray thought.? As with many of my ideas, this would help create a stable private-sector solution where the government might otherwise intrude.

Short-Term Rational, but Intermediate-Term Irrational

Short-Term Rational, but Intermediate-Term Irrational

Posted on by David Merkel
Don’t look at the left side of the chart on an empty stomach

==================

This will be a short post.? At present the expected 10-year rate of total return on the S&P 500 is around 4.05%/year.? We’re at the 94th percentile now.? The ovals on the graph above are 68% and 95% confidence intervals on what the actual return might be.? Truly, they should be two vertical lines, but this makes it easier to see.? One standard deviation is roughly equal to two percent.

But, at the left hand side of the graph, things get decidedly non-normal.? After the model gets to 2.5% projected returns, presently around 3100 on the S&P 500, returns in the past have been messy.? Of course, those were the periods from 1998-2000 to 2008-2010.? But aside from one stray period starting in 1968, that is the only time we have gotten to valuations like this.

My last piece hinted at this, but I want to make this a little plainer.? For sound effects while reading this, you could get your children or grandchildren to murmur behind you “We know it can’t. We know it can’t.” while you consider whether the market can deliver total returns of 7%/year over the next 10 years.

There are few if any things that remain permanently valid insights of finance.? Anything, even good strategies, can be overdone.? Even stable companies can be overlevered, until they are no longer stable.

In this case, it is buying the dips, buying a value-weighted cross section of the market, and putting your asset allocation on autopilot.? Set it and forget it.? Add in companies always using spare capital to buy back shares, and maxing out debts to fit the liberal edge of your preferred rating profile.

These have been good ideas for the past, but are likely to bite in the future.? Value is undervalued, safety is undervalued, and the US is overvalued.? A happy quiet momentum has brought us here, and for the most part it has been calm, not wild.? Individually prudent actions that have paid off in the past are likely to prove imprudent within three years, particularly if the S&P 500 rises 10-15% more in the next year.

People have bought into the idea that market timing never matters.? I agree with the idea that it usually doesn’t matter, and that it is usually is a fool’s game to time the market.? That changes when the 10-year forward forecast of market returns gets low, say, around 3%/year.

Remember, the market goes down double-speed.? Just because the 10-year returns don’t lose much, doesn’t mean that there might not be better opportunities 3-5 years out, when the market might offer returns of 6%/year or higher.

Also, remember that my data set begins in 1945.? I wish I had the values for the 1920s, because I expect they would be even further to the left, off the current graph, and well below the bottom of it.

This isn’t the most nuts that things can be.? In fact, it is very peaceful and steady — the cumulative effect of many rational decisions based off of what would have worked best in the past, in the short-run.

As a result, I am looking 10 years into the future, and slowly scaling back my risks as a result.? If the market moves higher, that will pick up speed.

The Little Market that Could

The Little Market that Could

Posted on by David Merkel
Picture Credit: Roadsidepictures from The Little Engine That Could By Watty Piper, Illustrated By George & Doris Hauman | That said, for every one that COULD, at least two COULDN’T

======================================

So what do you think of the market?? Why are both actual and implied volatility so low?? Why are the moves so small, but predominantly up?? Is this the closest impression of the Chinese Water Torture that a stock market can pull off?

Why doesn’t the market care about external and internal risks?? Doesn’t it know that we have divisive, seemingly incompetent President who looks like he doesn’t know how to do much more than poke people in the eyes, figuratively?? Doesn’t it know that we have a divided, incompetent Congress that can’t get anything of significance done?

Leaving aside the possibility of a war that we blunder into (look at history), what if the inability of Washington DC to do anything is a plus?? Government on autopilot for four years, maybe eight if we decide we are better of without change — is that a plus or minus?? Just ignore the noise, Trump, other politicians, media… ahh, the quiet could be nice.

Then think about Baby Boomers showing up late for retirement, and wondering what they are going to do.? Then think about their surrogates, the few who still have defined benefit pension plans.? What are they going to do?? Say that the rate that they are targeting for investment earnings is 7%/year forever.? Even if my model for investment returns is wrong in a pessimistic way — i.e., my 4% nominal should be 6%/year nominal, you still can’t hit your funding target.? As for those with defined contribution plans, when you are way behind, even contributing more won’t do much unless investment earnings provide some oomph.

I am personally not a fan of TINA — “there is no alternative” to stocks in the market, but I recognize the power of the idea with some.? It is my opinion that more people and their agents will run above average risks in order to try to hit an unlikely target rather than lock in a loss versus what is planned.? Most will “muddle in the middle” taking some risk even with a high market, and realizing that they aren’t going to get there, but maybe a late retirement is better than none.

That’s the power of bonds returning 3% at best over the forecast horizon, unless interest rates jump, and then we have other problems, like risk assets repricing.? If you are older, almost no plan is achievable at reasonable cost if you are coming to the game now, rather than starting 15+ years ago.

And so I come to “the little market that could…” for now.? My view is that those with retirement obligations to fund are bidding up the market now.? That does two things.? Shares of risk assets (stocks) move from the hands of stronger investors to weaker investors, while cash flows the opposite direction.? In the process, prices for risk assets get bid up relative to their future free cash flows.

Unlike “the little engine that could,” the little market that could has climbed some small hills relative to the funding targets that investors need. Ready for the Himalayas?? The trouble with those targets is that regardless of what the trading price of the risk assets is, the cash flows that they produce will not support those targets.

Thought experiment: imagine that the stock market was gone and all the shares we held were of private companies that were difficult and expensive to trade.? ?Pension plans would estimate ability to meet targets by looking at forecasts of the underlying returns of their private investments, rather than a total return measure.

Well, guess what?? In the long run, the returns from public stock investments reflect just that — the distributable amount of earnings that they generate, regardless of what a marginal bidder is willing to pay for them at any point in time.? Stocks aren’t magic, any more than the firms that they represent ownership in.

So… we can puzzle over the current moment and wonder why the market is behaving in a placid, slow-climbing manner.? Or, we can look at the likely inadequacy of asset cash flows versus future demands for those cash flows for retirement, etc.? Personally, I think they are related as I have stated above, but the second view, that asset returns will not be able to fund all planned retirement needs is far more certain, and is one mountain that “the little market that could” cannot climb.

Thus, consider the security of your own plans, and adjust accordingly.? As I commented recently, for older folks with enough assets, maybe it is time to lock in gains.? For others, figure out what adjustments and compromises will need to be made if your assets can’t deliver enough.

Tough stuff, I know.? But better to be realistic about this than to be surprised when funding targets are not reached.

“Bank” Some of Your Gains

“Bank” Some of Your Gains

Posted on by David Merkel
Photo Credit: Scoobyfoo

=======================

Recently I read Jonathan Clements’ piece Enough Already.? The basic idea was to encourage older investors who have made gains in the risk assets, typically stocks, though it would apply to high yield bonds and other non-guaranteed investments that are highly correlated with stocks.? His pithy way of phrasing it is:

If I have already won the game, why would I keep playing?

His inspiration for the piece stems from a another piece by William Bernstein [at the WSJ] How to Tell if Your Retirement Nest Egg Is Big Enough.? He asked a question like this (these are my words) back in early 2015, “Why keep taking risk if your performance has been good enough to let you reduce risk and live on the assets, rather than run the possibility of a fall in the market spoiling your ability to retire comfortably?”

Decent question.? If you are young enough, your time horizon is long enough that you can ignore it.? But if you are older, you might want to consider it.

Here’s the problem, though.? What do you reinvest in?? My article?How to Invest Carefully for Mom?took up some of the problem — if I were reducing exposure to stocks, I would invest in high quality short and long bonds, probably weighted 50/50 to 70/30 in that range.? Examples of tickers that I might consider be MINT and TLT.? Trouble is, you only get a yield of 2% on the mix.? The short bonds help if there is inflation, the long bonds help if there is deflation.? Both remove the risk of the stock market.

I’m also happier in running with my mix of international stocks and quality US value investments versus holding the S&P 500, because foreign and value have underperformed for so long, almost feels like 1999, minus the crazed atmosphere.

Now, Clements at the end of the exercise doesn’t want to make any big changes.? He still wants to play on at the ripe old age of 54.? He is concerned that his nest egg isn’t big enough.? Also, he thinks stocks will return 5-6%/year over the long haul (undefined), versus my model that says 2-6%/year over the next ten years.

What would I say?? I would say “do half.”? Whatever the amount you would cut from stocks to move to bonds if you were certain of it, do half of it.? If disaster strikes, you will pat yourself on the back for doing something.? If the market rallies further, you will be glad you didn’t do the whole thing.

What’s that, you say?? What am I doing?? At age 56, I am playing on, but 10-12% higher in the S&P 500, and I will hedge.? At levels like that future market outcomes are poor under almost every historical scenario, and even if the market doesn’t seem nuts in terms of qualitative signals, the amount you leave on the table is piddly over a 10-year horizon.? If I see more genuine nuttiness beyond certain logic-free zones in the market, I could act sooner, but for now, like Jonathan, I play on.

Full disclosure: long MINT and TLT for me and my fixed income clients

The Many Virtues of Simplicity

The Many Virtues of Simplicity

Posted on by David Merkel
Photo Credit: Christopher || Maintaining a marriage is simple… if you do it right…

==============

There are at least eight reasons why taking a simple approach to investing is a wise thing to do.

  1. Understandable
  2. Explainable
  3. Reduced “Too smart for you own good risk”
  4. Clearer risk management
  5. Less trading
  6. Taxes are likely easier
  7. Not Trendy
  8. Cheap

Understandable

You have to understand your investments, even if it’s just at the highest overview level. ?If you don’t have that level of understanding, then at some point you will be tempted to change your investments during a period of market duress, and it will likely be a mistake. ?Panic never pays. ?How to avoid panic? ?Knowledge reduces panic. ?Whatever the strategy is, follow it in good times and bad. ?Understand how bad things can get before you start an investment program. ?Make changes if needed when things are calm, not in the midst of terror.

Explainable

You should be able to explain your investment strategy at a basic level, enough that you can convey it to a friend of equal intelligence. ?Only then will you know that you truly understand it. ?Also, in trying to explain it you will discover whether your investments are truly simple or not. ?Does your friend get it, even if he may not want to imitate what you are doing?

Take an index card and write out the strategy in outline form. ?Would you feel confident talking for one minute about it from the outline?

Reduced “Too smart for your own good risk”

If you have simple investments, you will tend not to get unexpected surprises. ?One reason the rating agencies did so badly in the last crisis was that they were forced to rate stuff for which they did not have good models. ?The complexity level was too high, but the regulators required ratings for assets held by banks and insurers, and so the rating agencies did it, earning money for it, but also at significant reputational risk.

Why did the investment banks get into trouble during the financial crisis? ?They didn’t keep things simple. ?They held a wide variety of complex, illiquid investments on their balance sheets, financed with short-term lending. ?When there was doubt about the value of those assets, their lenders refused to roll over their debts, and so they foundered, and most died, or were forced into mergers.

I try to keep things simple. ?Stocks that possess a margin of safety and high quality bonds are good investments. ?Stocks have enough risk, and high quality bonds are one of the few assets that truly diversify, along with cash. ?That makes sense from a structural standpoint, because fixed claims on future cash are different than participating in current profits, and the change in expectations for future profits.

Clearer risk management

When assets are relatively simple, risk management gets simple as well. ?Assets should succeed for the reasons that you thought they would in advance of purchase.? Risk assets should primarily generate capital gains over a full market cycle.? fixed Income assets help provide a floor, and limit downside, so long as inflation remains in check.

With simple asset allocations, you don’t tend to get negative surprises.? Does an income portfolio fall apart when the stock market does?? It probably was not high quality enough.? Does you asset allocation give large negative surprises close to retirement?? Maybe there were too many risk assets in the portfolio after a long bull run.

Cash and commodities (in small amounts) can help as well.? Those don’t have yield, and don’t typically provide capital gains, but they would help if inflation returned.

Less trading

Simplicity in asset allocation means you can sleep at night.? You’ve already determined how much you are willing to lose over the bear portion of a market cycle, so you aren’t looking to complicate your life through trying to time the market.? Few people have the disposition to sell near near top, and few?have the disposition to buy near near the bottom.? Almost no one can do both.? (I’m better at bottoms…)

Pick a day of the year — maybe use your half-birthday (as some of my kids would say — it is six months after your birthday).? Look at your portfolio, and adjust back to target percentages, if you need to do that.? Then put the portfolio away.? If you have set your asset allocation conservatively, you won’t feel the need to make radical changes, and over time, your assets should grow at a reasonable rate.? Remember, the more conservative asset allocation that you can live with permanently is far better than the less conservative one that you will panic over at the wrong time.

Taxes are likely easier

Not that many people have taxable accounts, though half the assets that I manage are taxable, but if you don’t trade a lot, taxes from your accounts are relatively easy.? Unrealized capital gains compound untaxed over time, and there is the option to donate appreciated stock if you want to get a write-off and eliminate taxes at the same time.

Not Trendy

You won’t get caught in fads that eventually blow up if you keep things simple.? You may be pleasantly surprised that you buy low more frequently than your trendy neighbors.? Remember, people always brag about their wins, but they never tell you about the losses, particularly the worst ones.? Those who don’t lose much, and take moderate risks typically win in the end.

Cheap

Simple investment strategies tend to have lower management fees, and fewer “soft” costs because they don’t trade as much.? That can be a help over the long run.

That’s all for this piece.? For most investors, simplicity pays off — it is that simple.

Book Review: The Best Investment Writing, Volume 1

Book Review: The Best Investment Writing, Volume 1

Posted on by David Merkel

I was pleasantly surprised to be invited to contribute a chapter to this book.? I am going to encourage you to buy this book, but let me give some of the reasons not to buy this book:

  • Don’t buy it to give me something.? I don’t get anything from sales of this book.? Neither does Mebane Faber, who is giving all of the profits to charity.
  • Don’t buy it to read my article.? You can read it for free here.? Better, you can read the updated version of the article, which I publish quarterly, here.? (Those reading this at Amazon, there are links at my blog.? Google “Alephblog The Best Investment Writing” to find them.)
  • Don’t buy it to get current ideas.? There are none here.? The weakness of the book is that the articles are dated by 9-21 months or so, BUT… that doesn’t keep the book from being relevant.
  • Don’t buy it if you want one consistent theme.? It’s like reading RealMoney.com, except with a broader array of authors.? There is no “house view.”
  • Don’t buy it for the graphics in the book.? The grayscale images in the book are good for black & white, but some are hard to read.? The graphs for my article are far better at my blog.

The book is a good one because there is something for everyone here.? Do you want quantitative finance?? There is a good selection here. Do you want good basic articles about how to think about investing?? There are a good number of those as well, particularly from well-known financial journalists, and some of the most well-regarded bloggers.? Do you want a few unusual articles that might cause you consider some asset sub-classes or techniques that you haven’t considered before?? They are here too.

The writers fall into four buckets — journalists, asset managers, pundits/authors, and those who sell information at their websites.? I will tell you that my personal favorites from this volume are Tom Tresidder, Mebane Faber, Chris Meredith, Ben Carlson (how was he the only one with two articles in the book?), Jason Hsu & John West, and Cullen Roche.

Don’t get me wrong, I like almost all of the authors in this volume, and am proud to be featured among them.? For a number of them, though, I would have picked other things they have written in 2016 that had more punch, and offered more of a difference in perspective.

Why buy this?? After you read this, you will be a smarter, more well-rounded investor.? In my calculations, that’s? pretty good — 32 articles that will take you 4 hours to read.? Got seven minutes?? Read an article; it just might help you a great deal.

Quibbles

Already stated, though if you don’t like statistics, one-third of the articles may not appeal to you.? Also, a few articles veer into political commentary (not that I would ever do that 😉 ).

Summary / Who Would Benefit from this Book

Though almost anyone could benefit from this book, it is geared toward investors with intermediate-to-higher levels of knowledge and experience.? If you want to buy it, you can buy it here:?The Best Investment Writing: Selected writing from leading investors and authors.

Full disclosure:?I received two free copies of the book for contributing the article.? That’s all, unless someone buys the book through the link above.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, including books, I get a small commission. This is my main source of blog revenue. I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip. Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book. Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website. Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites. Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

Estimating Future Stock Returns, June 2017 Update

Estimating Future Stock Returns, June 2017 Update

Posted on by David Merkel

I’d say this is getting boring, but it’s pretty fascinating watching the rally run. ?Now, this is the seventh time I have done this quarterly analysis. ?The first one was for December 2015. ?Over that time period, the expected annualized 10-year return went like this, quarter by quarter: 6.10%, 6.74%, 6.30%, 6.01%, 5.02%, 4.79%, and 4.30%. ?At the end of June 2017, the figure would have been 4.58%, but the rally since the end of the quarter shaves future returns down to 4.30%.

We are now in the 93rd percentile of valuations.

Wow.

This era will ultimately be remembered as a hot time in the markets, much like 1965-9, 1972, and 1997-2001.

The Internal Logic of this Model

I promised on of my readers that I would provide the equation for this model. ?Here it is:

10-year annualized total return = 32.77% – (70.11% * Percentage of total assets held in stocks for the US as a whole)

Now, the logic of this formula stems from the idea that the return on total assets varies linearly with the height of the stock market, and the return on debt (everything else aside from stocks) does not. ?After that, the formula is derived from the same formula that we use for the weighted average cost of capital [WACC]. ?Under those conditions, the total returns of the stock market can be approximated by a linear function of the weight the stocks have in the WACC formula.

Anyway, that’s one way to think of the logic behind this.

The Future?

Now, what are some of the possibilities for the future?

Above you see the nineteen scenarios for where the S&P 500 will be in 10 years, assuming a 2% dividend yield, and looking at the total returns that happen when the model forecasts returns between 3.30% and 5.30%. ?The total returns vary from 2.31%/year to 6.50%, and average out to 3.97% total returns. ?The bold line above is the 4.30% estimate.

As I have said before, this bodes ill for all collective security schemes that rely on the returns of risky assets to power the payments. ?There is no conventional way to achieve returns higher than 5%/year for the next ten years, unless you go for value and foreign markets (maybe both!).

Then again, the simple solution is just to lighten up and let cash build. ?Now if we all did that, we couldn’t. ?Who would be buying? ?But if enough of us did it such that equity valuations declined, there could be a more orderly market retreat.

The attitude of the market on a qualitative basis doesn’t seem nuts to me yet, so I am at maximum cash for ordinary conditions, but I haven’t hedged. ?When expected 10-year market returns get to 3%/year, I will likely do that, but for now I hold my stocks.

PS — the first article of this series has been translated into Chinese. ?The same website has 48 of my best articles in Chinese, which I find pretty amazing. ?Hope you smile at the cartoon version of me. 😉

How to Invest Carefully for Mom

How to Invest Carefully for Mom

Posted on by David Merkel
Photo Credit: stewit

========

Just a note before I begin. My piece called “Where Money Goes to Die” was an abnormal piece for me, and it received abnormal attention. ?The responses came in many languages aside from English, including Spanish, Turkish and Russian. ?It was interesting to note the level of distortion of my positions among those writing articles. ?That was less true of writing responses here.

My main point is this: if something either has no value or can’t be valued, it can’t be an investment. ?Speculations that have strong upward price momentum, like penny stocks during a promotion, are dangerous to speculate in. ?Howard Marks, Jamie Dimon and Ray Dalio seem to agree with that. ?That’s all.

Now for Q&A:

Greetings and salutations. ?:)

Hope all is well with you and the family!

Just have what I believe is a quick question. I already know [my husband’s] answer to this (Vanguard index funds – it his default answer to all things investment), but this is for my Mom, so it is important that she get it right (no wiggle room for losing money in an unstable market), hence my asking you. My Mom inherited money and doesn’t know what to do with it. a quarter of it was already in index funds/mutual funds and she kept it there. The rest came from the sale of real estate in the form of a check. That is the part that she doesn’t know what she should do with. She wanted to stick it in a CD until she saw how low the interest rates are. She works intermittently (handyman kind of work – it is demand-dependent), but doesn’t have any money saved in a retirement account or anything like that, so she needs this money get her though the rest of her life (she is almost 60). What would you recommend? What would you tell [name of my wife] to do if she were in this position? BTW, it is approx $ZZZ, if that makes a difference. Any advice you can give would be very much appreciated!

Vanguard funds are almost always a good choice. ?The question here is which Vanguard funds? ?To answer that, we have to think about asset allocation. ?My thoughts on asset allocation is that it is a marriage of two concepts:

  • When will you need to spend the money? and
  • Where is there the opportunity for good returns?

Your mom is the same age as my wife. ?A major difference between the two of them is that your mom doesn’t have a lot of investable assets, and my wife does. ?We have to be more careful with your mom. ?If your mom is only going to draw on these assets in retirement, say at age 67, and will draw them down over the rest of her life, say until age 87, then the horizon she is investing over is long, and should have stocks and longer-term bonds for investments.

But there is a problem here. ?Drawing on an earlier article of mine, investors today face a big problem:

The biggest problem for investors is low future returns. ?Bonds have low rates of returns, and equities have high valuations. ?You?ll see more about equity valuations in my next post.

This is a real problem for those wanting to fund retirements. ?Stocks are priced to return around 4%/year over the next ten years, and investment-grade longer bonds are around 3%. ?There are some pockets of better opportunity and so I suggest the following:

  • Invest more in foreign and emerging market stocks. ?The rest of the world is cheaper than the US. ?Particularly in an era where the US is trying to decouple from the rest of the world, foreign stocks may provide better returns than US stocks for a while.
  • Invest your US stocks in a traditional “value” style. ?Admittedly, this is not popular now, as value has underperformed for a record eight years versus growth investing. ?The value/growth cycle will turn, as it did back in 2000, and it will give your mom better returns over the next ten years.
  • Split your bond allocation into two components: long US high-quality bonds (Treasuries and Investment Grade corporates), and very short bonds or a money market fund. ?The long bonds are there as a deflation hedge, and the short bonds are there for liquidity. ?If the market falls precipitously, the liquidity is there for future investments.

I would split the investments 25%, 35%, 20%, 20% in the order that I listed them, or something near that. ?Try to sell your mom on the idea of setting the asset allocation, and not sweating the short-term results. ?Revisit the strategy every three years or so, and rebalance annually. ?If assets are needed prematurely, liquidate the assets that have done relatively well, and are above their target weights.

I know you love your mom, but the amount of assets isn’t that big. ?It will be a help to her, but it ultimately will be a supplement to Social Security for her. ?Her children, including you and your dear husband may ultimately prove to be a greater help for her than the assets, especially if the markets don’t do well. ?The asset allocation I gave you is a balance of offense and defense in an otherwise poor environment. ?The above advice also mirrors what I am doing for my own assets, and the assets of my clients, though I am not using Vanguard.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira.