Looking Back - and Looking Forward
2009 was one of those years that reminded us what a roller coaster the stock market can be – and also of the dangers of conventional thinking.
After the collapse in global financial markets last fall and the resulting pummeling taken by stock markets around the world, the consensus in January was that the worst was behind us. That was a sharp reminder of the danger of conventional thinking – by early March, markets in Canada had declined by a further 15% and the U.S. was down by 25%.
At that point, the consensus shifted and there was growing sentiment that we might be entering a long period of economic stagnation; that’s when we heard respected economic forecasters talk about a one in five chance of another depression. It was precisely at this point that the coordinated stimulus spending by governments around the world finally had an impact and we began seeing signs of an economic recovery. From the market’s bottom on March 9 to the end of November, global markets were up by 50% to 65%.
Thus, 2009 was a sharp reminder that it’s impossible to predict short term market movements.
Instead we need to focus on two key questions:
1. First, what do the prospects for economic and profit growth look like in the mid term – 12 to 18 months and beyond?
2. Second, to what extent are these prospects for growth accurately reflected in today’s prices of stocks and bonds?
Mid-Term Prospects For Growth
In building portfolios, we have to start with some core assumptions about the environment we’ll be in going forward.
Noted British historian Paul Johnson has written that at every given point in time, you can always point to good news and bad news – the only difference is the balance between the two and what the media pays attention to.
In early 2000 (at the height of the tech bubble) and the beginning of 2008 (at the top of the real estate and finance bubble), all we read about was good news – almost no attention was paid to any offsetting concerns. By contrast, during market bottoms at the end of 2003 and early 2009, all we saw was the bad news – it’s as if there were no positives on the horizon.
Despite the recovery in the global economy and markets since the early part of this year, the general sentiment and confidence level among many people today is quite negative. Much of that is driven by concerns about the U.S. economy – still the engine of global growth.
And certainly there are lots of things to worry about in the U.S. – stubbornly high unemployment, a housing market that is still depressed (although no longer in decline) and Government deficits.
Without dismissing the short term challenges facing the US, it’s important not to lose sight of some important underlying positives.
In an August cover story on “The case for optimism” Business Week Magazine highlighted a number of reasons to be positive, among them the impact of technology and free markets in emerging economies.
Click here to read more about what Business Week had to say:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/09_34/B4144optimism.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories
And recently two respected columnists at the New York Times, Thomas Friedman and David Brooks, weighed in on both the positives in the U.S. and some of the challenges that America faces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22friedman.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/opinion/17brooks.html
The bottom line is: In the mid term I believe the positives outweigh the negatives and that the dire predictions about America’s decline are overstated. It may not see the rapid growth we’ve seen in the past but it will see solid growth.
Today’s Valuation Levels
Being right on our midterm outlook for the economy only helps us if we buy stocks and bonds at attractive prices.
With regard to bonds, at current interest rates of about 3% it is hard to make a case for Government bonds as anything except a safe harbour against more market disruption.
The returns on corporate bonds are more interesting – especially toward the bottom of the investment grade category, which currently yield about 6%. Note that we do have to be very selective here, since companies with low investment grade ratings are susceptible to shocks and downgrades should the economy run into difficulty.
On the issue of valuation levels of stocks, there are lots of academics who have made a career of studying markets. Of these, I follow two in particular – Jeremy Siegel at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Robert Shiller at Yale. Between them, they forecast both the technology and the U.S. real estate bubbles.
Robert Shiller believes stocks should be valued based on their average earnings over the past ten years, using what he calls the Cyclically Adujsted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE for short). Employing that measure, at the end of November Shiller calculates the U.S. market’s multiple is 19.5 x times average earnings for the past ten years, within the normal historical range (although at the high end of that range.)
Prior to 2008, you have to go back to 1992 to find the last time we saw this multiple consistently below twenty times average ten year earnings. Throughout the period from 1997 to 2001, this multiple was in the thirties and forties – when the multiple was in its forties, you were paying twice as much for a dollar of earnings as you are today.
Jeremy Siegel is the best known researcher on long term returns in the stock market and author of Stocks for the Long Run, often cited as one of the all-time ten most influential books on investing. Among his claims to fame is an article in the Wall Street Journal at the peak of the tech mania in early 2000, predicting that sector’s collapse.
In September, Siegel did two interviews on long term returns and current valuations, in which he talked about his research and his opinion that stocks offered good value at the time. You can see those interviews below:
Professor Jeremy Siegel on today’s market outlook:
http://www.clientinsights.ca/video/today-s-valuation-levels-and-market-outlook/type:investor
Professor Jeremy Siegel on long term stock returns:
http://www.clientinsights.ca/video/stocks-for-the-long-run-and-long-term-returns/type:investor
The bottom line from these two experts: While stocks are not as cheap as they were in March, by historical standards they do offer reasonable value.
While we can expect continued volatility in 2010, we do believe that returns on stocks in the period ahead will be in line with historical levels.
The Right Approach For Your Portfolio
While my team and I spend a great deal of time focusing on the big picture, the most important issue is how we adapt that view to each client’s individual portfolio.
For older clients, we have always been believers in maintaining conservative, balanced portfolios – that stance protected our retired clients from the worst of the decline in 2008 and early this year. Today, we are focusing on higher quality stocks, as we believe that these will provide the best risk return trade-off going forward.
In summary, we are cautiously optimistic about the American, Canadian and the global economy’s ability to work through some of the current issues they face – and believe that valuations on stocks will make quality stocks an attractive investment in the mid-term.
We look forward to continuing to work with you in 2010 to ensure you have the portfolio that is right for you – and thank you again for the opportunity to work with you over the past while.
As always, my team and I area always available to talk about any questions that you might have.
In the meantime, best wishes for a relaxing holiday season – I look forward to talking in 2010.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Quarterly Review - Cautiously Optimistic
As I write this new post, it’s two weeks from the end of the third quarter in what continues to be a most eventful year for stock markets and the economy.
It’s also one year since the weekend that shook the foundations of Wall Street and of the global financial system – when Lehman Brothers collapsed, Merrill Lynch vanished as an independent entity and AIG was taken over by the U.S. government.
In light of that, I thought it might be worthwhile to briefly summarize where we’ve been this year, where we are today and the prospects for the period ahead – and also to highlight some lessons from last year’s financial collapse.
Where we’ve been
Six months ago, in early March, it truly did feel like the world might be coming to an end – talk of a return to a Great Depression like economy dominated radio, television and newspaper. Understandably, fear was rampant – and stocks responded to these nightmarish scenarios by hitting the lowest levels in years, with financials especially hard hit.
Although no one knew it at the time, that turned out to be the bottom. Since then, we’ve seen the economy move back from the precipice – there is a growing consensus that we’ll return to economic growth in the second half of this year. The Economist magazine recently ran a cover story discussing the extent to which the economic recovery was led by Asia.
As a result, we’ve had a strong recovery in markets – from their bottom in the beginning of March, stock markets are up 50%, retracing a good portion of the losses since last fall.
The second quarter of this year, from March to June, was especially strong – since 1956 the Canadian market has only had three quarters that rose more than this one.
In the meantime, here are six lessons from the last twelve months:
1. We were reminded of just how volatile stocks can be.
2. And of the importance of true diversification.
3. Many investors discovered that they’re less comfortable with risk and volatility in their portfolio than they had believed.
4. Investors were also reminded of the need to focus on what they can control – understanding cash needs and thinking through how much risk they can live with to fund those needs.
5. In some cases, investors began rethinking retirement plans as a result.
6. Finally, we were reminded that in today’s world, we need to expect the unexpected.
Where we are today
A year ago, the market was characterized by rampant optimism. The Canadian market had hit a new high in June of 2008 and any concerns were set aside as minor annoyances.
By contrast, six months ago the market was overwhelmed by absolute pessimism – there was no sign of hope anywhere.
Today, the market is somewhere between those two extremes and many investors can be characterized as extremely nervous.
As a general rule, I think a certain level of healthy anxiety is positive – what gets investors in trouble is an excess of either optimism or pessimism. While today’s mood may be erring on the side of being a bit too pessimistic, I think being cautious in the current market makes sense … provided that prudent caution doesn’t cross the line into panicked inertia.
The good news is that there are still excellent opportunities for investors who are prepared for short term volatility. I spend a lot of time listening to the best market minds and to managers who have lived through multiple cycles. I am reassured that most say that they are still finding very good value – not to the extent that they did earlier this year, but still well ahead of what they would have seen a year ago.
The outlook going forward
In August, Business Week ran a cover story called “The case for optimism.”
The premise was simple: Beyond the issues facing the global economy, there are many underlying positives that give cause for optimism if we look out two and three years and beyond.
There are things happening under the surface that will drive economic growth … and with that economic growth will come growth in stock prices. Examples include the positive impact of technology, the recovering US housing market, the revitalization of economies and the incredible energy from the developing world’s educated youth and emerging middle class.
Click here to access all the Business Week stories on The Case for OPTIMISM :
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/09_34/B4144optimism.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories
And here to view a three minute video with interviews with CEOs of Dow Corning, Eastman Kodak and Intuit.
http://feedroom.businessweek.com/?fr_story=34b1f5ab213d48a160a767c9c6c50d091f6cc7a3
Volatility
Let me close by talking about market volatility.
In 1907, U.S. financier J. Pierpoint Morgan almost singlehandedly averted a banking panic among U.S. investors by pledging large sums of his own money, and convinced other New York bankers to do the same, to shore up the banking system. At the time, the United States did not have a central bank to inject liquidity back into the market.
Later in life, someone asked him his best guess on the direction of markets. His answer: “They will go up and they will go down.”
One hundred years later, that’s still the best answer to someone looking for a short term market forecast. No one can predict market movements in the immediate period ahead – all we can do is understand clearly how much short term volatility we can live with, adjust our portfolios accordingly and stay focused on the horizon as we deal with the rough waters. No one likes volatility … but for most of us it’s the necessary price to arrive at our ultimate destination.
It’s also one year since the weekend that shook the foundations of Wall Street and of the global financial system – when Lehman Brothers collapsed, Merrill Lynch vanished as an independent entity and AIG was taken over by the U.S. government.
In light of that, I thought it might be worthwhile to briefly summarize where we’ve been this year, where we are today and the prospects for the period ahead – and also to highlight some lessons from last year’s financial collapse.
Where we’ve been
Six months ago, in early March, it truly did feel like the world might be coming to an end – talk of a return to a Great Depression like economy dominated radio, television and newspaper. Understandably, fear was rampant – and stocks responded to these nightmarish scenarios by hitting the lowest levels in years, with financials especially hard hit.
Although no one knew it at the time, that turned out to be the bottom. Since then, we’ve seen the economy move back from the precipice – there is a growing consensus that we’ll return to economic growth in the second half of this year. The Economist magazine recently ran a cover story discussing the extent to which the economic recovery was led by Asia.
As a result, we’ve had a strong recovery in markets – from their bottom in the beginning of March, stock markets are up 50%, retracing a good portion of the losses since last fall.
The second quarter of this year, from March to June, was especially strong – since 1956 the Canadian market has only had three quarters that rose more than this one.
In the meantime, here are six lessons from the last twelve months:
1. We were reminded of just how volatile stocks can be.
2. And of the importance of true diversification.
3. Many investors discovered that they’re less comfortable with risk and volatility in their portfolio than they had believed.
4. Investors were also reminded of the need to focus on what they can control – understanding cash needs and thinking through how much risk they can live with to fund those needs.
5. In some cases, investors began rethinking retirement plans as a result.
6. Finally, we were reminded that in today’s world, we need to expect the unexpected.
Where we are today
A year ago, the market was characterized by rampant optimism. The Canadian market had hit a new high in June of 2008 and any concerns were set aside as minor annoyances.
By contrast, six months ago the market was overwhelmed by absolute pessimism – there was no sign of hope anywhere.
Today, the market is somewhere between those two extremes and many investors can be characterized as extremely nervous.
As a general rule, I think a certain level of healthy anxiety is positive – what gets investors in trouble is an excess of either optimism or pessimism. While today’s mood may be erring on the side of being a bit too pessimistic, I think being cautious in the current market makes sense … provided that prudent caution doesn’t cross the line into panicked inertia.
The good news is that there are still excellent opportunities for investors who are prepared for short term volatility. I spend a lot of time listening to the best market minds and to managers who have lived through multiple cycles. I am reassured that most say that they are still finding very good value – not to the extent that they did earlier this year, but still well ahead of what they would have seen a year ago.
The outlook going forward
In August, Business Week ran a cover story called “The case for optimism.”
The premise was simple: Beyond the issues facing the global economy, there are many underlying positives that give cause for optimism if we look out two and three years and beyond.
There are things happening under the surface that will drive economic growth … and with that economic growth will come growth in stock prices. Examples include the positive impact of technology, the recovering US housing market, the revitalization of economies and the incredible energy from the developing world’s educated youth and emerging middle class.
Click here to access all the Business Week stories on The Case for OPTIMISM :
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/toc/09_34/B4144optimism.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories
And here to view a three minute video with interviews with CEOs of Dow Corning, Eastman Kodak and Intuit.
http://feedroom.businessweek.com/?fr_story=34b1f5ab213d48a160a767c9c6c50d091f6cc7a3
Volatility
Let me close by talking about market volatility.
In 1907, U.S. financier J. Pierpoint Morgan almost singlehandedly averted a banking panic among U.S. investors by pledging large sums of his own money, and convinced other New York bankers to do the same, to shore up the banking system. At the time, the United States did not have a central bank to inject liquidity back into the market.
Later in life, someone asked him his best guess on the direction of markets. His answer: “They will go up and they will go down.”
One hundred years later, that’s still the best answer to someone looking for a short term market forecast. No one can predict market movements in the immediate period ahead – all we can do is understand clearly how much short term volatility we can live with, adjust our portfolios accordingly and stay focused on the horizon as we deal with the rough waters. No one likes volatility … but for most of us it’s the necessary price to arrive at our ultimate destination.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
An Unconventional Approach for Unconventional Times
An Unconventional Approach for Unconventional Times
In other words, everything you know about asset allocation is wrong.
Strong words indeed.
The unprecedented seems to happen all too frequently in financial markets. Is there something wrong with the way financial advisors build their clients' portfolios?
Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) has been the very bedrock of investment management and, more specifically, portfolio construction and asset allocation, for decades. To oversimplify, one might explain MPT in this way: It is literally a mathematical proof for the idea that you shouldn't put all of your investment eggs in one basket. According to MPT, a portfolio of non-correlated assets — distributed across the risk spectrum — can lower the overall risk of a portfolio.
Of course, MPT has been picked apart by legions of critics over the years. But suddenly, in the aftermath of the recent stock market debacle — in which nothing seemed to work at all — critics of MPT are gaining currency.
The very foundation of modern asset allocation just doesn't work, they say.
Enter “Post Modern” Portfolio Theory (PMPT).
The debate between believers in the two different approaches to portfolio construction centers around how they define risk, and how that risk influences returns. MPT models risk using standard deviation above and below expected returns (also called mean variance). PMPT models risk using only standard deviation below expected returns (semivariance). In other words, MPT assumes that there is such a thing as upside “risk,” whereas PMPT proponents believe that only downside risk matters to investors.
This difference seems to give PMPT modeling greater power to predict disasters. In fact, applying MPT's concept of standard deviation to the monthly returns of the S&P 500 indicates a monthly loss greater than 12.8 percent has nearly no chance of happening. But it has occurred 12 times since 1926.
PMPT, say supporters, allows for last year's upset because it measures asymmetrical return distributions.
It’s a Post Modern World.
When the world was presented with Mean Variance Analysis [the basis of MPT] for looking at risk/return, it was the first of its kind back in 1952. No one had seen nor done anything like that before.
However, problem with the mean variance approach and what is known as the Capital Asset Pricing Model was that it assumed that every investor has the same objective. And that's just not true.
What is risk? To many, it is essentially the fact that we don't know what's going to happen, good or bad.
In short, predicting the future is impossible — though both MPT and PMPT still try to do this with modeling.
A major difference is that MPT assumes all investors have the same investment objective: to maximize the expected return for a given level of risk as measured by deviations around the mean. And so, for example, many retirement calculators suggest that 40 year olds who claim to have moderate risk tolerance plunk 40 percent of their assets in fixed income — which assumes these individuals, whether janitor or executive, will have exactly the same goals.
Subscribers to PMPT say, conversely, that investors have different and often very specific goals. The focal point should not be the maximum return possible given a certain level of risk, but rather the rate of return that must be earned in order to accomplish these specific investment goals, such as retirement or paying for college tuition, with minimum risk.
The risk, then, is defined as the possibility that the investor will be unable to accomplish the goal. As a result, returns below the target rate of return (“downside risk”) incur risk; returns above the target do not. With client portfolios suffering some of the largest losses in a generation, wouldn't everyone want a better handle on downside risk?
Don’t get me wrong. I do not have the audacity (nor the post graduate degrees) to suggest that MPT is wrong. The trouble I have is in the input variables. We've been using long-term averages for inputs. Historic averages have no predictive power at all. We’re told that by the very same people who expound on the virtues of MPT.
Indeed the concept of average expected returns, a central assumption in MPT, has taken a huge whack in the wake of the worst bear market in years, a bear so savage that it wiped out 12 years of equity returns in 16 months. Until now, who would have imagined the following could be true: Between 1969 and 2009, investing in 20-year Treasury bonds yielded better returns than investing in the S&P 500, according to research provided by Standard and Poor.
So much for the idea that over the long term, greater risk means greater reward.
Just food for thought.
In other words, everything you know about asset allocation is wrong.
Strong words indeed.
The unprecedented seems to happen all too frequently in financial markets. Is there something wrong with the way financial advisors build their clients' portfolios?
Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) has been the very bedrock of investment management and, more specifically, portfolio construction and asset allocation, for decades. To oversimplify, one might explain MPT in this way: It is literally a mathematical proof for the idea that you shouldn't put all of your investment eggs in one basket. According to MPT, a portfolio of non-correlated assets — distributed across the risk spectrum — can lower the overall risk of a portfolio.
Of course, MPT has been picked apart by legions of critics over the years. But suddenly, in the aftermath of the recent stock market debacle — in which nothing seemed to work at all — critics of MPT are gaining currency.
The very foundation of modern asset allocation just doesn't work, they say.
Enter “Post Modern” Portfolio Theory (PMPT).
The debate between believers in the two different approaches to portfolio construction centers around how they define risk, and how that risk influences returns. MPT models risk using standard deviation above and below expected returns (also called mean variance). PMPT models risk using only standard deviation below expected returns (semivariance). In other words, MPT assumes that there is such a thing as upside “risk,” whereas PMPT proponents believe that only downside risk matters to investors.
This difference seems to give PMPT modeling greater power to predict disasters. In fact, applying MPT's concept of standard deviation to the monthly returns of the S&P 500 indicates a monthly loss greater than 12.8 percent has nearly no chance of happening. But it has occurred 12 times since 1926.
PMPT, say supporters, allows for last year's upset because it measures asymmetrical return distributions.
It’s a Post Modern World.
When the world was presented with Mean Variance Analysis [the basis of MPT] for looking at risk/return, it was the first of its kind back in 1952. No one had seen nor done anything like that before.
However, problem with the mean variance approach and what is known as the Capital Asset Pricing Model was that it assumed that every investor has the same objective. And that's just not true.
What is risk? To many, it is essentially the fact that we don't know what's going to happen, good or bad.
In short, predicting the future is impossible — though both MPT and PMPT still try to do this with modeling.
A major difference is that MPT assumes all investors have the same investment objective: to maximize the expected return for a given level of risk as measured by deviations around the mean. And so, for example, many retirement calculators suggest that 40 year olds who claim to have moderate risk tolerance plunk 40 percent of their assets in fixed income — which assumes these individuals, whether janitor or executive, will have exactly the same goals.
Subscribers to PMPT say, conversely, that investors have different and often very specific goals. The focal point should not be the maximum return possible given a certain level of risk, but rather the rate of return that must be earned in order to accomplish these specific investment goals, such as retirement or paying for college tuition, with minimum risk.
The risk, then, is defined as the possibility that the investor will be unable to accomplish the goal. As a result, returns below the target rate of return (“downside risk”) incur risk; returns above the target do not. With client portfolios suffering some of the largest losses in a generation, wouldn't everyone want a better handle on downside risk?
Don’t get me wrong. I do not have the audacity (nor the post graduate degrees) to suggest that MPT is wrong. The trouble I have is in the input variables. We've been using long-term averages for inputs. Historic averages have no predictive power at all. We’re told that by the very same people who expound on the virtues of MPT.
Indeed the concept of average expected returns, a central assumption in MPT, has taken a huge whack in the wake of the worst bear market in years, a bear so savage that it wiped out 12 years of equity returns in 16 months. Until now, who would have imagined the following could be true: Between 1969 and 2009, investing in 20-year Treasury bonds yielded better returns than investing in the S&P 500, according to research provided by Standard and Poor.
So much for the idea that over the long term, greater risk means greater reward.
Just food for thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
