Tag Archives: Investment Management

Post Election Outlook

The election is finally over.  Markets are beginning to price in the upside potential of a shift to a pro-growth government led infrastructure-led fiscal spending.  This is something I have cited over the past couple of years as the missing piece of policy that could stimulate the economy, given that monetary policy has run its course.

Trump didn’t include a lot of detail in his campaign rhetoric.  Maybe he doesn’t know the details, but we can certainly ascertain his drift.  We do know an administration is a lot more than one person, and collectively, these others will bring the expertise to Trump’s agenda.

We can expect an increase in infrastructure spending.

Trump is known for putting his name on large buildings.  Just imagine if he were President.  According to Capital Group, the spending he has suggested would add up to half a percent per year to GDP over the next four years.

Trump has pledged to lower tax rates for individuals and corporations.  One way to pay for cuts would be to expand the amount subject to tax, which points to a deal for repatriation of the estimated $2 trillion of US corporate earnings held overseas.

Trade is the area most directly controlled by the President.  Trump’s threats to bully concessions from trading partners might work, but also carry the risk of starting trade wars or worse.  However, as occurred with Brexit and Grexit, the votes and threats created leverage, and pressure for concessions.  Perhaps he can negotiate a better deal.

Trump likes to negotiate from a position of strength and has emphasized the need for a strong military.  Increased defense spending to beef up homeland security and offensive capabilities should benefit defense contractors and industrial suppliers.

Health care is another area of focus.  Trump campaigned on repealing the Affordable Care Act.  It is unlikely the 20 million people added to health insurance rolls will be dumped, but the program will be rebranded and modified to reduce the worst imbalances.  Insurance companies will muddle through changes and pharmaceutical companies will still contend with pressure for price regulation.  While more positive than we would have expected a Clinton administration, the outcome is not clear.

He says he wants to repeal Graham-Dodd.  Banking regulation has placed serious regulatory burdens on financial companies.  Some question whether the regulations are adequate, but there is evidence of overreach and unnecessary compliance overhead.  It would be nice to see fewer rules based institutional regulations and more principles-based enforcement of laws to control individuals that compromise the public interest.

It might be best to view the Trump impact as a change in drift, not a full overhaul.

Managing Volatility in Growth Portfolios

In normal times you might own bonds for either of two reasons.  You might enjoy the regular income from interest payments, or you might own them for the stability they add to an equity portfolio.

Neither of those reasons carry the usual appeal with today’s ultra-low interest rates.  If you’re counting on bonds for income, you are going to need to own a lot more bonds.  While bonds add stability, the total return will be reduced when interest rates eventually move to higher, normal levels.  Neither reason is particularly compelling these days, although the stability factor is more compelling given stability in a quick equity correction.

The bond market is not uniform.  Some parts of the bond market have less exposure to interest rate risk.  Additionally, the proliferation of alternative strategies offers investors a wide array of tools for managing risk in today’s macro driven investment climate.

Much has been written about various types of risk, and that is not the focus of this essay.  My purpose is to explain an approach to managing equity market risk in the current low-interest rate environment.

Liquidity is important.  Let’s take the case of the Brexit induced market decline that began last Friday.  Over two days the Dow lost about 900 points as stunned markets went into “sell first, ask questions later” mode.  If you believed, as I did, that the world economy was not poised for mass suicide, and that cooler heads would prevail as hysteria faded, you might have been inclined to sell some of those bond positions to buy equities at distressed prices.

If those bond or alternative positions were in mutual funds, the cash would not be available for trading until the next day.  Using margin is not a bad strategy, since you can execute a purchase locking the price before the bond fund sale is complete.  If you wait until the next day, the price could be higher.  It could have gone lower too, but that’s speculation.  If you want to control the trade, you want to make timely buy and sell decisions.

Using hedge positions in ETF format eliminates the liquidity problem.  Unfortunately, many of the better bond funds and hedge strategies are based on active management, and hence not available in ETF format.  There is no perfect solution.  If the main objective is performance relative to a benchmark, for a fixed/alternative portfolio component, then the mutual fund liquidity problem can be overcome with judicious use of margin.  If the objective is to hedge a richly valued market in a world fraught with macro risk, then bond sector ETF’s can fit the bill.

Then again, in a rich market, cash is an attractive asset class.  To paraphrase Charlie Munger, a good way to get rich is to put $5 million in a checking account and wait for a good crisis.

A Vital Sign for the Economy

When the stock market gets stressed by a correction, emotions are magnified. Commentators attribute daily swings to the headline of the day.

One data point worth reviewing is from the American Association of Railroads (AAR). The AAR publishes weekly data on rail traffic.

According to the report for the week ending February 13, 2016, “total U.S. weekly rail traffic was 505,148 carloads and intermodal units, down 3.8 percent compared with the same week last year.” Total freight cars and intermodal units are down 5.8 percent compared to last year for the first 6 weeks this year. But of the 10 carload commodity groups, miscellaneous was up 27.4 percent and motor vehicles and parts were up 12.6 percent.

The sectors posting decreases compared to the same period in 2015 included, “coal, down 32.5 percent to 75,249 carloads; petroleum and petroleum products, down 23.4 percent to 11,303 carloads; and metallic ores and metals, down 15.4 percent to 19,196 carloads.”

The data points to a fairly healthy consumer sector and a supply correction in raw materials commodities. As supply adjusts to demand, prices stabilize and rebound. These are healthy adjustments for an economy on course for the old normal.

For the full AAR press release, click https://www.aar.org/newsandevents/Press-Releases/Pages/2016-02-17-railtraffic.aspx.

On Raising the Fed Funds Rate

When you’re drinking beer, the goal can be to drink more.  That’s a problem for some people.  They do not recognize their disequilibrium.  Putting the glass down might not bring immediate gratification, but it is simply the right thing to do with any normal, long-term perspective.fredgraph Fed Funds Rate

The Fed needs to get off the sauce.  Current interest rates compromise reasonable capital allocation, and encourages uneconomic decisions.  The longer the distortion persists, the greater the risk.  Any investment decision that gets squeezed out because of a .25% interest rate increase, at current rates, was a bad idea anyway.  That represents net positive for the economy by discouraging inferior projects and speculation.

Interest rates are the cost of money.  It shouldn’t be virtually free.

Social Security: Take or Defer?

I crunched the numbers on the question of deferring Social Security for a year to increase the payment by 8%, for each year it is deferred to age 70.  Most advice seems to favor deferral, unless health is an issue.

My numbers do not necessarily support that conclusion.  While the 8% increase can be viewed as a compelling guaranteed return, it also comes with a long payback.  The breakeven of deferring, if the safe investment rate is 3%, is about 17 years.  This may be the best case for waiting.

On the other hand, recipients with other sources of income might be able to invest their social security payments at a rate competitive with the 8% Social Security escalator.  In this case, there is little benefit for deferring.

In summary, if the first year’s SS payment is invested and earns 8%, then it is equal to the first payment if deferral is elected.  This process repeats for all payments, so the payment streams are equal.  When we consider a safe money reinvestment rate, there is a small benefit to deferral, but the payback period is long.  The decision is not as clear as I’d assumed.

My spreadsheet (in PDF format, so no formulas) is here, https://www.daltonfin.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Take-or-Defer-Spreadsheet-Analysis.pdf.

Observations on Variable Annuities

A 64-year-old woman asked her financial advisor, “Why is the annuity a good idea?”  He replied that it gives her what she wants, a guaranteed income.  That is the key.  His approach solves problems by giving people what they want.  Wants are emotionally based.  Needs are comparatively fact-based.

Rather than pander to emotional desires, I try to convince clients to do what I would do if I were in their situation.  A fiduciary does not begin with the emotional component as the objective.

As interest rates increase over the next few years, it will be easier to generate income from a diversified portfolio.  While interest income will be taxed as ordinary income, capital gains and qualified dividends are currently taxed at lower rates.  Lower expenses, the step-up in basis for non-qualified (not in a retirement plan) assets, and access to a much wider investment universe are benefits of regular investing versus an annuity.

She is concerned about negative media. She believes everyone is expecting a market correction.  I responded that if most people are bearish, then that would be baked into prices already, reducing the risk of a correction.  Negative sentiment is healthy.  Exuberance is dangerous.  Markets are counter-intuitive, which explains why emotional investing is a bad idea.A Balanced Fund vs S&P 500

As reference, the above chart illustrates a popular, low-cost balanced fund (the blue, top line).  The 2000 – 2002 correction barely registers as a dip with the balanced fund.  The blue line shows that a 3 to 5-year reserve fund would have been sufficient to avoid selling at a loss during the 2008-2009 crisis.  The fund’s performance suggests that concerns referencing the last 2 major bear markets are more about the unknown than they are grounded in fact.  This is not unlike children being afraid of the monster under the bed.

The orange line below the blue line represents the S&P 500.  Investing in only the S&P 500 is not a good idea, but that seems to be the straw man argument many insurance companies use to sell annuities.

Finally, consider the commission.  How much is it and where does it come from?  This is not alchemy.

Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Investing involves the risk of principal.  The chart illustrates the performance of a popular balanced fund from January, 1999 to April 27, 2015.  The fund may hold up to a 75% equity allocation.  The chart is intended to illustrate the performance of a diversified portfolio relative to the S&P 500 during the 2000 – 2002 and 2008 – 2009 bear markets.  Diversification does not guarantee against loss.  The balanced fund is the Dodge and Cox Balanced Fund, and the data is from Morningstar.

Rearview Mirror

In December, 2008, a client transferred his account to my practice.  He was in cash.  I advised that he had a special opportunity to, in all likelihood, double his account in about 5 years by buying cheap stocks during a market panic.  I couldn’t convince him.  He was nervous.  Just when I thought I’d saved him from himself, he ordered me to sell everything I’d implemented, on March 6, 2009.  Perfectly bad timing.  C’est la vie.

Since the U.S. stock market hit bottom on March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 Index had risen 248% as of the first quarter of this year. In little more than six years, the present bull market achieved third-place rank among the top 10 bull markets.

Bull Market Chart

 

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. The performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment, since you cannot invest directly in an index.

How to Prepare for the Next Crash

First let’s define “Crash”.  To most, the term implies a decline of severe magnitude. A key question is the duration of the impairment, or how long might it take to recover?  Another consideration is stock market valuation.

By my observation, there hasn’t been a stock market crash in the US in the last hundred years that began with stocks at historically reasonable valuations that persisted more than 5 years.  The risk of a crash depends on valuation.  The average PE ratio in 1929 was about 60 times earnings. Fifteen or sixteen is widely considered average, and implies a 6.25% to 6.67% earnings yield.  That’s reasonable.  Today, the PE for the S&P 500 is was 18.94 on 9/26/2014 according to the Wall Street Journal, and that’s a little above normal.  It implies expectations that the economy and growth will continue to accelerate from the anemic post mortgage crisis recovery.

So how do you prepare, just in case?  The conventional approach to hedging the stock market is to incorporate bonds to a portfolio.  You own bonds for either of two reasons; either you need income, or you want to reduce the volatility of a portfolio.  Currently the ability of bonds to generate income is diminished by Fed policy.  While bonds may still provide some stability in the event of a crash, it is widely recognized that interest rates are likely to rise and that will reduce the value of outstanding bonds with fixed coupons.  Choose your poison.

An alternative strategy is to focus on the likely duration of a downturn in the stock market, and plan for expected liquidity needs for that amount of time.  A key benefit of financial planning is that it identifies liquidity needs.  During a period of low interest rates, one can substitute a reserve strategy, often called the Bucket Approach, to provide for anticipated liquidity needs for as long as a crash/correction might be likely to persist.  This frees the remainder of the portfolio for management with a longer time horizon, and with focus of fundamental metrics like valuation and macroeconomic factors.

The Benefits of Rebalancing

If stocks historically have higher returns than bonds, then selling stocks to buy bonds reduces portfolio returns over the long-term.  Conversely, for those with the fortitude to sell bonds and buy stocks when there’s blood in the streets, the process reverses.  The effect is more likely reduced volatility than increased returns.

I’d rather build a portfolio by planning for liquidity needs rather than putting the client’s emotional IQ in control of his asset mix by managing to control volatility.  Warren Buffett doesn’t rebalance.  I prefer to manage risk in the context of valuation.  That, I can control.

A Better Financial Planning and Investment Process

When you meet with a financial planner, you might expect to answer a series of questions designed to measure your risk tolerance.  If you are a moderate risk investor, you’ll get a portfolio constructed to accept moderate volatility.  If you are conservative, you’ll get a safe portfolio with limited growth potential.  In other words, your emotional state dictates your investment strategy.

Emotional investing does not often lead to good outcomes.  As an investor, I believe emotions can be your worst enemy.  Evolution wired us as herd creatures based on the safety of numbers.  Straying from the herd is dangerous.  We seek affirmation, which leads to the tendency to buy high and sell low.  According to research from Morningstar Inc., investors routinely underperform the funds they invest in. It is hard to make money doing what everyone else is doing, but we like to buy things after they’ve already demonstrated good performance.

Investing based on an assessment of emotional condition puts disposition at the forefront of investing strategy.  This seems to be the way the financial planning profession approaches investment advice.

I believe that the most important aspect of financial planning is identification of goals and the liquidity required to fund those goals at the right time.  Rather than build the portfolio around an emotionally based risk number, I suggest starting with a rational assessment of liquidity needs.  The greatest risk is having to sell a security when the price is temporarily depressed, converting a temporary loss into a permanent loss.  Let’s address that risk by planning for liquidity events.  The remaining balance can be invested to maximize returns rather than pander to your emotional state.

Emphasize fundamentals like Warren Buffett.  Make tactical adjustments based on fundamentals, and try to keep emotions out of the equation.