Articles About Investments

For the past several decades, asset allocation has been the cornerstone of portfolio design, with a focus on diversification and the addition of non-correlated investments to the portfolio to reduce overall volatility and improve risk-adjusted returns. This trend has been accelerated in recent years, as weak returns in both bonds and stocks have helped to fuel a drive towards "alternative" investments that further increase the intended diversification and the number of asset classes in the portfolio.

Yet running in parallel with this trend has been the rise of various types of tax-preferenced accounts, with first the IRA and 401(k) and more recently the Roth IRA and Roth 401(k), in addition to the ongoing presence of tax-deferred annuities and the standard taxable brokerage account. As a result, a new challenge is beginning to emerge: the question becomes not only which asset classes should be owned and in what amounts, but also where should those asset classes be held? In other words, it's not just about allocation of the assets to build a diversified portfolio now, but also about the locations in which to place those diversified investments.

Given that recent research has shown effective asset location strategies can add 20-50+ basis points of "free" value to annual returns, providing guidance on asset location is becoming increasingly popular. Yet unfortunately, asset location strategies are often dominated by myths and misperceptions! Ultimately, the reality is that good asset location decisions actually should be influenced by both the tax efficiency of investments and also their expected returns, which makes the analysis somewhat more complex... but also reveals why in today's environment most bonds actually should NOT go into tax-deferred accounts!

Read More...

As retail investor surveys show money continuing to rotate from stocks to bonds - despite sky-high bond prices and their associated ultra-low interest rates - there is increasing concern that investors may soon be blind-sided by at best a savage bond bear market, and at worst a bond bubble that pops. But are investors really buying into bonds because they're bullish on bonds, or because they're bearish on stocks with few appealing alternatives?

After all, if there really is a bond market bubble that's going to pop, the precipitous rise in interest rates could do even more harm to stock prices than bond prices, both from the relative value perspective (who wants to buy the S&P 500 at today's 2% dividend yields when bonds pay 6% again?) and from the economic perspective (a sharp rise in interest rates isn't exactly bullish for economic growth!).

Which means the reality may be that today's bond buying is not about hunting for return in bonds, but about managing the risk of equities (and/or other risk assets). Of course, if the investor really thought the popping of a bond bubble was looming, the best decision may simply be to go to cash. But given the uncertainty of timing, the next best choice for the bearish investor: stay invested, tilt the portfolio towards bonds (and likely shorten duration), and wait and see. Who knows, maybe rates will manage to go even lower from here, as they have 'surprisingly' done for the last 3 consecutive years!

Read More...

It is an accepted belief that retail investors, swayed by a barrage of financial news and information, and the wiring in their own brains, tend to systematically buy at market peaks and sell at market lows, resulting in returns that are far lower than what could have been achieved by simply buying and holding.

This so-called "behavior gap" has been quantified most famously over the years by DALBAR, which produces and annually updates a study of the difference between investor (dollar-weighted) returns and index (time-weighted) returns, and currently shows that investors have cost themselves more than 4% per year in returns for the past two decades.

Yet the reality is that DALBAR's methodology confounds the impact of investor behavior, and the simple consequences of return sequences; it's entirely possible that some or all of the low DALBAR investor returns are simply due to the fact that markets rose for the first half of their time sample (the 1990s) and were flat for the second half (the 2000s).

And in fact, that appears to be the case. Once DALBAR updated their projections to compare investor returns to a passive investor who simply invested systematically over the entire time period, the result surprisingly shows that retail investors in the aggregated actually outperformed systematic dollar cost averaging for the past 20 years!Read More...

Read More...

While we often focus on the long-term return of stocks, the reality is that market growth is very uneven, not just due to volatility, but as markets go through long-term cycles called secular bull and bear markets. In the midst of a secular bull market - such as the one that exploded stock prices upwards from 1982 to 2000 - the optimal investment strategy is fairly straightforward - buy-and-hold, buy more on the dips, and dial up the leverage and risk exposure. In the midst of a secular bear market, though, buy-and-hold tends to merely produce the flat returns associated with the overall markets, and instead concentrated stock-picker portfolios, sector rotation, alternative investments, and tactical asset allocation become more effective. Using the wrong strategies in the wrong investment environment can produce poor results - just as many styles of active management generated little to no value and just became a cost drag in the 80s and 90s, so too does buy-and-hold now generate benchmark returns that may do little to achieve client goals. The ultimate key is to match the investment strategy to the market environment, given that such cycles can persist for 1-2 decades at a time. And notwithstanding the fact that a secular bear market has been underway for 12 years, it appears that the secular bear market still has a ways to go - which means its dominant investment strategies still have many more years to shine.Read More...

The foundation of investment education for CFP certificants is modern portfolio theory, which gives us tools to craft portfolios that effectively balance risk and return and reach the efficient frontier. Yet in his original paper, Markowitz himself acknowledged that the modern portfolio theory tool was simply designed to determine how to allocate a portfolio, given the expected returns, volatilities, and correlations of the available investments. Determining what those inputs should be, however, was left up to the person using the model. As a result, the risk of using modern portfolio theory - like any model - is that if poor inputs go into the model, poor results come out. Yet what happens when the inputs to modern portfolio theory are determined more proactively in response to an ever-changing investment environment? The asset allocation of the portfolio tactically shifts in response to varying inputs!Read More...

Benchmarking is a standard tool for investors and investment professionals to evaluate the results of an investment manager. In a world of investing within asset classes and style boxes, the benchmarking process is relatively straightforward – any particular investment offering can be easily matched to an appropriate benchmark. In a world of unconstrained, “go-anywhere” style managers, though, the benchmarking process is less certain. Common methods to determine an appropriate benchmark – such as an ex-post regression of what the fund was invested in – can obscure the actions of the manager, for better or for worse. Is the only solution to simply select an arbitrary benchmark and proceed accordingly? Can we eschew a benchmark altogether?

Read More...

As baby boomers continue into their retirement transition, two portfolio-based strategies are increasingly popular to generate retirement income: the systematic withdrawal strategy, and the bucket strategy. While the former is still the most common approach, the latter has become increasingly popular lately, viewed in part as a strategy to help work around difficult and volatile market environments. Yet while the two strategies approach portfolio construction very differently, the reality is that bucket strategies actually produce asset allocations almost exactly the same as systematic withdrawal strategies; their often-purported differences amount to little more than a mirage! Nonetheless, bucket strategies might actually still be a superior strategy, not because of the differences in portfolio construction, but due to the ways that the client psychologically connects with and understands the strategy!Read More...

As interest rates remain low, investors - especially retirees - struggle to find yield wherever they can. Unfortunately, though, the necessity of earning a required return to fund financial goals becomes the mother of invention for a wide range of investment strategies, both legitimate and fraudulent.

A recent offering of rising popularity is investing into structured settlement annuity contracts, which often claim to offer "no risk" rates of return in the 4% to 7% range. In general, the opportunity for "high yield" (at least relative to today's interest rates) and "no risk" is a red flag warning. But the reality is that with structured settlement annuity investing, the higher returns can legitimately be lower risk; the appealing return relative to other low-risk fixed income investments is not due to increased risk, but instead due to very poor liquidity. Which means such investment offerings can potentially be a way to generate higher returns, not through a risk premium, but a liquidity premium.

The caveat to structured settlement annuities, however, is that the investments can be so illiquid and the cash flows so irregular, they probably should at best only ever be considered for a very small portion of a client's portfolio anyway!

Read More...

One of the most common criticisms to the use of Monte Carlo in financial planning is its typical assumption that investment returns are normally distributed, when in reality the market appears to go through environments that may be more volatile than a normal distribution would predict, as highlighted by the events of the financial crisis. In the last four months of 2008 alone, the market experienced 20 high-volatility trading days with a standard deviation varying from 3.5 to almost 10... each of which should not have occurred more frequently than once per millenia to once per several billion years. Yet when we look at those returns on an annual basis, we see a very different picture - the one-year decline to the bottom in March of 2009 was a "mere" 2.5 standard deviation event, which is uncommon but entirely probable under a normal distribution. Which raises the question - are "black swans" just a short-term phenomenon that average out by the end of the year, and are we focusing too much on impossibly rare black swans instead of the rare-but-entirely-probable 2 standard deviation decline?Read More...