Tag Archives: colleague

Lookin’ For Yield In All The Right Places

In a world of low and in some cases negative interest rates, investors continue to struggle to find yield. As such, they still find themselves in an all too familiar place: Accept less income, or take on more risk in the search for yield. But with global growth still sluggish and bond and stock prices looking expensive, balancing income and risk is more important (and challenging) than ever. The question for investors isn’t “Where can I go for yield?” It is: “In this environment, where can I find meaningful yield without taking on significant or unknown risk? ” There is a bit of a balancing act between yield and risk. Let’s take a look at how it can be done in three areas of opportunities for investors seeking income today. Fixed income Bonds or fixed income essentially play two roles in a portfolio: They offer yield or income, as well as potential diversification benefits as a sort of ballast to counter equity risks. Bonds run the gamut of risk and income. Short-term Treasuries offer the lowest default risk and generally the lowest yield, while high yield bonds typically offer considerably higher yields, but with significantly more risk. These two investments are quite different, but both can play a crucial role in a portfolio. However, the yields of Treasuries are paltry while credit instruments like high yield bonds exhibit equity-like risk, albeit with potentially higher yields. For investors looking to balance yield AND risk, risk-adjusted returns are important. That’s where municipal bonds come in. Municipal bonds aren’t an exciting topic over a cocktail party, however they were one of the best performing bond categories in 2015. According to Bloomberg data on the S&P AMT-Free National Municipal Bond Index, munis returned 3.3 percent in 2015, beating taxable investment grade bonds. This year, munis remain one of the highest sources of yield on a risk-adjusted basis. The sector’s tax-exempt status is another plus, and munis are a portfolio diversifier, with negative correlations to equities and high yield, our analysis shows. Other parts of the fixed income market have experienced volatility recently due to energy exposure or anticipation of Federal Reserve (Fed) moves, but the municipal bond market has been relatively stable. This may surprise some given the recent default announcement of Puerto Rican debt, which is a vivid reminder of why it’s important for investors to be completely aware of what they own and the risk they take in search of yield. (iShares ETFs are not impacted directly by the default, as none hold bonds issued by any U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico or Guam.) Equity income If you prefer equity-like risk to come from equities in your search for yield, dividend stocks are a logical place to look. But it is important to remember that not all dividend stocks are created equal. As I’ve written before, my preference is for the segment of the market known as “dividend growers,” which as the name implies, are companies with a history of increasing dividends. There are some conditions – and clear distinctions – that may set dividend growers apart from other dividend stocks in today’s market, particularly their attractive valuations, stable earnings and stronger balance sheets. Somewhere in between Finally, there is an often overlooked option for investors looking to balance risk and yield: preferred stocks. Preferreds are income-generating securities that have both stock and bond characteristics. When it comes to risk, they’re somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Similar to a bond’s coupon payment, preferred stocks pay fixed or floating dividends. They can appreciate in value like a common stock, but they’re not as volatile. Some question if preferred stocks will remain an attractive asset class in a rising rate environment. But since we expect the Fed to continue its dovish stance and rate rises to be gradual, we wouldn’t expect to see big downward spikes in preferred prices. Preferred stocks may also be attractive in this environment due to the fact that they’re issued mainly by financial companies, like banks, where net interest margins generally show improvement. Also, see what my colleague Russ Koesterich has to say on preferreds. Investors looking to balance risk and income while searching for yield may want to consider the iShares National AMT-Free Municipal Bond Fund (NYSEARCA: MUB ), the iShares Core Dividend Growth ETF (NYSEARCA: DGRO ) and the iShares U.S. Preferred Stock ETF (NYSEARCA: PFF ). This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog.

What (Returns) To Expect When You’re Expecting

Investing decisions should always be made in the context of your overall financial plan. And although we know short-term forecasts are futile , a retirement plan needs to include some assumptions about returns and risk over the long term. To help with this important task, my colleague Raymond Kerzérho , PWL Capital ‘s director of research, has just updated our white paper, Great Expectations: How to estimate future stock and bond returns when creating a financial plan . As we explain in the paper, there are two main approaches to estimating future stock returns. The first is to rely on a historical premium: over the last 50 years, stocks have delivered returns of about 5% above inflation, so one could simply expect that to continue. The second approach raises or lowers that expected premium depending on whether stocks are currently undervalued or overvalued. You can apply similar methods to expected bond returns, using either the long-term premium (about 2.7% over inflation) or the current yield on a benchmark index. Both methods are flawed, but an average of the two is likely to be a useful estimate. Imagine that you are doing retirement projections going out 30 years. Using an expected return of 4.5% for bonds based on their long-term average seems wildly optimistic. But on the other hand, assuming bonds will yield just 2% for the next 30 years (based on their yield today) seems unnecessarily conservative. An average of these two estimates (3.3%) is a reasonable compromise. You can dig into the paper for all the details, but here are the numbers we’re using for inflation, bonds and stocks in our plans these days: Estimated long-term returns (as of December 2015) Asset class Expected return Inflation 1.80% Canadian bonds 3.30% Canadian equities 7.10% U.S. equities 6.30% International developed equities 7.20% Emerging markets equities 9.80% Source: PWL Capital And here’s how those numbers combine in various balanced portfolios. In the table below, we’ve also included the standard deviation (a measure of volatility) for each asset mix, and the maximum drawdown (or cumulative decline) experienced in similar portfolios since 1988: Expected return and risk of various portfolios Equities/Bonds Expected Return Standard Deviation Cumulative Decline 0% / 100% 3.30% 3.90% -11% 10% / 90% 3.60% 3.80% -10% 20% / 80% 4.00% 4.00% -10% 30% / 70% 4.40% 4.50% -10% 40% / 60% 4.80% 5.30% -14% 50% / 50% 5.10% 6.20% -18% 60% / 40% 5.50% 7.20% -23% 70% / 30% 5.90% 8.20% -28% 80% / 20% 6.30% 9.20% -33% 90% / 10% 6.70% 10.30% -39% 100% / 0% 7.00% 11.40% -44% Sources: PWL Capital, Morningstar Direct How low can you go? In this new edition of our paper (which was first published almost two years ago), we’ve added a postscript to help put these numbers in context. If you’ve looked at the returns of a balanced portfolio over the long term , you may be surprised (and disappointed) by the expectations we describe in the paper. Even since the late 1980s, traditional index portfolios delivered annualized returns in excess of 7% or 8%, even with a conservative asset mix, compared with our expectation of just 5.1% for a portfolio of half stocks and half bonds. Why so gloomy? The first important point is that over the last 20 to 30 years, bonds enjoyed a long bull market as interest rates trended steadily downward (10-year Government of Canada bonds yielded close to 10% in 1988). This cannot be expected going forward, so we think it’s reasonable to plan for conservative portfolios to deliver significantly lower returns in the foreseeable future. It’s also reasonable to expect equity returns to be lower than they have been since 1988. By traditional valuation measures, stocks are relatively more expensive today: for example, the S&P 500 had a price-to-earnings ratio of 14 at the beginning of 1988, compared with 24 at the end of 2015. Finally, inflation was 4% in 1988, compared with just 1.4% in 2015. The numbers in the tables above are nominal returns, which are not adjusted for inflation. Remember that a 6% return with 2% inflation is very similar to an 8% return with 4% inflation. When viewed in terms of purchasing power, the gap between historical returns and expected future returns is not as wide as it first appears. Disclosure: Holdings include: ZRE, HXT, XRB, XMD, VAB, VTI, VXUS.