Tag Archives: events

How Scared Should We Be About Future Returns?

McKinsey had a really nice piece this week on the future of financial market returns. The basic conclusion – lower your expectations and hunker down for some lean years in the financial markets. McKinsey says that equities have benefited from unusually favorable conditions in the last 30 years such as low valuations, falling inflation, falling interest rates, strong demographic growth, high productivity gains and strong corporate profits. Specifically, they say: ” Despite repeated market turbulence, real total returns for equities investors between 1985 and 2014 averaged 7.9 percent in both the United States and Western Europe. These were 140 and 300 basis points (1.4 and 3.0 percentage points), respectively, above the 100-year average. Real bond returns in the same period averaged 5.0 percent in the United States, 330 basis points above the 100-year average, and 5.9 percent in Europe, 420 basis points above the average .” That’s a nice clean view of the future relative to long-term returns. I think McKinsey is dead right – the last 30 years were unusual and something closer to the 100-year average is probably reasonable. I’ve stated in the past that the math here isn’t terribly controversial (or shouldn’t be). If a 50/50 stock/bond portfolio has generated 30-year average returns of 9.5%, then we should expect the future returns to be lower or more volatile. In other words, you can, with near certainty, expect that the high risk adjusted returns of the last 30 years are gone. Why is this a certainty? Well, it’s a simple function of the current interest rate environment. Because the post-1980 era involved a huge bond bull market, the risk adjusted returns of a balanced portfolio were unusually high. For instance, from 1985-2015 a 50/50 stock/bond portfolio posted returns of about 9.5% with a Sharpe ratio of 0.7 and a Sortino ratio of 1.5. That’s because the bond piece, which is inherently more stable, generated average annual returns of 7% with a Sharpe ratio of 0.76 and an eye popping Sortino ratio of 2.12, while the stock piece generated annual returns of 12.5% with a Sharpe ratio of 0.5 and a Sortino of just 0.92. In other words, bond investors have done extraordinarily well over the last 30 years thanks to the favorable tailwind of falling inflation and falling interest rates. And those outsized bond returns had a hugely positive impact on diversified investors. We also know that the best predictor of future bond returns is current yields so, do the math on the 1985 starting overnight interest rate of 7.5% versus today’s rates of 0%. A bond aggregate held for the next 10 years is unlikely to outpace the current yield of 2.25% by much. So, we know for a fact that the bond piece won’t generate anything close to the types of returns it did in the last 30 years. But there’s also good historical precedent here. In the 1940s, rates were as low as they are today. So, how did the bond market do? It did okay, but it certainly wasn’t anything like the post-1980 period. From 1940-1980, bonds posted annual returns of 2.75%, but were very stable (much more stable than is commonly believed in a rising interest rate environment). The stock piece, however, performed very similarly to the post-1980 period, with rates of returns from 1940-1980 at 12.4% vs. 12.5% for the 1985-2015 period. As a result of this, a balanced portfolio from 1940-1980 generated an average 8% return with a Sharpe ratio of 0.58, significantly lower than the average 10% return with Sharpe of 0.7 that we experienced in the last 30 years. In other words, in the only reasonable historical precedent a balanced portfolio generated lower nominal and risk adjusted returns than the post-1985 period. Now, I think backtests and historical references are a bit dangerous and overused by the financial community, but I also don’t think we need these historical precedents to establish a reasonable probability of future returns. All we need is a little common sense when comparing the next 30 years to the last 30 years. After all, we have empirical proof that most of those tailwinds are in fact waning. For instance: Current interest rates are the best predictor of future returns in the bond market, and this period is certain to be a low return period for future bond holders. Valuations, which have a strong tendency to correlate with future equity returns, are high historically. Demographic trends have shifted substantially in the last few decades from a world of higher growth to a much more modest pace of growth. High productivity gains have waned and have now become an area of great concern for economists. Corporate profits, as a share of national income, have never been higher as they rode the back of the liberalization of tax rates and regulation and could come under pressure given the anti-corporate climate we are entering. I don’t think any of this should be terribly controversial, and you don’t have to be an expert forecaster to see what’s coming. At the same time, we shouldn’t panic as some people have implied . If the aggregate stock and bond markets generate anything close to that 8% return of the 1940-1980 period, then most investors will still generate positive real returns. However, there are a few key takeaways here: It is crucial to understand the most important principles of portfolio construction so you can grow comfortable with a process and a plan. See Understanding Modern Portfolio Construction . It’s time to temper expectations in the markets. The future is likely to be an era of lower returns and potentially bumpier returns; however, it doesn’t mean returns are going to be catastrophic. It’s time to hunker down on your taxes and fees in your portfolio. As a % of assets, these frictions will become increasingly important in a lower return environment. See, Understanding your Real, Real Returns . Be patient! Find a good plan and learn to stick with it. The lower and bumpier returns will create periods of frustration for most investors. The grass will always look greener somewhere else. Switching in and out of plans and chasing the next hot guru will very likely result in higher taxes and fees, leading to lower average returns. See, How To Avoid the Problem of Short-Termism . Invest in yourself, continue to save and pour that savings into your portfolio. You might not get world beating returns from your portfolio in the coming 30 years, but we know cash will be the riskiest asset in the future as it will guarantee a negative real return in such a low interest rate environment. See, Saving is not the Key to Financial Success . Be careful reaching for yield. All safe assets aren’t created equal and reaching for yield in the wrong places could create more volatility without the guarantee of stable income. See, Reaching for Yield or Reaching for Risk? Don’t let the scaremongers get to you. If the future is one of lower returns and bumpier returns, there will be lines of people trying to sell you something in exchange for your fear. These people should not be trusted. The world of the future might not be the gangbusters growth period of the 80s and 90s, but it also won’t be the end of times either.

What Is Your Sell Criteria?

Every stock market cycle has its darlings – the stocks investors believe can do no wrong. I remember 1999 all too well. Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT ) and Dell (private since 2013) were two of the stocks that investors fell in love with during that era. However, those investors soon learned that loving a stock could have nasty consequences, because it is difficult to part with something you love. These stocks, and many others, were devastated in the ensuing months and years. The “unattached” owners of these stocks disposed of their holdings as prices dropped or earnings failed to materialize. These disciplined investors had pre-defined criteria to alert them it was time to sell. The stock lovers lacked such discipline and went through various stages of denial, justification, rationalization and other emotions as they watched their beloved stocks sink lower and lower. In the current market cycle, it’s hard to imagine a stock that is more loved than Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL ). Back in 1999, it was despised, and many analysts were not convinced the company would even survive, let alone flourish. Fast forward to 2012, it became the most valuable company in history in terms of market capitalization, surpassing Microsoft’s December 30, 1999, valuation. Yesterday, it was still the largest component of the S&P 500 Index, accounting for 3.17% of the Index. However, Apple’s stock price peaked 14 months ago at $133. On Tuesday, it closed below $105, and yesterday it closed below $98. That is more than 26% drop in 14 months. Apple released its quarterly earnings report, which is the reason for the new downdraft. Earnings fell short of expectations by coming in at $1.90 per share, which was 10 cents below expectations and 18.5% below a year ago. Revenue fell by 13%, marking its first revenue decline in 13 years, and the first ever since the stock achieved “darling” status. Apple also reported that iPhone sales fell for the first time in history. Now might be a good time to ask yourself if you are an investor or lover of Apple stock. It is already in a bear market, so if you haven’t sold it yet, then when will you sell it? You didn’t sell when it dropped 15%, and you didn’t sell when it dropped 25%. What will it take? A 50% drop? A 70% drop? Two quarters of declining revenue? Many people are selling their Apple shares, perhaps because it posted its first revenue decline in 13 years or perhaps because its price dropped below $100. Then again, an equal number of shares are being bought. It’s a high volume day for Apple. I’m not predicting further demise for Apple stock, as this could turn out to be a great buying opportunity. What I’m suggesting is that you objectively consider your criteria for selling Apple or any other stock. Be sure to have an exit plan, preferably before you buy. As expected, the Federal Reserve took no action at the conclusion of its FOMC meeting yesterday. Analysts are parsing the contents of the press release, so you can expect to see some forecast revisions for when the Fed will make its next move. Sectors: Signs of a significant sector rotation are visible again this week. The smokestack group of sectors, discussed here a week ago, are firmly in the leadership role again today. Energy and Materials swapped the top two positions, with Energy now completing its climb from last to first in the span of three weeks. Materials, now in second, has been no lower than fourth place for eight consecutive weeks. The Industrials sector rounds out the trio by maintaining its third-place position. Financials was a big upside mover, jumping from eighth to fourth. Healthcare also climbed four spots higher to grab sixth. These ascents forced the higher yielding sectors lower with Telecom sliding one place to fifth, Real Estate dropping to eighth, and Utilities plunging to tenth. Technology lost momentum, but it was able to hang on to its ninth-place ranking. Consumer Staples is now the weakest sector and sits on the bottom for a second week. Styles: Small-Cap Value assumed the lead, ending Mid-Cap Value’s seven-week stint at the top. Small-Cap Value has been the most volatile of the style categories, bouncing between second and sixth during these past seven weeks. Mid-Cap Value did not fall far, easing just one spot lower to second, while remaining prepared to resume the lead if Small-Cap Value’s volatility returns. Micro-Cap was the big upside mover, climbing three spots to third after being in last place just two weeks ago. Mid-Cap Blend fell four places to seventh, becoming the largest casualty of the relative strength rankings. However, it only gave up two momentum points in the process, while Mega-Cap lost six points and held its decline to a single spot. Large-Cap Growth is on the bottom for a second week. Global: The upper tier of the global rankings remains very steady with Latin America and Canada supplying the one-two punch for nine consecutive weeks. Pacific ex-Japan and Emerging Markets have not been as consistent as the top two, but the third and fourth place duo have held those spots the majority of these nine weeks. The top three are all resource-rich regions, and they are benefiting from strength in the Materials and Energy sectors. Fifth through tenth-place categories are compressed, allowing Japan to jump four places higher without much effort. A week ago, China was above this grouping, but it plunged six places lower and now sits at the bottom. Disclosure: Author has no positions in any of the securities mentioned and no positions in any of the companies or ETF sponsors mentioned. No income, revenue, or other compensation (either directly or indirectly) is received from, or on behalf of, any of the companies or ETF sponsors mentioned. – See more at: http://investwithanedge.com/what-is-your-sell-criteria#sthash.AfaA2gBD.dpuf

Loans And Write-Downs And Shares… Oh My!

My family and I recently went to see the musical Wicked . Having already been with my wife when it first opened in 2003, I was thrilled to relive the awesome and spine-tingling performance with my kids. The creative genius of Wicked is its backstory – the plot that no one hears throughout the Wonderful Wizard of Oz . Turns out, the wizard isn’t really all that wonderful, and the witch isn’t so wicked after all. This got me thinking about parallels to the world of finance and how things aren’t always as they seem. We all know that the S&P/TSX Composite Index is heavily skewed toward the financials (37%), energy (20%) and materials (12%) sectors, but attitudes towards these industries have become rather split lately. In the past few years, financials have been all aglow thanks to consistently improving quarterly results, whereas the resource sectors have been a source of pain amid lower earnings, dividend cuts and write-downs. While faith in the financial sector may be justified, investors might not realize just how dependent the Canadian stock market has become on its earnings and dividends. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, while financials make up more than a third of the market cap, the sector accounts for more than 50% of the earnings and slightly less than half of the dividends paid on the S&P/TSX Composite Index. Click to enlarge Something wicked this way comes? Outsized dependencies are rarely a good thing in investment portfolios. For example, in the late 1990’s investors became overly dependent on technology companies trading at ever higher multiples, and then found themselves in a post-financial-crisis love affair with emerging markets. In both of these cases, investors paid too little attention to the backstory: technology had become more than a third of the S&P 500 and paid no earnings, and emerging markets had become reliant on leverage and an ever-expanding China. Investors also became overly dependent on U.S. financials a decade ago when the sector contributed more than 50% of the S&P 500’s earnings and dividends in 2006 only to fall off a cliff when the financial crisis hit two years later. The financial sector also grew to almost a quarter of the listed market in 2006, well above today’s level of 17% (still high but just not as high). Does this mean Canadian financials are due for some sort of rude awakening? Not necessarily. It depends on whether Canadian banks will report more bad loans and will have to incur larger write-downs than are currently reflected in loan loss provisioning or the share price. Intuitively, the nearly 70% decline in oil prices over the past two years and the broadening difficulties in the Canadian energy patch would imply a greater risk of loan defaults. Moreover, banks could see declining revenue growth and weaker revenues as the indirect consequences of low oil prices work through the extensive supply chain. But for now, these worries are the backstory. Canadian share prices are following the lead story: The banks’ exposures are manageable, the banks are prepared, and they continue to stress-test their loan book. Importantly, investors should know what their exposures are. Right now, investors in Canadian stocks are highly dependent on earnings and dividends from the big banks. If Canadian financials were to dip, investors could be in for a rude awakening. With any luck, the energy and materials stocks won’t seem as wicked if the rise in commodity prices in recent weeks supports upward earnings revisions in the next few quarters. The best outcome for reducing dependency on the financials is growing earnings from other sectors, not falling earnings from the banks. What can Canadian investors do to help reduce dependencies and limit outsized domestic exposures to the financial, energy and materials sectors? I would recommend considering allocations to two sectors that are underrepresented in the Canadian equity markets, such as global healthcare and technology, where there has been better dividend growth and stronger secular growth trends. Source: Bloomberg. This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog