Tag Archives: feeds

Buy-And-Holders Predict Future Returns Every Day, While Claiming That Predictions Don’t Work

By Rob Bennett Buy-and-holders don’t believe in return predictions . They say it is not possible to predict returns effectively. Their cardinal rule is that investors should never engage in market timing, and so they object strongly when valuation-informed indexers use return predictions to change their stock allocations. That’s market timing. It doesn’t work. It’s crazy. It’s a mistake. They believe this stuff. They are sincere in their repulsion for market timing and for return predictions. But the buy-and-holders make return predictions themselves! They don’t know it. They fool themselves into thinking they are not making return predictions. But it’s not possible to buy stocks without first forming some idea in your mind as to what return you expect to obtain. The buy-and-hold idea that it is not a good idea to make return predictions is not only strategically flawed, it is a logical impossibility. Say you were thinking of buying a car, and for some odd reason you vowed not to consider price when doing so. Could you do it? You could physically do it. But you couldn’t do it with a clear mind. Human reason demands of us that we consider price when trading money for something that we want to obtain. It works that way with stocks too. It’s not possible to buy stocks without the thought entering your head that you would like to obtain a return on your money that is greater than the return you could obtain from buying less risky asset classes. And it’s not possible to go ahead with the purchase without some notion of what return you expect to obtain entering your thought process. The buy-and-holders kid themselves about this. They need to believe that return predictions are not possible or they could not remain buy-and-holders (buy-and-holders who elect to become clear thinkers are transformed into valuation-informed indexers!). But they are not able to keep themselves entirely in the dark. Common sense intrudes. That’s why buy-and-holders become uncomfortable when people like me write on the internet about the implications of the last 35 years of peer-reviewed research in this field. Buy-and-holders believe they are going to obtain a return of 6.5 percent real on their stock investments. That’s the average return. So that’s their default. They compare the 6.5 percent return they expect to obtain from investing in stocks with whatever return they can obtain from less risky asset classes and elect stocks when the expected return from stocks is better. It always is. That’s why buy-and-holders invest most of the money that they do not expect to need within a few years in stocks. Buy-and-holders, of course, understand that they are not going to see that 6.5 percent return every year. There are some years in which stocks provide a return of 30 percent, and there are some years in which stocks provide a return of a negative 30 percent. But a positive 6.5 percent is the norm. That’s what buy-and-holders expect. That’s what buy-and-holders predict. Ask a buy-and-holder what he expects his stock return will be after the passage of 10 years. He will say that he expects something in the neighborhood of 6.5 percent. He doesn’t expect precisely that. Of course, valuation-informed indexers don’t expect their predictions to apply precisely either. He view the predictions we make by looking at the valuation level that applies on the day we make our stock purchases as in-the-neighborhood numbers. That’s how buy-and-holders view their prediction that the usual 6.5 percent return will establish itself once again. The reality, of course, is that there is a strong chance the 6.5 percent return will not re-establish itself. It’s reasonable to expect such a return for stocks purchased at fair value prices. But stocks are frequently sold either at inflated prices or at deflated prices. When stocks are sold at wildly inflated prices or at wildly deflated prices, it is not likely that the 6.5 percent return will apply in 10 years. The likelihood is that a return a good bit lower than 6.5 percent will apply (for stocks purchased at wildly inflated prices), or that a return a good bit higher than 6.5 percent will apply (for stocks purchased at wildly deflated prices). A poster at the Bogleheads Forum once stated this idea in compelling fashion: “I don’t go into a bank and say ‘I’d like to buy three certificates of deposit’ without first asking what rate of return applies – Why should it be different when I buy stocks?” It shouldn’t be any different. We cannot know the return we will obtain from stocks with precision. But then, we cannot know the return that we will obtain from certificates of deposit with precision either. The inflation rate is unknown at the time of purchase of certificates of deposit, and the inflation rate affects the real return obtained. With certificates of deposit, we all do the best we can. We look up the nominal return and form some reasonable expectation of what inflation rate might apply. We educate ourselves to the best of our ability. This is the step that buy-and-holders fail to take when they buy stocks. Why? Buy-and-holders want to know the return they will obtain from the certificates of deposit they purchase. Why don’t they want to know the return they will obtain from the stocks they purchase? They want to believe in bull markets. They want to believe that the 6.5 percent average return is a floor that applies even when prices are insanely high, but that returns that exceed the 6.5 average return are real and do not pull future returns down. They want to believe in a fantasy that makes it impossible for them to purchase stocks in as informed a manner as they purchase certificates of deposit. Disclosure: None.

4 Best-Rated Fidelity Mutual Funds To Invest In

Fidelity Investments is one of the largest and oldest mutual fund companies in the world. The company serves nearly 25 million individual customers. As of December 31, 2015, it had total assets of $5.15 trillion, with $2.04 trillion under management. Fidelity Investments carries out operations in the U.S. through 10 regional offices and over 180 Investor Centers. It also has its presence in eight other countries of North America, Europe, Asia and Australia. The company provides investment advice, discount brokerage services, retirement services, wealth management services, securities execution and clearance and life insurance products to its clients. At Fidelity, a large group of investment professionals carry out extensive and in-depth research on potential investment avenues worldwide. Below, we share with you four top-ranked Fidelity mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. To view the Zacks Rank and past performance of all Fidelity mutual funds, investors can click here . Fidelity Select Telecommunications Portfolio No Load (MUTF: FSTCX ) invests the majority of its assets in securities of companies primarily involved in the manufacture and sale of communications services or communications equipment. It invests in both domestic and foreign issuers. Factors including financial condition and industry position, as well as market and economic conditions are considered before investing in a company. The fund is non-diversified and has a three-year annualized return of 7.5%. As of March 2016, FSTCX held 51 issues, with 22.18% of its assets invested in AT&T Inc. (NYSE: T ). Fidelity Select Retailing Portfolio No Load (MUTF: FSRPX ) seeks growth of capital. It invests a large chunk of its assets in securities of firms involved in merchandising finished goods and services to consumers. FSRPX focuses on acquiring common stocks of companies throughout the globe. Factors including financial strength and economic condition are considered before investing in a company. The fund has a three-year annualized return of 18.3%. Deena Friedman has been the fund manager of FSRPX since 2014. Fidelity Select Software & IT Services Portfolio No Load (MUTF: FSCSX ) invests a major portion of its assets in companies whose primary operations are related to software or information-based services. It primarily focuses on acquiring common stocks of both domestic and foreign companies. FSCSX uses fundamental analysis to select companies for investment purposes. It has a three-year annualized return of 15.9%. FSCSX has an expense ratio of 0.76%, as compared to a category average of 1.45%. Fidelity International Small Cap Opportunities Fund No Load (MUTF: FSCOX ) seeks capital appreciation. It invests the majority of its assets in small-cap companies located outside the U.S., including those from emerging countries. FSCOX emphasizes investing in common stocks of companies with market capitalization below $5 billion. The fund invests in securities issued in different countries. It has a three-year annualized return of 6.2%. Jed Weiss has been the fund manager of FSCOX since 2008. Original Post

3 Things You Should Know About Factor Investing

Factors are broad, persistent drivers of returns that have been proven to add value to portfolios over decades, according to research data from Dartmouth College . Factor strategies like smart beta capitalize on today’s advancements in data and technology to give all investors access to time-tested investment ideas, once only accessible to large institutions. As factor strategies continue to gather attention, some misconceptions have arisen. I am highlighting – and clearing up – a few here today. 1. Factor strategies are stocks-only. False. Equity smart beta strategies like momentum, value, quality and minimum volatility are by far the most adopted factor strategies and often serve as the gateway to this type of investing. But it’s important to note that the concept extends beyond equities to other asset classes, such as bonds, commodities and currencies. As an example, fixed-income factors are less well known, but similarly aim to capitalize on market inefficiencies. Bond markets are largely driven by exposures to two macroeconomic risk factors: interest rate risk and credit risk. One way that bond factor strategies try to improve returns is by balancing those risks. As investors look for more precise and sophisticated ways to meet their investment goals, we believe we will see more factor strategies in other asset classes, as well as in long/short and multi-asset formats. 2. Factor investing is unnecessary, because my portfolio of stocks, bonds, commodities, hedge funds and real estate is well diversified. Maybe, maybe not. Oftentimes, a portfolio is not as diversified as you might think. You may hold many different types of securities, sure, but those securities can be affected by the same risks. For example, growth risk figures prominently in public and private equities, high yield debt, some hedge funds and real estate. So, as economic growth slows, a portfolio overly exposed to that particular factor will see its overall portfolio return lowering as a result, regardless of how diverse its holdings are across assets or regions. Factor analysis can help investors look through asset class labels and understand underlying risk drivers. That way, you can truly diversify in seeking to improve the consistency of returns over time. 3. Factor investing is a passive investment strategy. Not really. At least we don’t look at it that way. Factor investing combines characteristics of both passive and active investing, and allows investors to retain many benefits of passive strategies, while seeking improved returns or reduced risk. So to us, factor investing is both passive and active. While we think traditional passive, traditional active and factor strategies all have a place in a portfolio, it is not news that some of what active managers have delivered in the past can be found through lower-cost smart beta strategies. This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog.