Tag Archives: portfolio

Valuations Are 80% Of The Stock Investing Story

By Rob Bennett I often make the claim that it is a terrible mistake for buy-and-holders not to take valuations into consideration when setting their stock allocations, because the peer-reviewed research in this field shows that valuations are the most important factor bearing on whether an investor achieves long-term investing success. I say that if you get valuations right, you are almost certain to do well in the long run even if your understanding of all other issues is poor, and that if you get them wrong, you are almost certain to do poorly in the long run even if your understanding of all other issues is strong. I sum up the point by stating that the valuations issue comprises roughly 80 percent of the stock investing story. It’s an informed estimate. I don’t believe that there is any way to say precisely how big an impact understanding valuations will have on an investor’s long-term success. But the evidence that I have seen has persuaded me that the valuations factor is of far more importance than most people realize, that it may well be 80 percent of the stock investing story or perhaps even a bit more than that. How much would you say that price matters when buying a car? It’s certainly not the only factor. You need to be sure that a car is well made. A poorly designed car is not a good deal even at a low price. And you need to be sure that the car you buy is one well suited to your needs. Someone who desires a sports car will not be happy with even a well-designed family van. And there are lots of personal considerations that need to be taken into account. Some people like red cars. Some people like black cars. Getting the color right can add a good bit to your enjoyment of the car you buy. Still, I think it can be said that researching prices and negotiating a good deal on price is 80 percent of what makes one a successful car buyer. Getting the color right is easy – you just need to be willing to drive to a second dealer if the first one you visit does not have the right color in stock. And it doesn’t take too much effort to identify the best style of car to satisfy your particular needs. We all know what is out there. You might need to check out a few vehicles to decide which particular sports car or which particular family van is right for you. But it is not difficult to get that aspect of the car buying experience settled in your favor. Nor does it take much research to learn which cars have a reputation for being built well. Getting the price right is harder. If you accept the dealer’s price, you are almost certainly going to overpay by hundreds of dollars, and quite possibly by several thousand dollars. If you do enough research to enter the dealer’s lot with confidence that you know the fair market value of the vehicle that you intend to purchase, and are willing to invest the time and energy needed to negotiate a good deal, you are going to enjoy a huge dollar return for the hours invested. You can improve your car deal by thousands of dollars by working the price aspect of the matter, potentially turning a very bad deal into a very good deal by focusing on this all-important issue. There is now 34 years of peer-reviewed research telling us that it works precisely the same way when buying stocks rather than cars. The safe withdrawal rate in 2000 was 1.6 percent real. The safe withdrawal rate in 1982 was 9 percent real. This means that a retiree with a $1 million portfolio who began her retirement in 1982 could live the life available on a $90,000 budget for her remaining years, while a retiree with a $1 million portfolio who began her retirement in 2000 could only live the life available on a $16,000 budget for her remaining years. That’s a big difference! It is critical to take valuations into consideration when planning a retirement. I think it would be fair to say the numbers show that valuations are roughly 80 percent of the retirement planning story. The story is the same for investors who are in the stage of life where they are accumulating assets, rather than living off the earnings from them. A regression analysis of the 145 years of historical data available to us shows that the most likely 10-year annualized return for stocks purchased in 1982 was 15 percent real. The most likely 10-year annualized return for stocks purchased in 2000 was a negative 1 percent real. That’s a difference of 16 percentage points of return! For 10 years running! Knowing about that difference and taking advantage of the knowledge by going with a higher stock allocation when going-forward returns are likely to be good than you go with when going-forward returns are likely to be poor turns the magic of compounding returns very much in your favor. I think it would be fair to say the numbers show that valuations are roughly 80 percent of the asset allocation story too. Lots of non-valuation factors matter. Interest rates matter. Unemployment rates matter. Consumer confidence levels matter. Inflation rates matter. And on and on. But those factors are all factored into the price that is available to the individual investor considering a stock purchase. So, while these other factors play a role in the investing game, we as individual investors need not pay attention to them. There is only one decision in our control – what percentage of our portfolio will be comprised of stocks. If we buy at good prices, we always do well in the long term. There has never once in the history of the market been an exception to this rule. And if we buy at bad prices, we always do poorly in the long run. Again, there has never been an exception. Most investors accept that valuations matter. But few realize how big a factor the valuations factor is (I can’t help but wonder if the reason might be that there is so much money to be made on the selling side by persuading investors that valuations are not a big deal). The reality is that the stock market is like every other market known to humankind – price is by far the dominant factor in the determination of whether market participants are able to achieve a good deal or not. Disclosure: None.

Current Recommendations For Dual Momentum Portfolio

How to construct a dual momentum portfolio using a few simple rules. Applying absolute and relative momentum to build a portfolio. Current recommendation is to invest 100% of the portfolio in U.S. Equites. Gary Antonacci’s popular book, Dual Momentum Investing: An Innovative Strategy for Higher Returns with Lower Risk is used as a template for the following analysis. The primary deviation from Antonacci’s logic is the choice of securities used to populate the portfolio. To hold down trading costs, the following commission free ETFs from TDAmeritrade are used. They are: VTI – Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF VEU – Vanguard FTSE All-World ex-US ETF BIV – Vanguard Intermediate – Term Bond ETF SHY – iShares 1-3 Year Treasury Bond SHY is not used as a potential investment, but rather serves as a cutoff or “circuit breaker” ETF. The dual momentum rules are quite simple as they make use of absolute and relative momentum principles. Absolute momentum is where the investor examines the performance of the security with respect to its own past. Relative momentum is where the investor compares the trend or past performance with respect to other securities. Dual momentum makes use of both concepts. Antonacci recommends a look-back period of one year or 252 trading days with a monthly review. Think of this as one of those monthly reviews. With the ETFs selected for possible purchase, the cutoff ETF ((NYSEARCA: SHY ))) identified, and the look-back period settled, here are the few rules for portfolio management. This is a simplification of the diagram shown on page 101 of the dual momentum text. Rank VTI and VEU with respect to SHY. If both VTI and VEU rank above SHY, invest 100% of the portfolio in the highest ranked ETF. VTI is that ETF in this review. If neither VTI or VEU rank above SHY, invest 100% in the bond ETF, BIV. Other options for bonds are AGG or BND. I selected BIV for this example as I expect interest rates will rise so I am reluctant to use long-term bond ETFs. Wait a month for the next review. Current Recommendations: Based on 11/23/2015 data and a look-back period of 252 trading days, the highest ranking ETF on an absolute scale is VTI. Since it is ranked higher than VEU and is performing above SHY, we invest 100% of the portfolio in VTI. Had VEU ranked above VTI and SHY, 100% would have been invested in VEU. If neither VTI or VEU ranked above SHY, 100% of the portfolio would go to BIV. (click to enlarge) The above worksheet is designed for a more complex portfolio, but still works for a dual momentum portfolio with very minor adjustments.

Buying Stocks Trading Below Net Current Asset Value Vs. Market Timing

Given the fees derived from selling funds to the retail public, financial institutions have little incentive to be bearish on the stock market. These financial behemoths want euphoric investors believing that Wall Street is Lake Wobegon , where every day is a sunny day and all of the stocks are above average. Following the investment strategy of remaining fully invested in stocks and not attempting to time the market does have merit. An academic paper written by Nobel Laureate William F. Sharpe showed the difficulty associated with market timing [i] . Over the study period of 1934-1972, investors who made the decision at the start of every calendar year to be in either cash or stocks had to bet correctly 83% of the time in order to outperform the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500®). That is a difficult hurdle to overcome. Given these poor odds of timing the market with such precision, betting black on the roulette table at a casino in Vegas looks attractive by comparison, with free drinks to boot. Should investors heed the warning of Dr. Sharpe by buying a stock index fund and abandoning any attempt at market timing? ​Let us take a step back for a moment before going “all in” on stocks. Is there a third way to outperform a broad market average other than choosing cash or an index fund with near-perfect timing accuracy? An alternate investment path to consider is Benjamin Graham’s value investing philosophy for the enterprising investor. Graham showed superior portfolio performance by selecting securities trading below net current asset value (NCAV). The NCAV calculation subtracts all liabilities , including preferred stock, from the current assets (the most liquid assets) on a company’s balance sheet. The NCAV calculation is converted to a per share figure, comparing the value to the company’s share price. If Mr. Market quotes the stock price below the NCAV calculation, it can be considered a buy. The chart below shows the long-term performance of restricting stock purchases to ones trading below NCAV and comparing the results to that of the S&P 500®. (click to enlarge) * Portfolio average return calculations include only stocks trading below 75% of NCAV, with no more than a 5% weighting in any one stock. Dividends and transaction fees are included in all of the calculations. ​As indicated on the chart, NCAV stocks outperform the index by around six percent on an average annual basis. These stellar results do not require an investor to be permanently in stocks all of the time or to engage in market timing. In approximately three of four years, part of the NCAV portfolio remained on the sidelines sitting in a money market fund. Unlike remaining fully invested in the S&P 500®, investors who restrict their stock purchases to ones trading below NCAV will at times have a portion of capital remaining in cash. These idle time periods out of the stock market due to the lack of NCAV investment opportunities occur in both advancing and declining calendar years. If the stock market moves higher for the calendar year and few stocks trade below NCAV, the portfolio will lag a fully invested index fund. If the stock market has a good year, sitting in cash turns out to be a mistake. As indicated in the chart above, temporary time periods where the NCAV remains idle in cash does not result in long-term underperformance in comparison with the S&P 500® broad market average. Embracing this form of deep value investing has the added benefit of being agnostic regarding the direction of the overall stock market. Market timing is not an issue when it comes to purchasing only stocks trading below NCAV. Investors can ignore what prognosticators on Wall Street think stocks are going to do in the future. ​ The efficient market hypothesis implies that greater portfolio volatility must be accepted in order to achieve a greater average rate of return. There is truth to this argument. Markets are generally efficient, and the NCAV portfolio does fluctuate more than the S&P 500® does. If our measure of risk changes from portfolio volatility to worst-case return, a wrinkle in the market efficiency gospel bubbles up to the surface. We know from behavioral finance research that losses are far more painful to investors than is the satisfaction derived from an equivalent-sized gain. Using a worst-case annual return as our alternate measure of portfolio risk makes sense if money lost is more important to investors than money won in the stock market. As shown in the table below, using the worst annual stock market loss as our measure of portfolio risk, the NCAV portfolio does not suffer through as bad of a drawdown. For many years over our study period, the NCAV portfolio was not fully invested in stocks. When a portion of capital remains on the sidelines for the NCAV portfolio, it makes sense that a worst-case calendar year loss is less severe in comparison with a fully invested stock index fund, such as the S&P 500®. As already shown, this more limited exposure to stocks by investing only in securities trading below NCAV does not result in the average compounded return falling below the S&P 500® over the long term. (click to enlarge) Market timing is an exercise in futility for individual investors. As I pointed out in a previous blog , focusing on individual stock selection using a time-tested value-investing criterion, such as NCAV, is a far more productive use of an investor’s time rather than attempting to figure out the future direction of the overall stock market. Stocks trading at a deep discount to NCAV not only outperform the market over the long term but also benefit from limited downside losses when knee deep in a bad year for stocks. Although not shown in the chart, the second and third worst annual returns of the S&P 500® had a deeper drawdown than the index’s matching year NCAV portfolio return did. A patient investor willing to endure temporary time periods when deep value investing falls out of favor can still do well over the long term. This holds true without the additional requirement of prescient forecasting on the future direction of stocks. [i] Financial Analysts Journal. “Likely Gains from Market Timing” by William F. Sharpe – March/April 1975, Volume 31 Issue 2 pp. 60-69.