Thursday, September 2, 2010

SIMPLE 401K investing. Spend 5 minutes and potentially improve your wealth.

Most people get little advice an how to invest in their 401K plan. This is a SIMPLE approach. Spend 5 minutes reading the link below - simple investing advice on how you could invest in your 401K.

Remember that the more you allocate to stocks in your portfolio the greater the downs you will experience.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425851977494576.html?mod=ITP_thejournalreport_0

Combine the above with this golden nugget of wisdom from John Bogle, summarizing a recent Morningstar study in the August 26, 2010 Wall Street Journal:

"A mutual fund's past returns are no guarantee of its future. Even the most sophisticated rating systems are erratic at best in forecasting a fund's performance in the years ahead. But for decades, academic experts and analysts have proven that fund costs are a powerful predictor of relative performance. Returns come and go, as it were, but costs go on forever.

A recent study by the Morningstar fund evaluation service came to this very same conclusion. In an admirable report that was the opposite of self-serving, Morningstar found that using fund-expenses ratios as a factor in choosing mutual funds was even more helpful than relying on its own carefully constructed "star ratings." Specifically, focusing on funds with the lowest expense ratio was more helpful in fully 58% of the time periods studied.

"In every asset class (U.S. stock funds, international stock funds, balanced funds, taxable bonds, and municipal bonds) over every time period," Morningstar wrote, "the cheapest quintile produced higher net returns than the most expensive quintile." Among domestic equity funds, the returns of the lower-cost funds outpaced the returns of the higher-cost funds by about 1.3 percentage points annually. That proves to be a compelling edge. Over a 50-year investment lifetime, for example, a return at the 8.1% historical average for stocks would produce nearly 50% more capital than a return of 6.8%.

These calculations actually understate the success of low-cost funds. "Survivor bias"—only the more successful funds survive to make it into the database—permeates the equity-fund data. According to Morningstar, in the highest-cost quintile only 57% of equity funds survived over the past five years. Even in the lowest-cost quintile, only 81% survived. So much for relying on most mutual funds as long-term investments.

The idea that costs matter is not new. In a 1966 article in the Journal of Management, economist William F. Sharpe concluded, "all other things being equal, the smaller a fund's expense ratio, the better results obtained by its stock holders."

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Occum's Razor and Stock Market Returns

In chapter 2 of John Bogle's Common Sense on Mutual Funds, he introduces Occums postulate that states: the simpler the explanation then the more likely it is to be correct.

Bogle has applied Occum's razor to all the noise that surrounds stock returns and has found that if you accept that the performance of individual securities and portfolios are unpredictable on a short term basis, one can arrive at three factors that determine long term stock performance. Those three factors are:

1. Dividend yield at time of initial investment
2. Subsequent rate of growth in earnings
3. The change in the price-earnings ratio during the period of investment.

Bogle then states that since 1926 that less than 20% of the markets return has been due to speculation. The majority of return is due to the two other factors: dividends and earnings growth.

He states that speculation is almost a neutral factor in the nature of long run returns.

This is important. It means that even if you had a speculative edge, over the long run, your advantage is not that great. Not to mention that the transaction costs involved may eliminate any edge you may have.

Occum's razor applied to the stock market: returns over the long run will equal dividend yields + long term economic growth. everything else is noise.

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Long Term Investor: No Excuse not to Index - a table, a chart, a graph

The following table and chart are re-creations of a table and chart published in John Bogle's Common Sense On Mutual Funds. I believe that a short analysis will explain the argument for long term investors to simply hold the total market versus paying active managers to pick stocks or sectors.



A review of the chart shows that the average 1 year US stock market return since 1802 has been 6.5% (adjusted for inflation) with a one year high of 61.4 and a 1 year low of -48.4.
It also shows that as time passes the average return on the US stock market goes up and its highs and lows go down. For example the average of all 25 year holding periods is 6.9% with a high of 11.1% and a low of 2.7%. That means that any investor that held the US market for any 25 year period never had a 25 year return higher than 11.1% or lower than 2.7%. The numbers for a 50 year holding period are even more dramatic.

Now I need to bring in the definition of standard deviation to fully make the argument for holding (or indexing) the total US market.

Standard deviation measures the spread of the data that makes up the average. So a larger standard deviation means that the data that make up the average are spread farther apart than lower standard deviation averages. The chart and table above demonstrate this: in any 1 year the US market had returns that could have been anywhere between 61.4 and -48.4. But if one held the US market 50 years the spread of returns ranged between 3.9 and 9.9 (the 50 year holding period has a lower standard deviation).

Stay with me.

Statisticians have found that most averages have data that falls within 3 standard deviations (SD) of the average and that the data points make up a "bell shaped curve"
The graph below shows this idea. Generally, 68.2% of the data points that make up the average fall within 1 SD, 95.4% fall within 2 SD and 99.6% fall within 3 SD. Standard deviation is represented below by the Greek symbol sigma ( σ ).



3.9%... 4.9% ...5.9%.. 6.9%.. 7.9% ..8.9%...9.9%
Average return for the corresponding standard deviation for 50 yr holding period

So what does all this mean for long term investors? It means this: If you had simply held an index fund of the total US market over the last 50 years you would have earned 6.9%. You would have had a fee of .20% (index funds are very cheap - there is no work to do) and your net after inflation return would have been 6.7%.
If you paid an advisor to actively manage your investments, or used an actively managed mutual fund, you had a 50% chance of being above average. Now factor in fees of 1.5% (average of mutual fund or personal advisor fees) and you would have had to had a return of greater than 8.2% (8.2% - 1.5% fees = 6.7%) to equal the return of holding the index and just being average.

Note: that actively managing means that someone is picking stocks and buying and selling based on what they feel is the best time to move in and out of certain stock positions.

If you earned an 8.2% return you would have been in the greater than 1 standard deviation range. Remember for the 50 year time period the standard deviation was 1%. A look at the graph above will show that your return would have been in the top 10 to 16% of returns.

Anything less than an 8.2% return and your performance is less than average after fees.

As an investor you need to ask: what are my odds of achieving higher than average net returns?

Finally, I want to emphasize that studies also show that the stock picker or mutual fund that does great one year or for several years does not maintain that position. So, to add to the above question, one needs to ask: can I consistently pick the advisor, mutual fund or stocks that will, net of fees, outperform the average of the US stock market.

My advise: ACCEPT AVERAGE and by doing that you are FAR ABOVE AVERAGE, NET OF FEES.

In further blogs we will explore what stocks tend to fall in the above average part of the bell shaped curve and why. Preview: they do not get there without a cost, and that cost is volatility - risk.




Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Yale Endowment: Superior Intelligence or Higher Risk

Are superior returns due to superior intelligence or adopting a riskier investment portfolio? This is a topic which I will explore continually. Larry Swedroe discusses David Swensen's performance at Yale.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/wise-investing/is-david-swensen-lucky-or-good/1507/


Thursday, June 24, 2010

Blog post on Indexing by Larry Swedroe

Short blog post by one of my favorite investing writers: Larry Swedroe.

In this post Larry gives an explanation of why investing with index funds results in superior returns.