Archive for the ‘Changing Times’ Category

We have finished one of the most disappointing decades for investors imaginable. In real terms (i.e. taking into account the decade’s inflation), the returns on stocks were negative for the decade. Those investors who sprinkled in bonds did a bit better, but may or may not have kept up with inflation. Those investors who veered from the traditional and had the vision to add commodities, real estate, etc. probably were able to actually experience growth for the decade. However, they still a rather muted return.

The “sales forces” of financial services are out there now beating the drums for this new decade. Surely after a poor decade we should return to the norm by having excellent returns on our investments, shouldn’t we? Unfortunately, this decade is not really setting up to be any easier for investors than the previous one.

Stocks are certainly not beginning the decade by being cheap by historic measures, so we should expect an average to below average return. Thus, the range bound or secular bear market is likely to continue for some time in equity markets. Unfortunately, commodities and bonds are no longer cheap like they were at the beginning of the past decade. So, returns will be still tough to come by moving forward.

We think the key moving forward will be to be tactical with your risk budget. By that, you or your advisor needs to keep an eye on what are the risks and what are the potential returns of investments. So, if the stock of a great company has fallen to a very low price, buying the stock may increase your risk but be justified by potentially large gains. On the other side, if a stock is very expensive by historic measures it may have rather limited potential appreciation and considerable potential loss. To sell that position and reduce your risk may be the prudent decision. 

So, while investors traditionally have to decide on how much risk to take and stuck with that decision, we believe the prudent course is to adjust your risk budget by the opportunity available to garner good returns. You might still average the same amount of portfolio risk through a market cycle, but get to that average in a way that benefits your bottom line.

Sounds like the credo of the ultimate workaholic! But we don’t think so.

We have long held that for us personally retirement was not a goal. Restylement, with its ability to give you more time to pursue the things that are most important to you, is what appeals to us. There is something that we don’t like about retirement- there is a connotation of withdrawing in the word that does not appeal to us. We know retirement will still be the goal for many, but others will increasingly choose restylement as their goal. The ability to do the things you are passionate about and spend less time doing the things that you don’t enjoy.

This past week we were on “vacation”, but it did not work out that well. We found there were pressing work issues that needed to be dealt with during our time away. So, it occurred to us to re-think vacation a bit also. It seems to us that “vacation” is a corollary to “retirement”. The root word “vacate” has to do with leaving, emptying, etc. Our goal when we go away is really not vacating, but recreation. We want to re-create, not merely empty. Our goal in getting away is to refresh, step back, enhance, get new ideas flowing, etc. So, we did not really have our “vacation” spoiled by having to do a bit of work while away. We were still able to enjoy all the benefits of the time away and have it serve us well in “re-charging” for the road ahead. So- no retirement and no vacation, but bring on restylement and recreation. They both sound good to us.

In the end, 2009 was a year for the markets that truly surpassed everyone’s wildest dreams. When markets were down almost 30% in March, there was nobody out there who saw a year in which the S&P 500 would finish with a positive 26.5%. We were amongst those who saw a buying opportunity. We were buying for what we saw as a positive opportunity that would play out in a one to five year time frame. For it to play out in a nine month time frame was beyond anything we considered.

Despite the fantastic finish of 2009, the S&P is still off 24.9% from its October 2007 peak. That is still a huge drawdown (i.e. loss from peak to now) that investors cannot afford. That is why we still believe that active investment management using a wider playing field than the traditional stocks, bonds, and cash is required in order to help you achieve your financial goals. Our management style has worked well through this period and we feel it will continue to produce results in 2010 and beyond.

In terms of what to expect in 2010, we do not know what the market will serve up. There is still momentum in the equity market and lots of money on the sidelines that could push prices higher as it comes into the market. It is our feeling, however, that it is a time for caution. While very high quality investments seem to be priced around their historic averages, poor quality companies seem very expensive and at risk of a large tumble. So, we believe that quality large companies are the area to overweight going forward and low quality investments should be underweighted.

We expect there to be some opportunities to enter into investments at low prices as the year goes on. As always, we will try to take advantage of inefficient market pricing of assets.

Lastly, we want to thank each and every one of your for your loyalty and faith in us over the years. As we look at the millions and millions of your dollars that we are entrusted to manage, we are truly honored by your commitment to us. Every day we feel fortunate to be where we are in this difficult environment and seek to continue to earn your continued loyalty. We really mean it- Thank you!!  

You got to know when to hold ‘em
Know when to fold them
Know when to walk away- Kenny Rogers, The Gambler

It was a year that came in like a bear and went out like a bull. All told, that left us with a surprisingly strong bull year. When the days were darkest, we think investors panicked and sold when assets were the cheapest, best buys we will see for a very long time. How else can we explain investors dumping GE stock for less than $6 a share? Oh, but that was months ago and memories are short. We now have investors willing to drop their money on assets that look very risky to us. What will 2010 bring us? We think it will most likely bring us some more big ups and downs on the roller coaster.

Is it time to hold ‘em or fold’em? As an intelligent gambler, that should depend on what you are holding. It is, in our opinion, no time to bluff when you don’t have much in your hand. Look to take some profits in areas like high yield bonds and stocks with little or no earnings. If you are holding some aces, we would stick with them for now. Keep your eye on the game however. If is turns against you once more, don’t be afraid to fold ‘em and live to fight another day.

It was a terrific year which did much to restore account values. However, it appears unrealistic that this bull run can go on too much longer. As we move from underpriced back to overpriced, the odds start to stack up against us in the short run. Be careful and thankful as we welcome in a new year!

As those of you who have been acquainted with us for long know well, we believe avoiding the Style Box approach to investing that is promoted by Morningstar is the best thing you can do. Style boxes provide very little true diversification and drag down portfolio results by as much as 3% per year.

Now, Advisor Perspectives has published an interesting study showing that the Morningstar Star Ratings fail to predict performance through a market cycle. So, moving from a “3 star” fund to a “4 star” fund is no better than flipping a coin to decide which fund to hold. Russel Kinnel of Morningstar admits the star rating is “not a forward looking measure”.

This finding does not surprise us at all. Investing with style boxes and star ratings using a rear view mirror approach is a losing concept, particularly in a secular bear market. You need strategies and tactics that make sense moving forward, emphasizing return of capital as well as return on capital.

Should you be a buyer or a seller between now and year-end? That seems to be the question on everyone’s mind as we enter December. The answer is, of course, that it depends. If you were wise enough to invest early in this bull market you should be considering peeling back some risk at this point.

That is, reducing your level of investment in high yield bonds and/or low-quality stocks. We would not advise abandoning them altogether but taking some reasonable profits. If, on the other hand, you are late to the party and are now thinking about taking money from the sidelines and placing it back into the market we would suggest you do that with caution. Specifically, you don’t want to chase gains that have taken assets to above fair value. Many parts of the market are currently overheated and likely will not produce above-average results going forward.

Looking at it in another way, you need to determine whether the odds are on your side or against you going forward. They certainly don’t seem to us to be strongly in your favor. On the other hand, we certainly have no reason to be sure that the market will not continue to run from here. A plan to cautiously reinvest might be the most prudent. You could plan to buy into the market monthly for the next six or eight months. If we did then see a market correction, you could use that opportunity to alter your plan and  purchase more aggressively into the market.

Your focus should be on buying high quality assets on which you have conviction that they will do well for years to come. That should be a recipe for success as we move forward through turbulent waters.

The market surge continued this month, though perhaps sanity is beginning to finally come back to the table. For the first time during this huge rally, quality seemed to matter a bit. The Russell 2000 (an index of 2000 small companies) has fallen to its 90 day trading average while the indexes of larger companies continue to trade well above their average. We see this as a trend that is likely to continue for quite a while. We have no idea whether this market is at a top right now, but we do know that the risks are growing that we could see a correction at any time. When the correction comes, do you want your portfolio focused on quality companies selling at average prices or low quality companies with no current earnings? To us, that is one of the easiest questions to answer that we have seen. The strategy, oft times referred to by Jeremy Grantham, is known simply as “survive to fight another day”. If you own good quality companies with earnings and dividends, they will still be around in a couple years even if we hit another large market slide. We can’t say that is true about owning a small company with no earnings in this economic environment.

On the flip side, we also expect the higher quality stocks to outperform should this market continue to escalate. These companies have good earnings, fair pricing, cash on hand, etc. Their future is bright, they have to wear shades! On the flip side, we continue to have a negative outlook for the Russell 2000 stocks.

In currency, we think the dollar may have a short rally in coming months, followed by a return to weakening against emerging market currencies. While we hope to participate in this area, we are not rushing into it with guns a blazing as we think the dollar may rally for a bit first.

Lastly, do we think the economy is fixed or sinking? That seems to be the topic that everyone is weighing in on. Our belief is that it was not as bad as most thought last November and isn’t as good as many think this November. We think things are getting worse more slowly and that the turnaround will be slow and muted from here. That seems to us to denote a period of slow growth and small returns, not the continuation of a huge bull market that   will make us all rich.

We spent a day recently with a group of advisors who cling to all the orthodoxies of financial services (Modern Portfolio Theory, static asset allocation, etc.). According to them, all you need to do is divide up your money into a bunch of style boxes (e.g. large company value stocks) and keep it there. We know that this has been a dangerous belief for the last decade and we think it will continue to be dangerous in the future.   But, it got us thinking about what people still call “modern”.

Modern Portfolio Theory basically states that the selection of assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) is the major factor in determining risk and return for a portfolio. It was developed in the 1950s by Harry Markowitz. That is over 50 years ago. Is it time to re-consider whether we need something even more “modern”? Markowitz, of course, never talked about the style boxes that have become part of the orthodoxy of financial services. Style boxes were invented by Morningstar in the early 1990s. So, a marketing scheme that was invented more than thirty years later has come to be considered by many financial advisors to be an essential part of “modern portfolio theory”. What else has transpired since this modern theory was published?

Hawaii and Alaska became states the year that Markowitz’ book was published.

WalMart was founded in 1969, a decade later.

The NASDAQ stock exchange began in 1971.

The first color television broadcast was in 1974, 25 years after the “modern” theory.

The term personal computer was first coined in 1975.

Enron did not come into existence until 1985.

The World Wide Web was invented in 1989.

So, we shouldn’t throw out Markowitz’ theory because of its age, but we need to consider whether or not it still applies and perhaps tweak it a bit if it is to be relevant in the 21^st century. A few things may have changed during the past 50 years! Perhaps most importantly, his message has been transformed to mean what the financial services industry wanted it to mean rather than what he actually said. He never told anyone to fill a bunch of artificial “style boxes” and hold on to overpriced assets in a bear market. That would not be a Nobel Prize winning concept.