Archive for the ‘Investing Fundamentals’ Category

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.

Lost in the froth of the recent market is the fundamental truth of why anyone buys stocks in the first place. In investing, you are buying a future stream of earnings. So, if you buy a one year CD at the bank that pays 2% interest, you are investing in an extremely low risk choice that has a 2% future stream of earnings. The reason stocks historically have higher returns on investment is that they involve more risk (i.e. you expect a larger future stream of earnings from stocks because you are accepting a far greater degree of risk than in a CD, a US Treasury Bond, or a corporate bond). So, you make a rational decision to invest in a stock because you believe the risk you are taking is justified by the higher expected return.

At the turn of the new millennium, stocks were priced extremely high compared to historic norms. The return, not surprisingly, has been pathetic so far this decade. We have had a secular bear market and investors would have been better off choosing almost any other investment vehicle for the past 9 years. Commodities and gold have led the way, offering an excellent return on investment during this period. The low return on equities makes perfect sense by fundamental standards.

We believe that this fundamental truth has been lost on investors and that we are at a crossroads. The highest quality stocks are priced near historic norms and we believe you can make the case that owning them going forward is a rational decision. You stand to receive a larger income stream on your investment than in safer instruments. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Russell 2000 stocks (an unmanaged index of smaller companies) has an expected Price to Earnings ratio of 55 as of this morning. So, if everything goes well (no small feat in this economy), an investor should reap an earnings stream of less than 2% for the next year from investments in the Russell 2000 stocks. Why would an investor make the choice to buy these stocks at this time with a lower stream of income than in any other investment? We believe another wave of punishment will arrive for those who choose to ignore the fundamental fact that these companies are not currently a prudent investment. Perhaps then investors will come to grips with the fact that buying stocks is a rational decision based on the choices that exist when you make an investment choice.