Posted By 
By John De Goey, CIM, CFP
Special to the Financial Independence Hub
Clients facing a big, sustained drop in the markets might not listen to advice that worked last time
I recently listened to an excellent podcast hosted by my friend Preet Banerjee, who had my acquaintance Dan Bortolotti as his guest. Much of the conversation was about Dan’s fantastic new book, Reboot Your Portfolio, but the topics bounced around a bit, and I was left with a sense of dread about the overall mood.
Listeners got a glimpse into what it is like to give advice to retail clients, and some of the anecdotes about the life of an advisor I thought were particularly telling. Discussion around the fear felt by investors and advisors in the five or six weeks when COVID-19 first hit was harrowing, but I couldn’t help but think that advisors listening in might be misled.
In the past decade or so, a narrative about the role and value of professional advice has included behavioural coaching. The term can include such value-added activities as topping up RRSPs, getting wills written, naming proper beneficiaries, integrating taxes and other valuable things. But the one thing that always seems to top the list is the notion that advisors add value by encouraging clients to remove the emotion from decision-making. This helps clients take a long-term view focused on personal life goals.
While I agreed with almost everything said in the podcast, I was concerned by what wasn’t said. There was a lot of self-congratulation about advisors navigating their clients through the major market drawdown in early 2020, as if it were a given that this would always be the case.
In truth, that drawdown was the shortest bear market in history. As bear markets go, a walk in the park. Mr. Bean could have provided enough comfort and counsel to keep clients invested in that market. While there is nothing wrong with giving credit where credit is due, I think the podcasters were too congratulatory to mainstream advisors. There was also a reference to the global financial crisis of 2007-2009, and both podcasters agreed that it was far harsher than the 2020 experience. Again, the story was that good advisors can help emotionally driven clients stay on course when things get choppy. They can – but that’s not necessarily the same as they will.
Comparing downturns
That attitude I heard is likely based on what they’ve seen and done in their careers – and those careers embody a time of relative stability. Few advisors today were working in finance during the bear market of 1974 when the OPEC oil embargo crashed markets. In addition, the one-day drop of more than 20 per cent in 1987 was a blip of sorts, but markets were still up that calendar year.
So, the only significant bear markets most people reading this have lived through were: 1) at the turn of the millennium (aka the dot.com bubble), and 2) the global financial crisis. Both were medium-sized drawdowns. But what if we experience something earth-shattering? How will we react? Nobody knows.
If you claim to play a role in modifying behaviour constructively, you will also be prepared to stand up and take your lumps should that behaviour not be what you wanted nor expected.
Here is what I mean by “medium sized.” In the first one, it took about seven years for the S&P 500 to return to its previous level; the index stood at around 1,500 in April 2000 and didn’t return to that level until October 2007. While the previous high was technically reached, it was only a few weeks before the trend reversed and markets began to fall back again. The S&P 500 didn’t get back to the 1,500 range again until February 2013. There was a dip and return, closely followed by a second dip and return, and the net effect was the entire market went sideways for more than 13 years.
Most people refer to the early 2000s as two distinct drawdowns experienced back-to-back, but I would describe both as medium-sized drops. Either way, the net effect, excluding dividends, was no market growth for more than 13 years. Continue Reading…
