All posts by Financial Independence Hub

Bullshift Culprits 1 and 2: FOMO and TINA

Posted By |

By John De Goey, CFP, CIM

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Bullshift Culprit #1 FOMO (Fear of Missing Out)

For anyone who has been out of the loop, there are a number of acronyms and memes that have popped up over the past decade that help commentators to capture contemporary zeitgeist.  One of the most popular is FOMO – the Fear Of Missing Out.  The basic idea here is that other people are doing something (having fun, getting rich, cheating the tax man) that others want to get in on.

Getting in on things is all fine and well, provided they are legal.  Many aspects of FOMO are indeed legal and it should be obvious that there are social risks associated with wanting to do things that are not.  The thing to note is that there’s strong social pressure to participate – largely because there is some form of social proof that makes it seem as though everyone else is doing it, too (and getting away with it). If there’s one thing that upwardly-mobile people hate, it’s the notion that they are not ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ when they quite easily could be – if they only did whatever it was the Joneses are doing to give them the status / income / happiness edge they have in the first place.

Of all the possible examples of FOMO, getting rich by playing the stock market may well be the most insidious and the most common.  Anyone with seed money can do it.  No matter how rich or poor you are, if there’s a sense that you can make (say) an “easy 15%” on your money by investing in security X or product Y and that Betty and Bob in marketing both did it (and showed you their quarter end statements to prove it), the pull is often irresistible.  This can sometimes be fodder for something called “greater fool theory.”

Most real investors say “buy low; sell high,” but it needs to be noted that there is a segment of the population that makes money by using the principle of “buy higher; sell higher.” As long as there’s a ‘greater fool’ out there who is prepared to pay even more than the outrageous price you paid for something, you can make money by paying an outrageously high price to begin with.  This is a bit like a game of chicken or musical chairs.  At some point, the market runs out of ‘fools’.  In finance lingo, that’s when the bubble bursts. Continue Reading…

Owning today’s Long-Term bonds is crazy

Posted By |

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Today’s long-term bonds pay such low interest rates that it makes no sense to own them.  There is virtually no upside, and rising interest rates loom on the downside.  Warren Buffett called this “return-free risk.”  He was right.  Here I explain the problem and address objections.

As I write this, 10-year Canadian government bonds pay 0.623% interest.  If you invest $10,000, you’ll get a total of only $623 in interest over the decade, and then you’ll get your $10,000 back.  This is crazy.  Even if inflation stays at just 2%, you’ll lose $1237 in purchasing power.

Even worse are 30-year Canadian government bonds that pay 1.224% as I write this [late in October 2020.]  Your $10,000 would get a total of $3672 in interest over 3 decades.  This is a pitiful amount of interest over a full generation.  At 2% inflation, you’ll lose $1738 in purchasing power.  Even a portfolio that only beats inflation by 2% per year would gain $8113 in purchasing power over 30 years.

All investments have risk, but there has to be some potential upside to justify the risk.  Where is the upside for long-term bonds?  The only upside comes if we have sustained deflation.  It’s crazy to risk so much just in case the prices of goods and services drop steadily for the next decade or three.

Some investors mistakenly think they can always sell bonds and collect accrued interest.  That’s not how it works.  With a 30-year bond, the government is promising to pay you the tiny interest payments and give you back your principal after 3 decades.  If you want out, you have to sell your bond to someone else who will accept these terms.  You don’t get accrued interest; you get whatever another investor is willing to pay.  Counting on selling a bond is hoping for a greater fool to bail you out.  If future investors demand higher interest rates on their bonds, your bond will sell at a significant capital loss.

If the interest rate on 30-year bonds goes up over time, that’s actually bad for current bond owners, because they have to live with their lower rate instead of receiving the new rate.  If 30-year bond interest rates go up by 1%, you immediately lose 30 years of 1% interest; you can’t just sell to avoid the loss because other investors wouldn’t happily take these losses for you.

Let’s go through some objections to this argument against owning today’s long-term bonds:

1.) Stocks are risky

It’s true that stocks are risky, but I’m not suggesting that investors replace long-term bonds with stocks.  Short-term bonds and high-interest saving accounts are safer alternatives.  A decision to avoid long-term bonds doesn’t have to include a change in your asset allocation between stocks and bonds.  For anyone willing to look beyond Canada’s big banks, it’s not hard to find high-interest savings accounts paying at least 1.5% and offering CDIC protection on deposits.  If long-term bond interest rates ever return to historical norms, it’s easy to move cash from a savings account back into bonds.  So, you don’t have to live with a measly 1.5% forever.

2.) Investors need to diversify

The benefit from diversifying comes from owning assets with similar expected returns that aren’t fully correlated.  However, the expected returns of today’s bonds are dismal.  We don’t really own bonds for diversification these days.  The real reason we own bonds is to blunt the risk of stocks.  It doesn’t make sense to try to reduce portfolio risk by buying risky long-term bonds.  Flushing away part of your portfolio with long-term bonds isn’t a reasonable form of diversification.  Short-term bonds and high-interest savings accounts do a fine job of reducing portfolio volatility without adding significant interest rate risk.

3.) Long-Term bonds have higher interest rates than short-term bonds

Historically, long-term bonds rates usually have been higher than short-term rates.  Today, however, high-interest savings accounts pay more interest than long-term government bonds.  But that’s not the only consideration.  Interest rates will change over the next 30 years.  If you own short-term bonds, your returns will change too.  However, if you buy 30-year bonds, your interest rate won’t change for three decades.  If interest rates rise, new short-term bond rates will be higher than your old 30-year rate.  Continue Reading…

Time for investors to look at the Canadian energy sector?

Posted By |
Image by Omni Matryx from Pixabay

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Dale Roberts, Cutthecrapinvesting

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The Canadian energy sector has been beaten up. Foreign investors have given up and so have many Canadian investors. Where there is incredible pessimism there can be incredible rewards. But there is certainly no guarantee that the pessimism for the Canadian energy patch is not deserved. That said, it is also certainly possible that the pessimism has jumped the shark. There may be incredible value in the energy sector for Canadian investors.

Off the top I am guilty of previously piling on with the pessimism. For Million Dollar Journey I had penned on Canadian energy stocks and their dividends.

The Canadian energy sector ETFs fell by some 70% in the stock market correction of March and into April. We have seen some slight recovery as the North American and Global economic recovery takes shape.

The need for oil and gas is not going away

While I am certainly a fan of the global move to green energy solutions, the shift will take some time. Perhaps it will take decades. And even during a robust transition to renewable energy, oil and gas will continue to play a leading role. We need natural gas to heat our homes and power our economy. And while the shift to electric vehicles attracts all of the headlines and much of the attention of investors, traditional gas powered vehicle sales will continue to dominate. We will need oil for various forms of transportation.

From the IEA …

Sales of electric cars topped 2.1 million globally in 2019, surpassing 2018 – already a record year – to boost the stock to 7.2 million electric cars. Electric cars, which accounted for 2.6% of global car sales and about 1% of global car stock in 2019, registered a 40% year-on-year increase.

It’s certainly a promising trend.

Millions of global sales – Electric vehicles

From that IEA report …

The Sustainable Development Scenario incorporates the targets of the EV30@30 Campaign to collectively reach a 30% market share for electric vehicles in all modes except two-wheelers by 2030.

And all of the above takes place as overall demand for vehicles increases. The need for oil will remain with us for quite some time under most projections. Oil demand will be driven by airlines and other industrial use as well.

We’ll need to move that oil and gas

Let’s start with the pipelines that move the oil and gas around North America. The two leaders are Enbridge and TP Energy (formerly TransCanada Pipelines). These two stocks are starting to get the attention of analysts and writers. Full disclosure: I own these two companies in my concentrated Canadian wide moat portfolio. Continue Reading…

How I used to sabotage my portfolio

Posted By |

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Some recent reader questions prompted me to update this post – let’s go!

Dedicated readers of this site will know I spend a lot of time writing about what’s working in my financial plan and how incremental money management changes are moving us towards financial freedom every month.

Certainly if you look back at my decade in review you can see we’ve made some tremendous progress towards financial independence over time.

That doesn’t mean I didn’t sabotage my portfolio …

With all the success we’ve had to date, it wasn’t without missteps and mistakes. We’re not immune to bad decisions now and then.

In fact, we used to sabotage our portfolio and our personal finances. We really didn’t know what we didn’t know.

Financial disaster

Over the years we’ve learned some financial lessons and so today’s post updates those lessons so you don’t have to make the same mistakes I did. In fact, should you find yourself in one of these financial ruts below this post will go a step further and offer some tips on how to dig out of them.

I should know, I made these changes below!

Here is how I used to sabotage my portfolio – and what you can learn from it.

1.) Investing in high-priced mutual fund products

In my 20s, I invested in mutual funds that charged money management fees close to 2%. Back then I simply didn’t know how much those fund fees would eat into my investment returns. On top of that, I had no idea that most mutual fund managers had no long-term hope of beating their benchmark index, even after a few years let alone after many years.

This is because of this key reason: it is incredibly difficult to overcome the deficits incurred by some funds due to high money management fees charged.

High fund fees basically mean you’re already striving to play catch-up to market-like returns.

Needless to say, we don’t invest in any costly funds any longer. I ditched the mutual fund industry about a decade back now – a decision you can read about including the costly math behind it here.

This is not to say there are not a few mutual funds in Canada, and the companies that manage them, that continue to shine in terms of long-term performance – thanks to their lower-cost structure and diversified approach over their competitors. Lower-cost solutions such as Tangerine funds, Mawer funds and some TD Bank products (e-series funds) come to mind.

If you’re just starting out, you can read this post about some of those alternatives.

You can also now consider some simple all-in-one funds to help you with your investing solutions.

The bottom-line: since lower money management fees are a major predictor and input into future investing gains, it’s best to keep more of your hard-earned money working and less money going out to management fees that offer little to no long-term value.

Beyond my links above, do check out my ETFs page for some of the best, low-cost, diversified funds to own. I’ve also highlighted which ones I own and why!

2.) Lacking diversification – it’s a free lunch!

Did you see the current pandemic coming?

Can you predict gold prices later this year?

I thought so. Same here.

At the end of the day, I have no idea what the future holds. Don’t let any financial expert tell you they know either.

Nobody can predict the future with any accuracy what will happen next. This is why for long-term investing success we should strive for diversification, but it wasn’t always that way for me.

In those aforementioned 20s, the younger My Own Advisor Do-It-Yourself (DIY) investor threw tons of money into tech stocks in the late-1990s. The internet (for those millennials reading this post!) was actually a new thing then. Continue Reading…

Does your Balanced Portfolio need a Remix?

Posted By |

By Michael Greenberg and Wylie Tollette

(Sponsor Content)

The 60% stocks and 40% bond (60/40) balanced portfolio ― or 70/30 depending on your risk tolerance and time horizon ― has helped many investors build wealth over the past 20 years. It’s a simple recipe for success that has relied on four basic market expectations:

1.) Positive longer-term returns for stocks, driven by underlying economic growth

2.) Falling ― but still positive ― yields on bonds, particularly sovereign bonds

3.) Low and contained inflation

4.) Negative correlations between stocks and bonds (move in opposite directions), particularly during recessions

This last expectation has been especially important. When equity markets are under stress, central banks traditionally have been able to reduce short-term interest rates, increasing the value of nominal bonds. Investor flight to safe-haven assets and quantitative easing (QE) programs initiated by central banks also provide a price boost to the asset class. This helps offset the decline in equities and provides portfolio managers with “dry powder” to reinvest in newly cheap stocks.

But the world has changed. With sovereign bond yields approaching zero in many countries, does this basic equation still hold?

Four Strong (Head)Winds

Today, the 60/40 portfolio faces four formidable headwinds:

  1. Low bond yields – for the past 35 years, yields have fallen and stayed near historic lows. Investors have offset those declines by increasing equity risk; but in a balanced portfolio, more risk means more volatility.
  2. Reduced negative correlation impact – with such low yields, the sought-after negative correlation between bonds and stocks may diminish.
  3. Waning disinflation –increasing pressures on inflation from aggressive monetary and fiscal stimulus, increased protectionism/nationalism, and supply chain disruption/re-shoring could lead to higher yields, which would hurt bond prices.
  4. Limited monetary tools — near-zero/negative interest rates and bloated balance sheets mean less ammunition for central banks to fight the next economic downturn. A move to heavier fiscal policy and resulting increased government bond issuance would also hurt bond prices.

The Real Price of Risk

At this point, taking on more risk may not be worth the incremental return. If your cash flow is negative, you won’t be able to rely on equity risk to carry the load. To fund those cash flows, you would need to sell securities periodically, which introduces timing risk. At the worst, you could be forced to sell a long-term asset during a bad short-term stretch in the markets.

Evolve, don’t abandon

Do these changing conditions mean the trusty 60/40 portfolio should be completely scrapped? We don’t think so. Here are some ways to bring your balanced portfolio up to speed:

  • Adjust your return expectations. Yes, the contribution to returns from bonds will be much lower. On the other hand, we think there is likely a cap on how far and fast yields could rise. That will limit the downside. We suggest a long-term return of 4-5% is a reasonable expectation for a 60/40 portfolio (excluding potential value add from dynamic asset allocation and active security selection).
    . Continue Reading…