All posts by Financial Independence Hub

Markets, Patience, & The Rolling Stones

Posted By |
Image by Shutterstock, courtesy Outcome

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Time is on my side, yes it is
Time is on my side, yes it is

Now you always say
That you want to be free
But you’ll come running back (said you would baby)
You’ll come running back (I said so many times before)
You’ll come running back to me

— The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones’ iconic hit, “Time Is On My Side,” is a testament to the power of patience. Its lyrics remind listeners that even though things can seem challenging, eventually everything will fall into place. Although this message may be conceptually appealing, it is increasingly ringing hollow with many investors.

Discipline is one of the most important principles of successful, long-term investing. Successful investors tend to stick to their knitting, even during times when this entails avoiding “hot” stocks and underperforming over the short or medium term.

However, even the most disciplined investors have their limits, which have been sorely tested over the past decade, courtesy of the blistering appreciation of mega-cap growth stocks. Such companies are largely represented by the aptly named Magnificent 7 (MAG7), which includes Apple, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Meta, Alphabet, and Tesla. The “pain trade” of prolonged, MAG7-related underperformance has been pervasive across investment styles, countries, and active management in general.

Value managers have been caught in the wrong place (or style) at the wrong time, to say the least. As the table below demonstrates, growth stocks have left their value counterparts in the dust over the decade ending in 2023.

S&P 500 Growth Index vs. S&P 500 Value Index: 2013-2023

This incredible dispersion has caused investment styles to dominate investment acumen to the point where even some of the best value managers have underperformed some of the worst growth managers. Alternately stated, there has been little, if anything that a value-based investor could have done to avoid getting outrun by the growth trade juggernaut that has dominated markets over the past 10 years.

The effect of the tremendous run of MAG7 companies has also had a profound effect on the relative performance of different countries and regions.

Comparative Returns: 2013-2023 (in USD)

To put it mildly, the S&P 500 Index, which its heavy exposure to MAG7 companies has turbocharged, has left non-U.S. indexes in the dust. The bottom line is that if you were underweight U.S. stocks, you were doomed to underperform.

Lastly, the MAG7 juggernaut has cast a dark shadow over active management (more on this later).  According to Morningstar, during the decade ending in 2023, 90.2% of U.S. large cap managers underperformed their benchmarks. When it comes to active equity strategies, most clients’ experiences have been less than inspiring, if not disappointing.

From Big is Bad to Big is Beautiful

The dramatic outperformance of mega-cap companies over the past 10 years stands in sharp contrast to their longer-term historical pattern. Over the past several decades, underweighting the very largest stocks has been a winning bet. Since 1957, the 10 largest stocks in the S&P 500 have underperformed an equal-weighted portfolio of the other 490 stocks by an average of 2.4% per year. Continue Reading…

A Smart Balance for Retirees: HBIG Blends Tradition with Innovation

Posted By |
Image by Harvest ETFs

By Ambrose O’Callaghan

(Sponsor Blog)

Canadians in or nearing retirement may be seeking out an investment that provides stability in the face of broader market and economic challenges. Balanced mutual fund portfolios have remained the most popular form of investment fund among Canadians.

However, most current balanced mutual funds and ETFs in the Canadian market provide income at levels below inflation rates. Moreover, these balanced funds/ETFs often pay quarterly, semi-annual, and annual distributions as opposed to monthly.

Today, we zero in on a balanced ETF designed to offer stability, growth opportunities, and high monthly cash distributions.

Today — April 15, 2024 — Harvest ETFs launches the Harvest Balanced Income & Growth ETF (HBIG:TSX). This exchange-traded fund (ETF) is designed to provide Canadian investors of all ages — and especially those in retirement — with access to a balanced portfolio consisting of primarily Harvest Equity Income ETFs and Harvest Fixed Income ETFs that deliver high monthly cash distributions.

For those  looking for more cash flows to help bridge the income gap, or who want to meet RRIF withdrawal minimums, we have also launched the Harvest Balanced Income & Growth Enhanced ETF (HBIE:TSX), an alternative fund that uses leverage. This ETF seeks to provide unitholders with high monthly cash distributions and the opportunity for capital appreciation by investing, on a levered basis, in a portfolio that seeks to replicate HBIG. With the use of the leverage, the risk rating for HBIE is slightly elevated relative to HBIG.

Here is a link to the Business Wire news release issued this morning.

What is a balanced portfolio? How is Harvest changing the original formula to meet investor needs in 2024? Let’s jump in.

What makes up the traditional 60/40 portfolio?

According to the Investment Funds Institute of Canada (IFIC), the number of mutual fund assets in Canada totalled $2.012 trillion at the end of February 2024. That was up 2.9%, or $57.1 billion, from January. Meanwhile, ETF assets totalled $403 billion at the end of the same period – up 4.1% month over month.

Balanced mutual funds make up $923 billion, nearly half of the total mutual funds operational in Canada. That means that Balanced portfolios are the most popular among Canadians who are invested in mutual funds. ETFs, by comparison, are heavily weighted in Equity and Bond funds, while Balanced ETFs only make up $16.5 billion out of $403 billion.

A balanced fund typically refers to a portfolio that is broken down by 60% equity and 40% fixed-income exposure. That ratio allows for capital appreciation while mitigating risk and providing protection from volatility with the exposure to bonds. While the 60/40 ratio is a proxy for the typical balanced portfolio, it is not one-size-fits-all. Some balanced portfolios may aim for ratios that weigh either equities or bonds more heavily.

How do covered calls generate high income?

Harvest ETFs believes wealth is created and preserved by owning leading businesses and high-quality fixed income securities. Moreover, Harvest is a market leader in covered call options ETFs. Harvest has been writing covered call options for 15 years. Moreover, the firm has a strong track record for delivering consistent distributions. Continue Reading…

Retirement Spending Experts debate 4% versus 8% withdrawal rates

Posted By |

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub

On episode 289 of the Rational Reminder podcast, the guests were retirement spending researchers, David Blanchett, Michael Finke, and Wade Pfau.
The spark for this discussion was Dave Ramsey’s silly assertion that an 8% withdrawal rate is safe.  From there the podcast became a wide-ranging discussion of important retirement spending topics.  I highly recommend having a listen.

 

Here I collect some questions I would have liked to have asked these experts.

1. How should stock and bond valuations affect withdrawal rates and asset allocations?

It seems logical that retirees should spend a lower percentage of their portfolios when stocks or bonds become expensive.  However, it is not at all obvious how to account for valuations.  I made up two adjustments for my own retirement.  The first is that when Shiller’s CAPE exceeds 20, I reduce future stock return expectations by enough to bring the CAPE back to 20 by the end of my life.  These lower return expectations result in spending a lower percentage of my portfolio after doing some calculations that are similar to required minimum withdrawal calculations.  I have no justification for this adjustment other than that it feels about right.

The second adjustment is on equally shaky ground.  When the CAPE is above 25, I add the excess CAPE above 25 (as percentage points) to the bond allocation I would otherwise have chosen in the current year of my chosen glidepath.  Part of my reasoning is that when stock prices soar, I’d like to protect some of those gains at a time when I don’t need to take on as much risk.

Are there better ideas than these?  What about adjusting for high or low bond prices?

2. How confident can we be that the measured “retirement spending smile” reflects retiree desired spending levels?

I find that the retirement spending smile is poorly understood among advisors (but not the podcast guests).  In mathematical terms, if S(t) is real spending over time, then dS/dt has the smile shape.  Many advisors seem to think that the spending curve S(t) is shaped like a smile.  I’ve looked at many studies that examine actual retiree spending in different countries, and there is always evidence that a nontrivial cohort of retirees overspend early and have spending cuts forced upon them later.  Both overspending retirees and underspending retirees seem to have the dS/dt smile, but at different levels relative to the x-axis.  Overspenders have their spending decline quickly initially, then decline slower, and then decline quickly again.  Underspenders increase their real spending early on, then increase it slower, and finally increase it quickly at the end.

I don’t see why I should model my retirement on any data that includes retirees who experienced forced spending reductions.  The question is then how to exclude such data.  I saw in one of Dr. Blanchett’s papers that he attempted to exclude such data for his spending models.  Other papers don’t appear to exclude such data at all.  In the end, it becomes a matter of choosing how high the smile should be relative to the x-axis.  If it is high enough, the result becomes not much different from assuming constant inflation-adjusted spending. Continue Reading…

Vanguard S&P 500 is a third of my portfolio

Posted By |
Vanguard S&P 500

 

By Alain Guillot

Special to Financial Independence Hub

My investment strategy is to buy more every time I have more money. I don’t time the market. I know that investments (on the long run) will eventually go up.

No one knows when the market will tank or when it will rally. So why waste my brain energy trying to stay informed and anticipate, or react to the market? I just buy and buy some more.

When will I sell? Hopefully never, but the second best answer is: When I retire, when I need the money for personal living expenses. In that case, I will just take the money out when I need it, not when the market conditions are right (we never know when the market conditions are right).

Generally I divide my investment in three parts: 1/3 Canadian stocks, 1/3 U.S. stocks, and 1/3 international stocks.

I don’t know how much money I have made since I don’t know how to account for all the dividend payments I have been getting. But it’s a lot.

Investing in the stock market is safest way to invest your money. Yes, there is day to day volatility. If you learn how to ignore the new, the latest development, the latest emergency crisis, the latest election, you will be OK.

Of course, it’s not easy to avoid all the noise. Media companies spend billions of dollars every year finding new ways to capture your attention. The worst part is that “bad news” is a very potent attention-grabbing tool and many people fall victims of it. I have friends who have their money in cash, gold, or silver because the next financial catastrophe is coming. If they only knew how to calculate all the money they have left on the table, it’s worse than any catastrophe they have envisioned.

The bedrock of my U.S. investment is the Canadian dollar Vanguard S&P 500 Index; here is the symbol, VFV. It trades in the Toronto Stock Exchange. My strategy is to buy some more every December.

The Vanguard S&P is a fund that invests in the stocks of some of the largest companies in the United States.

This is a great investment because it’s well diversified and is made up of the stocks of the largest U.S. corporations. These large corporations tend to be stable with a solid record of profitability.

How much money can you earn?

We are not in the business of predicting the future, but here are some of the past results:

Rate of return investing on the S&P 500

As you can see the rate of return for 3 years is 42%, for 5 years is 66%, and for 10 is 304%. This is the best return you can get for your money. This is a great investment opportunity if you have the patience to wait for it.

How to invest in the Vanguard S&P 500

You can buy shared of the S&P 500 as you buy shares of any stock. Continue Reading…

Real Life Investment Strategies #2: Debunking Retirement Financial “Rules”

Posted By |

Should you Plan your Retirement Savings according to the 4% Withdrawal Rate Rule or 70% of Pre-Retirement Income Rule?

Lowrie Financial: Canva Custom Creation

By Steve Lowrie, CFA

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Last month, we kicked off our “Real Life Investment Strategies” series by taking on the geopolitical world. Today, we’re going to tackle an FAQ that hits closer to home.

Whether you’re an accumulator or preparing for retirement, how do you plan for saving AND spending your hard-earned cash in retirement?

My Answer: It depends.

All those popular retirement spending rules you hear about in the popular press or through your favourite financial guru really should be called guidelines. Augmenting blunt estimates with finer-pointed planning may not be as quickly accomplished. But it’s a far more effective way to plan for how much to save as you accumulate wealth, and how much to spend as you withdraw it. In fact, it’s best to consider retirement spending as being a variable process, versus a one-and-done equation.

Which is why it depends.

Let’s bend some Rules: the 4% Withdrawal Rate Rule & the 70% Pre-Retirement Income Rule

I do feel most popular retirement spending rules were made to be broken: or at least bent to fit your specific assumptions, and adjusted over time as you encounter various phases in your retirement lifestyle.

Take the 4% Retirement Rule, for example. The catchphrase has been around since 1994, when William Bengen published his Journal of Financial Planning paper, “Determining Withdrawal Rates Using Historical Data.” In it, Bengen suggested that under certain assumptions, retirees could avoid outliving their money by withdrawing no more than 4% of their wealth in the year they retire, and then adjusting this figure annually for inflation.

The 70% Retirement Rule is another popular retirement spending hack. Here you plan to spend no more than 70% of your pre-retirement income in retirement and save accordingly toward that figure. This is supposed to work because, in theory, retirees spend less in retirement to fulfill their lifestyle wants and needs.

There are many similar shortcuts for guesstimating your retirement numbers. It’s tempting to accept these simplified rules as close enough and assume they’re all you’ll need to proceed. But the thing is, while Bengen’s analysis was rightfully lauded as an innovative new way to think about withdrawal rates in retirement, I don’t think even he meant for the 4% figure to serve as a hard and fast rule for every retiree, under every assumption, throughout their entire retirement (during which your lifestyle is likely to evolve).

The same goes for the 70% rule, and similar retirement rules.

Financial Talking Heads’ Rants on Retirement withdrawal Rate and other Shenanigans

In lieu of rules of thumb, people are also known to follow the shotgun advice of popular financial gurus who spout sweeping generalities as perfect solutions for one and all.

A prime example is Dave Ramsey of The Ramsey Show, who recently assured listeners that an 8% retirement withdrawal rate should “last forever,” as long as you invest as he suggests. He said a 4% spending rate was “asinine,” based on calculations generated by “super nerds,”“goobers,” and “morons who live in their mother’s basement with a calculator.” He then goes on a Wizard of Oz tirade about flying monkeys stealing your ruby slippers. Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up. (Check out 01:19:20 in The Ramsey Show’s “You Can’t Win with Money if You Don’t Know Where Your Money Is”  podcast episode.)

Ramsey’s math is simple, which makes it appealing and easy to understand: “If you’re making 12 [percent] in good mutual funds and the S&P is averaging 11.8, and if inflation for the last 80 years is 4%, if you make 12 and you need to leave 4% in there for average inflation raises, that leaves you eight. So, I’m perfectly comfortable drawing eight. But if you want to be a little bit conservative, seven. But, sure, not five or three.”

In a Rational Reminder rebuttal episode, “Retiring Retirement Income Myths with the Retirement Income Dream Team,” my super-nerd friends (David Blanchett, the Managing Director and Head of Retirement Research for PGIM DC Solutions; Michael Finke, a distinguished professor of wealth management at the American College of Financial Services; and Wade Pfau, Director of Retirement Research at McLean Asset Management) offer what I believe is a considerably more realistic assessment of the market’s risks and expected rewards over time, with no monkey business involved:

Without going too heavily into the math, the two main counter arguments against an 8% withdrawal rate from the Retirement Income Dream Team are:

  • There can be large differences between geometric returns (what you earn in an investment) and arithmetic returns (the simple average). For example, an average 12% return doesn’t mean that a retiree’s portfolio grows by 12% per year. If $1 million invested in stocks falls by 20%, you now have $800,000. If it rises by 25% the next year, you’re back up to $1 million. The average return of -20% and positive 25% is 2.5%. But you still only have a million bucks. Your actual return was zero.
  • A 100% stock portfolio significantly increases the sequence of returns risk. For example, a U.S.-based investor, owning U.S. stocks in the 2000s and following an 8% withdrawal rule would have run out of money in as little as 13 years.
Source:  https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2023/11/13/supernerds-unite-against-dave-ramseys-8-safe-withdrawal-rate-guidance/

I would add from a behaviour side of things, that a 100% stock portfolio, especially during retirement would be virtually impossible to stick with.

When it comes to Retirement Savings, One Size rarely fits all

Besides, don’t you want your retirement numbers to be based on personalized levels of evidence and reason, instead of hope and hype? I know I do, which is why I treat sweeping assumptions and general rules of thumb as starting rather than ending points.

By necessity, generic advice involves making assumptions, often huge ones, that may or may not reflect your own realities. The original 4% Rule, for example, assumed the investor is investing their retirement nest egg in 50% stocks/50% bonds, held entirely in tax-sheltered accounts. It also assumed a 30-year retirement.

Not everyone wants or needs to invest this conservatively. At the other end of the spectrum, Ramsey appears to assume you’re going to put your entire nest egg in the U.S. stock market, mostly large-company growth. He also seems to assume (quite erroneously) that we can rely on this market to deliver an average 12% pre-inflation return forever.

My take: There’s nothing nerdy about wanting to avoid hoarding or squandering your wealth. If your retirement years are short enough, your income remains ample enough, and your market timing is lucky enough, spending 8% annually in retirement might be right for you. For others, even 4% is overly optimistic. Either way, I wouldn’t bank on any given number without first engaging in some serious reality checks, and revisiting your plans as you proceed.

Let’s return to our fictional investors to illustrate how real-life retirement planning, withdrawal rate, and spending works. Continue Reading…