All posts by Financial Independence Hub

Are Dividend investors leading the charge?

Posted By |

 

By Dale Roberts

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Where have all of the investors gone? It’s no surprise that “advised” Canadian mutual fund investors have been bailing on the wealth building thing. Most of them are sold high-fee funds and see little or no advice. They lose out on two counts. And in 2022 even ETF investors have largely bailed on buying growth assets (stocks and REITs) as they go on sale. The ETF’ers are moving to cash ETFs and bonds. Where I see continued enthusiasm (OK, they are rabid) is in the Canadian dividend investor camp. They love the lower prices that can bring bigger dividend payments. Dividend investors are leading the charge on the Sunday Reads.

ETFs gained while mutual funds felt pain in 2022.

From that Advisor’s Edge post …

As of the end of November, Canadian mutual funds had outflows of $35.6 billion in 2022, or 2% of 2021 year-end assets, National Bank Financial (NBF) said in a report on Jan. 5th. (Full-year mutual fund data is yet to come.)

“Only money market mutual funds recorded inflows, an indication of the capital-preservation mode that informed many investor decisions this year,” it said.

During 2021’s rising markets, mutual fund sales soared to a dramatic record-breaking $112 billion, outselling ETFs for the first time since 2018.

ETFs back on top

Canadian ETF inflows in 2022 landed back on top, with a “whopping” $35.5 billion in net flows in 2022, or 10% or of 2021 year-end assets, the report said.

As part of tactical positioning, cash-alternative ETFs were a “major story” of 2022, the report said, describing them as “an inflow darling” since the first such fund was launched in 2013. In 2022, the funds more than doubled in assets to $15 billion amid the year’s bond selloff. CI High Interest Savings ETF was the fund with the most inflow ($3.2 billion) for the year.

Equity ETFs scored $13 billion in 2022, or about 37% of ETF net flows.

(Back to Dale)

The move to safety

So while ETF investors did add equities in modest fashion, there was a greater move to safety: cash and bonds. Of course, we’re supposed to do the opposite: buy more growth assets as they go on sale. You know that ‘be greedy when others are fearful’ Warren Buffett kind of thinking.

I’ve continued to ask readers:  what stocks and ETFs are you buying? That post was from the end of September. Looking back that was near the bottom for 2022. Stocks have bounced back modestly from the time of the post. We could go below September of 2022 prices or not. Who knows? But sale prices are good, that we know.

On Findependence Hub: how to navigate the coming worldwide recession.

Dividend investors are on FIRE

While focusing (too much) on the dividends can have its drawbacks, there’s no denying that dividend investing leads to very good behaviour. I am truly pleased to see that Canadian dividend investors (friends) are chomping at the bit to buy more stocks and greater dividends.

On My Own Advisor, Mark offers the Weekend Reading: Dividends on FIRE edition. Thanks to Mark for including my Canadian Wide Moat Stock Portfolio update.

In Mark’s post you’ll find a few portfolio and dividend focused updates for the investing year of 2022. Included in the mix – drip investor, and Jordan at Money Maaster.

Mark also offered his recent portfolio update.

Rob at Passive Canadian Income updated his dividend and portfolio performance for December in this post.

Totals For 2022

Dividends Year To Date Total – $10,692.84
Other Passive Income Year to date – $13,491.23
Total Passive Income for 2022 —– $24,184.07
Year End Goal – $25,000

Canadian stocks are offering very good value these days. Kyle delivered a very good post on MoneySense – Making sense of the markets. Kyle included some very good broader market and investment commentary. And on Canadian stocks …

Our current P/E valuation discount relative to the U.S.’s S&P 500 shows that as a group, Canadian stocks are substantially cheaper than in the past when compared to American stocks.

That crazy good savings rate

For some inspiration Bob offers 9 weird things he did to save money in his 20s. Bob has always had a crazy (good) savings rate. That is certainly one of the keys to building wealth. It’s not what you make, but what you keep, and then what and how you invest. Continue Reading…

Searching for a Safe Withdrawal Rate: the Effect of Sampling Block Size

Posted By |
Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

How much can we spend from a portfolio each year in retirement?  An early answer to this question came from William Bengen and became known as the 4% rule.  Recently, Ben Felix reported on research showing that it’s more sensible to use a 2.7% rule.

Here, I examine how a seemingly minor detail, the size of the sampling blocks of stock and bond returns, affects the final conclusion of the safe withdrawal percentage.  It turns out to make a significant difference.  In my usual style, I will try to make my explanations understandable to non-specialists.

The research

Bengen’s original 4% rule was based on U.S. stock and bond returns for Americans retiring between 1926 and 1976.  He determined that if these hypothetical retirees invested 50-75% in stocks and the rest in bonds, they could spend 4% of their portfolios in their first year of retirement and increase this dollar amount with inflation each year, and they wouldn’t run out of money within 30 years.

Researchers Anarkulova, Cederburg, O’Doherty, and Sias observed that U.S. markets were unusually good in the 20th century, and that foreign markets didn’t fare as well.  Further, there is no reason to believe that U.S. markets will continue to perform as well in the future.  They also observed that people often live longer in retirement than 30 years.

Anarkulova et al. collected worldwide market data as well as mortality data, and found that the safe withdrawal rate (5% chance of running out of money) for 65-year olds who invest within their own countries is only 2.26%!  In follow-up communications with Felix, Cederburg reported that this increases to 2.7% for retirees who diversify their investments internationally.

Sampling block size

One of the challenges of creating a pattern of plausible future market returns is that we don’t have very much historical data.  A century may be a long time, but 100 data points of annual returns is a very small sample.

Bengen used actual market data to see how 51 hypothetical retirees would have fared.  Anarkulova et al. used a method called bootstrapping.  They ran many simulations to generate possible market returns by choosing blocks of years randomly and stitching them together to fill a complete retirement.

They chose the block sizes randomly (with a geometric distribution) with an average length of 10 years.  If the block sizes were exactly 10 years long, this means that the simulator would go to random places in the history of market returns and grab enough 10-year blocks to last a full retirement.  Then the simulator would test whether a retiree experiencing this fictitious return history would have run out of money at a given withdrawal rate.

In reality, the block sizes varied with the average being 10 years.  This average block size might seem like an insignificant detail, but it makes an important difference.  After going through the results of my own experiments, I’ll give an intuitive explanation of why the block size matters.

My contribution

I decided to examine how big a difference this block size makes to the safe withdrawal percentage.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the data set of market returns Anarkulova et al. used.  I chose to create a simpler setup designed to isolate the effect of sampling block size.  I also chose to use a fixed retirement length of 40 years rather than try to model mortality tables.

A minor technicality is that when I started a block of returns late in my dataset and needed a block extending beyond the end of the dataset, I wrapped around to the beginning of the dataset.  This isn’t ideal, but it is the same across all my experiments here, so it shouldn’t affect my goal to isolate the effect of sampling block size.

I obtained U.S. stock and bond returns going back to 1926.  Then I subtracted a fixed amount from all the samples.  I chose this fixed amount so that for a 40-year retirement, a portfolio 75% in stocks, and using a 10-year average sampling block size, the 95% safe withdrawal rate came to 2.7%.  The goal here was to use a data set that matches the Anarkulova et al. dataset in the sense that it gives the same safe withdrawal rate.  I used this dataset of reduced U.S. market returns for all my experiments.

I then varied the average block size from 1 to 25 years, and simulated a billion retirements in each case to find the 95% safe withdrawal rate.  This first set of results was based on investing 75% in stocks.  I repeated this process for portfolios with only 50% in stocks.  The results are in the following chart.

The chart shows that the average sample size makes a significant difference.  For comparison, I also found the 100% safe withdrawal rate for the case where a herd of retirees each start their retirement in a different year of the available return data in the dataset.  In this case, block samples are unbroken (except for wrapping back to 1926 when necessary) and cover the whole retirement.  This 100% safe withdrawal rate was 3.07% for 75% stocks, and 3.09% for 50% stocks.

I was mainly concerned with the gap between two cases: (1) the case similar to the Anarkulova et al. research where the average sampling block size is 10 years and we seek a 95% success probability, and (2) the 100% success rate for a herd of retirees case described above.  For 75% stock portfolios, this gap is 0.37%, and it is 0.32% for portfolios with 50% stocks.

In my opinion, it makes sense to add an estimate of this gap back onto the Anarkulova et al. 95% safe withdrawal rate of 2.7% to get a more reasonable estimate of the actual safe withdrawal rate.  I will explain my reasons for this after the following explanation of why sampling block sizes make a difference.

Why do sampling block sizes matter?

It is easier to understand why block size in the sampling process makes a difference if we consider a simpler case.  Suppose that we are simulating 40-year retirements by selecting two 20-year return histories from our dataset.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s take all our 20-year return histories and order them from best to worst, and call the bottom 25% of them “poor.”

If we examine the poor 20-year return histories, we’ll find that, on average, stock valuations were above average at the start of the 20-year periods and below average at the end.  We’ll also find that investor sentiment about stocks will tend to be optimistic at the start and pessimistic at the end.  This won’t be true of all poor 20-year periods, but it will be true on average.

When the simulator chooses two poor periods in a row to build a hypothetical retirement, there will often be a disconnect in the middle.  Stock valuations will jump from low to high and investor sentiment from low to high instantaneously, without any corresponding instantaneous change in stock prices.  This can’t happen in the real world. Continue Reading…

All good things must come to an end: There by the grace of Paul Volcker went Asset Prices

Posted By |
Image courtesy Creative Commons/Outcome

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

During the OPEC oil embargo of the early 1970s, the price of oil jumped from roughly $24 to almost $65 in less than a year, causing a spike in the cost of many goods and services and igniting runaway inflation.

At that time, the workforce was much more unionized, with many labour agreements containing cost of living wage adjustments which were triggered by rising inflation.

The resulting increases in workers’ wages spurred further inflation, which in turn caused additional wage increases and ultimately led to a wage-price spiral.The consumer price index, which stood at 3.2% in 1972, rose to 11.0% by 1974. It then receded to a range of 6%-9% for four years before rebounding to 13.5% in 1980.

Image New York Times/Outcome

After being appointed Fed Chairman in 1979, Paul Volcker embarked on a vicious campaign to break the back of inflation, raising rates as high as 20%. His steely resolve brought inflation down to 3.2% by the end of 1983, setting the stage for an extended period of low inflation and falling interest rates. The decline in rates was turbocharged during the global financial crisis and the Covid pandemic, which prompted the Fed to adopt extremely stimulative policies and usher in over a decade of ultra-low rates.

Importantly, Volcker’s take no prisoners approach was largely responsible for the low inflation, declining rate, and generally favourable investment environment that prevailed over the next four decades.

How declining Interest Rates affect Asset Prices: Let me count the ways

The long-term effects of low inflation and declining rates on asset prices cannot be understated. According to [Warren] Buffett:

“Interest rates power everything in the economic universe. They are like gravity in valuations. If interest rates are nothing, values can be almost infinite. If interest rates are extremely high, that’s a huge gravitational pull on values.”

On the earnings front, low rates make it easier for consumers to borrow money for purchases, thereby increasing companies’ sales volumes and revenues. They also enhance companies’ profitability by lowering their cost of capital and making it easier for them to invest in facilities, equipment, and inventory. Lastly, higher profits and asset prices create a virtuous cycle – they cause a wealth effect where people feel richer and more willing to spend, thereby further spurring company profits and even higher asset prices.

Declining rates also exert a huge influence on valuations. The fair value of a company can be determined by calculating the present value of its future cash flows. As such, lower rates result in higher multiples, from elevated P/E ratios on stocks to higher multiples on operating income from real estate assets, etc.

The effects of the one-two punch of higher earnings and higher valuations unleashed by decades of falling rates cannot be overestimated. Stocks had an incredible four decade run, with the S&P 500 Index rising from a low of 102 in August 1982 to 4,796 by the beginning of 2022, producing a compound annual return of 10.3%. For private equity and other levered strategies, the macroeconomic backdrop has been particularly hospitable, resulting in windfall profits.

It is with good reason and ample evidence that investing legend Marty Zweig concluded:

“In the stock market, as with horse racing, money makes the mare go. Monetary conditions exert an enormous influence on stock prices. Indeed, the monetary climate – primarily the trend in interest rates and Federal Reserve policy – is the dominant factor in determining the stock market’s major direction.”

To be sure, there are other factors that provided tailwinds for markets over the last 40 years. Advances in technology and productivity gains bolstered profit margins. Limited military conflict undoubtedly played its part. Increased globalization and China’s massive contributions to global productive capacity also contributed to a favourable investment climate. These influences notwithstanding, 40 years of declining interest rates and cheap money have likely been the single greatest driver of rising asset prices.

All Good things must come to an End

The low inflation which enabled central banks to maintain historically low rates and keep the liquidity taps flowing has reversed course. In early 2021, inflation exploded through the upper band of the Fed’s desired range, prompting it to begin raising rates and embark on one of the quickest rate-hiking cycles in history. Continue Reading…

Can you Invest solely in ETFs?

Posted By |

 Special to the Financial Independence Hub

As regular readers of MillionDollarJourney know, we are big fans of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) which are one of the fastest growing products in the market.

Were it not for the fact that financial firms and advisors have less incentives to sell ETFs than other investments such as mutual funds (that provide them with annual fees), the growth would probably be even more spectacular.

Having said that, ETFs don’t always have the best performance, and are sometimes outperformed significantly by other investment options. This also means that over years, the standard composition of most ETFs has shifted – with fixed income, commodities and FX now representing a much larger piece of the pie.

For most investors, ETFs represent the easiest and cheapest way to gain exposure in a variety of different sectors or asset classes. Investing in currencies or commodities was done by pension funds or hedge funds only a few years ago but it is now just as easy to do so for individual investors.

It might not be 100%, but a very large majority of individuals and professionals believe that portfolio diversification represents an important way to gain the same return but with lower risk. 20 years ago that meant buying bonds, private investments, etc. The major problem with that strategy is illiquid investments are often very expensive if you are not pouring a major amount of capital.

A prime example is looking at the prices of a bond when you are buying $50,000 worth. It is understandable of course that sellers will give better prices to buyers of millions of dollars as it is an easier trade for them. Take a few percentage points here and there and you will see just how much of an impact it can have over a life of savings and investing.

Investing in ETFs – Pros and Cons

So, should you invest mostly (or only) in ETFs? Here are some of the common pros and cons to help you decide:

ETF Investing Advantages

  • Most diversified
  • More tax efficient (read our article on capital gains in Canada)
  • Easiest and quickest way to invest

ETF Investing Disadvantges

  • Costs can be high, depending on the broker you use
  • Still has some investing risks

Should Canadians invest only in ETFs?

In many ways, ETFs provide a viable alternative as they offer the opportunity to get broad (corporate bonds) or specific (1-3 year treasuries) positions that will not cost you much in terms of commission.  Furthermore, ETFs will get you much better pricing and potentially much improved returns over the long term. Continue Reading…

How to navigate a coming Worldwide recession

Posted By |
Source: myownadvisor and https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/recession

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub

According to the largest asset manager firm in the world (BlackRock), policymakers will no longer be able to support markets as much as they did during past recessions – so we have been warned – a team of BlackRock strategists led by vice chairman Philipp Hildebrand wrote in a report titled 2023 Global Outlook.

“Recession is foretold as central banks race to try to tame inflation. It’s the opposite of past recessions,” they said. “Central bankers won’t ride to the rescue when growth slows in this new regime, contrary to what investors have come to expect. Equity valuations don’t yet reflect the damage ahead.”

The report went on to say “The old playbook of simply ‘buying the dip’ doesn’t apply in this regime of sharper trade-offs and greater macro volatility. We don’t see a return to conditions that will sustain a joint bull market in stocks and bonds of the kind we experienced in the prior decade.”

I reflected on this report recently. How is an investor to cope?

Well, I think the “old playbook” is actually something I’ve already started to think about for the “new playbook” and maybe you have as well …

  1. Directionally, i.e., longer-term than one year or so, stay with equities. Lots of them. In fact, to be specific, consider infrastructure stocks in particular. BlackRock: “We see some opportunities in infrastructure. From roads to airports and energy infrastructure, these assets are essential to industry and households alike. Infrastructure has the potential to benefit from increased demand for capital over the long term, powered by structural trends such as the energy crunch and digitalization.”
  2. Tactically, i.e., within the next year, if you need that money balance, consider bonds. Yes, consider fixed income again. According to BlackRock: “In fixed income, the return of income and carry has boosted the allure of certain bonds, especially short term. We don’t think leaning into broad indexes or asset allocation blocks is the correct approach. We stay underweight long-term nominal bonds as we see term premium returning due to persistent inflation, high debt loads and thinning market liquidity.” Meaning, if you are going to own some bonds, stay short and own short-duration bonds.

I come back to Ben Carlson’s thesis (that I agree with) after reading this recent BlackRock global outlook report when it comes to bonds. There are absolutely good reasons to own bonds, but it’s more for the near-term variety:

  1. Bonds can help your investing behaviour – helping you ride out stock market volatility – including being strategic to buy more stocks soon.
  2. Bonds can be used to rebalance your portfolio – helping you keep your portfolio aligned to your investing risk tolerance and therefore asset allocation (mix of stocks and bonds).
  3. Bonds can be used for spending purposes – where some fixed income is “king” for major, upcoming, near-term spending.

The main reason I would keep any bonds (and I still don’t have any right now) is if I was saving for a major purchase in a few years (e.g., secondary residence?). Then, I would like rely on some form of fixed income between now and then to help secure that purchase. Otherwise, an interest savings account in the short-term will do that and/or some 1 or 2-year GICs are a great consideration as well as part of any bucket strategy.

Personally, I believe the main role of fixed income in your portfolio is essentially safety – not the investment returns and not the cash flow needs. In other words, if all else fails per se, if/when stocks crash, then bonds should historically speaking offer a flight to safety for preserving principal.

So, they are there for diversification purposes.

As Andrew Hallam, a Millionaire Teacher has so kindly put it over the years: when stocks fall hard, bonds act like parachutes for your portfolio. Bonds might not always rise when the equity markets drop. But broad bond market indexes don’t crash like stocks do.

Is that enough to own bonds in your portfolio? Maybe.

For now, I’m going to continue living with stocks: a mix of dividend-paying stocks (including infrastructure stocks that BlackRock likes for the year or so ahead) AND owning low-cost equity ETFs for growth.

I will also grow my cash wedge to my desired safety net by the end of 2023 too. That’s one year’s worth of spending/expenses held in cash that will form Bucket 1 below. That first bucket is an insulator from my dividend and growth equities.

Your mileage may vary. Continue Reading…