Recently a friend asked, “Pat, I see that several prominent Canadian investor advisors recently wrote articles that said it’s a bad time to buy bonds right now. Do you agree?”
He was surprised when I told him I haven’t bought any bonds for myself since the 1990s. I haven’t bought any for clients in the last couple of decades, except on client request.
In the 1990s, I used to buy “strip bonds” for myself and my clients, as RRSP and RRIF investments. This was the Golden Age of bond investing. Back then, high-quality bonds yielded almost as much, pre-tax, as the historical returns on stocks. In addition, they provided fixed income that simplified financial planning.
Bonds have tax disadvantages, of course. But you can neutralize those disadvantages by holding your bonds in RRSPs and other registered plans.
The big difference back then was that bond yields and interest rates were much higher than usual. That’s because we were still coming out of (or “cleaning up after,” you might say) the inflationary bulge of the 1970s and 1980s.
In the 1980s, government policies pushed up interest rates and took other measures to hobble inflation, and it worked. But interest rates stayed high for a long time after the government polices broke the back of inflation: kind of like finishing the antibiotic after the infection goes away.
High-quality stocks vastly superior to Bonds
Long-time readers know my general view on the stocks-versus-bonds dilemma. When interest rates are as low as they have been in recent decades, high-quality stocks on the whole are vastly superior to bonds. (See below for a further explanation). However, you have to understand the differences between the two. For one thing, stocks are more volatile than bonds. But volatility and safety are two different things.
Volatility refers to sharp price fluctuations, often due to short-term uncertainty and the randomness of short-term market movements. Safety refers to the risk of permanent loss. Continue Reading…
Markets ended the first part of the year on a particularly sour note. Over the past four months, the MSCI All Country World Stock Index fell 12.9% in USD terms. High quality bonds, which have held up well in past episodes of stock market weakness, have failed to provide any relief, with the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Bond index falling 11.3%. Given the “nowhere to hide” atmosphere of markets, even a 60%/40% global balanced stock/bond portfolio suffered a loss of 12.3%. Markets have entered a phase which differs from what we have witnessed over the past several years (and arguably over the past 40). In the following, we have done our best to share some of our most closely held beliefs about markets and investing, which we hope can serve as a guidepost for helping investors navigate the current market regime.
It just doesn’t matter … until it does
Most of the time, it doesn’t matter much whether your portfolio is positioned aggressively, defensively, or anywhere in between. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the big money is made or lost during the most violent bull and bear markets.
Defining a “normal” return for any 12-month period as lying between -20% and 20%, the S&P 500 Index behaved normally during 65.7% of all rolling 12-month periods between 1990 and 2021. Of the remaining 34.3% of periods, 29.0% were great (above 20%) and 5.4% were awful (worse than -20%)
Average 12-Month returns during Normal, Great, and Awful periods:
As the table above demonstrates, during normal periods there has not been a significant difference in average returns between the S&P 500 Index, the Bloomberg U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, and a balanced portfolio consisting of 60% of the former and 40% of the latter. It is another story entirely during the 34.3% of the time when bull and bear markets are in their most dynamic stages. The good news is that there are some key signals and rules of thumb that offer decent probabilities of reaping respectable gains in major bull markets while avoiding the devastation from the worst phases of major bear markets.
Don’t fight the Fed
It is with good reason that the “Don’t fight the Fed” mantra has achieved impressive longevity and popularity. The monetary climate – primarily the trend in interest rates and central bank policies – is the dominant factor in determining both the stock market’s major direction as well as which types of stocks out or underperform (sectors, value vs. growth, etc.). Once established, the trend typically lasts from one to three years. When central banks are cutting rates and monetary conditions become more accommodating, it’s a good bet that it won’t be long before stocks deliver attractive returns. In late 2008/early 2009, central banks responded to the collapse in financial markets by cutting rates aggressively and embarking on quantitative easing programs. This spurred a rapid recovery in asset prices. Similarly, to offset the economic fallout of the Covid pandemic, monetary authorities flooded the global economy with money, which acted as rocket fuel for stocks. Conversely, when central banks are raising rates and tightening the screws on the economy, the effect can range from limiting equity market gains to causing a full-fledged bear market (not an attractive distribution of outcomes). Once the Fed began hiking rates in mid-1999, it wasn’t long before stocks found themselves in the throes of a vicious bear market that cut the S&P 500 Index in half over the next two to three years. Similarly, when the Fed raised its target rate from 1% in mid-2004 to 5.25% by mid-2006, it set the stage for a nasty collapse in debt, equity, and real estate prices. When it comes to stocks, bonds, real estate, or most other asset classes, it’s all fun and games until rates go up, which ultimately causes things to break.
Markets don’t care what you think: NEVER fight the tape
The importance of not fighting major movements in markets cannot be overemphasized. Repeat as necessary: Fighting the tape is an open invitation to disaster. This advice not only applies to the general level of stock prices, but also to the relative performance of different sectors, value vs. growth, etc.
Ignorance, which can cause people to fight market trends, is a valid justification for making mistakes during the earlier stages of one’s investment experience. But after suffering the consequences, there are neither any excuses nor mercy when you fight the tape a third or fourth time. The markets only allow so many mistakes before they obliterate your wallet. The perils of following rather than fighting trends are well summarized by investing legend Marty Zweig, who compared fighting the tape and trying to pick a bottom during a bear market to catching a falling safe. Zweig stated: “If you buy aggressively into a bear market, it is akin to trying to catch a falling safe. Investors are sometimes so eager for its valuable contents that they will ignore the laws of physics and attempt to snatch the safe from the air as if it were a pop fly. You can get hurt doing this: witness the records of the bottom pickers on the street. Not only is this game dangerous, it is pointless as well. It is easier, safer, and, in almost all cases, just as rewarding to wait for the safe to hit the pavement and take a little bounce before grabbing the contents.” To be clear, there is no free lunch in investing. Being on the right side of major market moves necessitates getting whipsawed over the short-term every now and then. Inevitably, you will sometimes be zagging when you should be zigging and zigging when you should be zagging. You can get head faked into cutting risk only to watch in frustration as markets rebound, and you can also get tricked into becoming aggressive just before a decline in stock prices. The stark reality is that only geniuses and/or liars buy at the lows preceding major uptrends and exit the very top before the onset of bear markets. Realistically, you can only hope to catch (or avoid) the bulk of the big moves. Getting whipsawed every now and then is a small price to pay for reaping attractive returns during the good times while avoiding large bear market losses.
You don’t need to be perfect. But you’d better be flexible
It doesn’t matter whether you are an aggressive or conservative investor, so long as you are a flexible one. The problem with most portfolios (even professionally managed ones) is that they are not flexible. Conservative investors tend to stick with defensive portfolios heavily weighted in high grade bonds, utility stocks, etc. They never reap huge gains, but they also never get badly hurt. Aggressive investors, on the other hand, often buy risky stocks or speculate in real estate using high degrees of leverage. They make fortunes in boom times only to lose it all in bad times when the proverbial tide recedes.
Neither approach is sound by itself. Being aggressive is okay, but there are nonetheless times to gear down and be a wallflower. By the same token, there are market environments in which even conservative investors should be somewhat aggressive. Continue Reading…
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) stepped into the limelight in 2021. As more people began putting their money into them, NFTs became part of our everyday vocabulary. NFT investments gained worldwide popularity to reach a market value of over US$40 billion. But like most financial assets, this new cryptographic asset also presents lucrative opportunities for scammers.
In this article, we’ll dive into the five most common NFT scams and how you can avoid NFT fraud.
1. Phishing scams
You need to sign up for a digital wallet to transact on the Ethereum blockchain. The most popular Ethereum wallet for NFT collectors is MetaMask, which was recently targeted in a phishing scam. The NFT scam involves fake advertisements asking users for their wallet keys or their security seed phrases. These fake pop-ups operate on social channels such as Telegram, Discord, and other forums redirecting users to a landing page that looks like MetaMask or other popular websites. A successful phishing attempt can wipe out all the cryptocurrency in your digital wallet.
How to avoid
Write your seed phrase down on paper. Don’t store a photo of it on your phone, and never give it to anyone.
Always visit the verified website directly for all your crypto transactions – not through links, pop-ups, or emails.
Never enter information into the MetaMask pop-up or any other pop-ups.
2. Pump and Dump NFT scams
Pump-and-dump schemes arise when a group of people buys a bunch of NFTs or currency to drive their demand up artificially. After successfully raising its worth, these experienced scammers cash out by selling their NFTs to the highest bidder.
How to avoid
Monitor, track or follow the project on Twitter and join its Discord channel to see if it has a good number of engaged collectors and investors.
Review the wallet records and transaction history of the desired NFT. If there are several transactions around one date, it can be a red flag.
3. Catfishing
Since NFTs are virtual investments, their marketing happens on social media, making them vulnerable to catfishing. Moreover, popular NFT communities hire social media influencers and celebrities to promote NFTs; this makes it difficult to tell the real NFTs from the fake ones.
My reaction is, they need not worry too much about any FIRE movement. I believe some financial planners might have bigger issues to contend with. More on that in a bit.
Why is FIRE so hot?
As a refresher, FIRE stands for “Financial Independence Retire Early.”
Some FIRE investors strive to save as much of their income as possible during their working years, hoping to attain financial independence at a young age and maintain it through the rest of their life: aka retirement.
A common goal of many FIRE-seekers is to build enough capital and wealth whereby they can largely live off their portfolio value in perputuity or thereabouts. Some of them even leverage an outdated financial study to help them realize their goal: the 4% rule.
The 4% rule (a general guide for a sustained safe withdrawal rate (SWR)) used by many early retirees, was the result of using historical market performance data from 1926 to 1992 by U.S. financial planner Bill Bengen. In general terms, the “4% rule” says that you can withdraw “safely” 4% of your savings each year (and increase it every year by the rate of inflation) from the time you retire and have a very high probability you’ll never run out of money.
However, the first challenge of many related to this rule is that this study was published almost 30 years ago. A lot has changed since then, including real returns from bonds. There are also products on the market now that allow investors to diversify far beyond the mix of large-cap U.S. stocks and treasuries that the Bengen study was based on. In fact, the abundance of low-cost investing products should be what many financial planners should fear the most, a point I’ll come back to soon.
Certainly, in my personal finance and investing circles, I don’t know of many FIRE-seekers that live by any strict 4% rule. Thank goodness they don’t.
The 4% rule was based on a 30-year retirement horizon. However, a FIRE investor’s retirement could last 50 years or even more. So, while spending in line with the 4% rule could give an early retiree a very good chance at not outliving their money, a 50-year “retirement” timeline could be disasterous if said early retiree was striving to live through a prolonged period of low stock market returns.
This rule was used to demonstrate a safe withdrawal rate associated with only U.S. assets: a mix of U.S. stocks and treasuries to be more exact. There is little doubt that if an investor uses a broader, more globally diversified portfolio with U.S. and international assets leading the way, I suspect their chances of financial success would increase. In fact, Vanguard said they would.
Finally, the 4% rule assumes a constant dollar-plus-inflation spending strategy: straight-line thinking that assumes your spending will follow a very linear path over many retirement decades. My hunch is: of course that won’t happen. Sure, maybe in the first retirement year you spend your desired 4% and at best, maybe next year you spend a bit more accounting for inflation. However, just like asset accumulation is dynamic so will your spending patterns be in retirement. This means you should strongly consider a Variable Percentage Withdrawal (VPW) approach that largely takes into account the flexibility to raise your spending “in good years” and decrease your spending in “bad years.”
With any retirement drawdown plan, the ability to operate in a spending range will be very key to the longevity of your portfolio. I hope to follow some form of this approach myself in semi-retirement.
Which brings me back to our case study in the Financial Post.
Why financial planners shouldn’t be worried about FIRE
For Kristy and Bryce, their goal was always financial independence and not so much the retire early part. As Kristy explained on my site:
“The idea of retiring from our job and living off passive income seemed so weird and foreign to us, so at first we dismissed it as an idea that only tech entrepreneurs or trust fund babies could pull off. Then we woke up and realized our savings had hit half a million bucks, and we were like “Hey, why not us?””
Why not indeed.
And so, by living off about $40,000 per year (you can see one of their income reports here), travelling and writing (likely earning some money from their blog and book), they’ve realized their goal of financial independence and then some. Six years past their “retirement date” their portfolio is now worth a cool $1.8 million thanks to a major market bull run in recent years.
However, there are some financial planners in that post that argue there is no magic in personal finance.
“People make money off putting out something that seems magical … like the latte factor. I’ll just skip a cup of coffee every day, and you get rich. But the math doesn’t work — unless you’re having 17 lattes a day.”
While true, citing longevity risk from these planners as yet another major risk for Kristy and Bryce to contend with is definitely reaching here. To argue that our millennial millionaire couple has to worry about spending $40,000 or so per year from a $1.8 million portfolio is a “problem” many Canadians would love to have.
The FIRE movement has been great for many reasons, and people have been doing it for decades before it became an internet thing. FIRE-seekers have: Continue Reading…
Mutual funds stir up heated debates all across the internet. Fund companies sing their praises while others say they are taking you to the cleaners. It can be confusing – are they good or bad? What’s the real deal with mutual funds?
A game-changer for investors
Mutual funds democratized the stock market, making investing accessible to more people, and this was a very good thing. Before the popularization of mutual funds in the 1950s, it was more difficult to get your money invested in the stock market: you needed a stock broker to buy stocks for you and you needed a fair amount of money.
The idea behind a mutual fund is simple: collect money from a group of people and hire professional money managers to invest this pool of money into dozens of stocks, generating a return for the investors. It’s the pooling of money that is so powerful: it allows a fund to be diversified, giving investors exposure to a myriad of stocks instead of just a few.
As an individual investor, you’d need a lot of money to get that kind of diversification. And whereas a broker would charge a large commission for every trade, a mutual fund has economies of scale, making the costs lower overall. Plus, as a mutual fund investor you don’t need to know one single thing about the stock market. What a win for the masses!
The downside
So why do mutual funds get a bad rap sometimes? It’s mainly because sales practices around mutual funds have a muddied history. Investment advisors who are making recommendations to their clients about what to invest in might be influenced by sales commissions, possibly encouraging them to put their clients’ money into funds that pay them the most commission. Worse, these commissions (and other perks that used to be permitted) were not always properly disclosed to clients. Regulations have improved in this area, but sales commissions can still influence an advisor’s choice of funds.Continue Reading…
Posted By 
Posted By 
