General

The Benefits of Geographic Diversification for your Portfolio

Posted By |
TSInetwork.ca

One key factor in successful investing — apart of course from picking good stocks (or ETFs that invest in those stocks) — is to diversify your portfolio.

Our main suggestion would be to make sure that your holdings are always well-balanced among most if not all of the five economic sectors: Manufacturing, Consumer, Utilities, Resources, and Finance.

That way, you avoid overloading yourself with stocks that are about to slump simply because of industry conditions or changes in investor fashion.

By diversifying across the sectors, you also increase your chances of stumbling upon a market superstar: a stock that does two to three or more times better than the market average. These stocks come along every year. By nature, though, their appearance is unpredictable.

It’s also essential to diversify within each sector. For example, you shouldn’t let technology stocks dominate your Manufacturing holdings, nor let telecommunications or phone stocks dominate your Utilities holdings.

What about geographic diversification?

We’ve long said that most Canadian investors should hold the bulk of their portfolio in high-quality, dividend-paying Canadian stocks well balanced across the five sectors (or ETFs that hold those stocks).

We also feel that virtually all Canadian investors should have, say, 20% to 30% of their portfolios in U.S. stocks (many of which also offer you international exposure through their foreign operations).

Beyond that, top international stocks or ETFs can also add valuable diversification to your portfolio—through exposure to foreign businesses and to foreign currencies.

To demonstrate how geographical diversification can benefit investors, we examined the risks and returns of an ETF portfolio consisting of 50% Canadian equities, 30% U.S. equities, and with 20% in equities around the rest of the world. We then compared the risk and returns of this diversified portfolio with a broad Canada-only index.

Geographic diversification can cut risk and raise returns

Our results showed that the risk of the diversified portfolio was lower than the Canadian-only portfolio, while the returns were higher. Continue Reading…

Justwealth: The advantages of Evidence-based Investing

Posted By |

 

One of the most important developments in the financial world in recent years has been the growth of evidence-based investing. But what exactly is it? In the first of a new series of exclusive articles for Justwealth, the UK based author and journalist Robin Powell explains why founding your investment strategy on four basic principles can dramatically improve your chances of achieving your long-term goals.

By Robin Powell, The Evidence-Based Investor 

Special to Financial Independence Hub

It takes between seven and nine years to train to be a doctor in Canada. For surgeons it takes as many as 14. Even then, both doctors and surgeons are required to engage in continuous learning throughout their careers.

Becoming a financial adviser, investment consultant or money manager is considerably less onerous. What’s more, unless you deliberately set out to defraud your clients, you’re unlikely to be stripped of your right to operate.

Of course, there are still examples of poor medical practice. It was only as recently as the early 1990s that a group of epidemiologists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, first coined the phrase evidence-based medicine. Sadly, though, professional malpractice in the investing industry is far more common, and there are many who have worked in it for decades and yet act as if they have little or no grasp of the evidence on how investing works.

A glaring illustration of this is a study published in May 2018 called The Misguided Belief of Financial Advisers. The researchers analyzed the returns achieved by around 4,400 advisers across Canada: both for their clients and for themselves. They found that the advisers made the same mistakes investing their own money as they did when investing their clients’ money.

For example, they traded too frequently, chased returns, preferred expensive, actively managed funds, and weren’t sufficiently diversified. All of those things have been shown, time and again, to lead to lower returns. On average, the clients of the advisers analyzed underperformed the market by around three per cent a year: a huge margin.

What is evidence-based investing?

In recent years, we’ve seen the development of what’s called evidence-based investing (EBI). Like evidence-based medicine, it entails the ongoing critical appraisal of evidence, rather than relying on traditional practices or expert opinions.

So what sort of evidence are we talking about? Essentially there are four main elements to the evidence that underpins EBI.

First, the evidence is based on research that is genuinely independent; in other words, the research wasn’t paid for or subsidized by organizations with a vested interest in the outcome.

Secondly, it’s peer-reviewed. This means that the findings are published in a peer-reviewed journal which is closely examined by experts on the subject.

Thirdly, the evidence is time-tested. Investment strategies often succeed over short time periods, but fail over longer ones. Investors should disregard any evidence that hasn’t stood the test of time.

Finally, the evidence results from rigorous data analysis. As everyone knows, data can be very misleading if it hasn’t been properly analysed.

The good news is that, even when all four of these filters are strictly applied, there is still plenty of evidence to inform our investment decisions. Since the 1950s, finance departments at universities across the globe have produced many thousands of relevant studies.

What does the evidence tell us?

What, then, are the main lessons from academic research on investing? This is a wide-ranging subject, and one we’ll look at in more detail in future articles, but there are four main takeaways.

Markets are broadly efficient

Because markets are competitive and prices reflect all knowable information, it’s very hard to identify stocks, bonds or entire asset classes which are either undervalued or overvalued at any one time. No, prices aren’t perfect, but they’re the most reliable guide we have as to how much a security is worth.

Diversification is an investor’s friend

It’s vital for investors to diversify across different asset classes, economic sectors and regions of the world. As well as reducing your risk, diversification can also improve your returns in the long run, and it is rightly referred to as “the only free lunch in investing.”

Costs make a big difference

The investing industry and the media tend to focus on investment performance. But while performance comes and goes, fees and charges never falter. Continue Reading…

Then and Now – Revisiting the need for bonds

Posted By |
Image courtesy myownadvisor/Pexels

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub

It has been said bonds make bad times better.

Is this the reason to own bonds?

Welcome to another Then and Now post, a continuation of my series where I revisit some older blogposts and either rip them to shreds (because my thinking has totally changed on such subjects) or I’ll confirm my position on various personal finance topics or specific stock and ETF investments.

Since my last Then and Now post (whereby I shared I sold out of all Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) stock to buy other equities in recent years), I figured it might be interesting to review this post and update my thinking from a few years ago before the pandemic hit – on bonds.

Then – on bonds

Back in 2015 when the original post was shared, I referenced this quote that frames my own portfolio management approach when it comes to my bias to owning stocks over bonds:

“If you want to make the most money, you should invest in stocks. But if you want to keep the money you made in stocks, you should invest in bonds.” – Paul Merriman.

Bonds are essentially parachutes when equity markets fall; bonds will cushion the portfolio landing. And equity markets can fail big at times!

While I understand there are different ways to measure the “equity risk premium,” the summary IMO is the same: the risk premium is the measure of the additional return that investors demand or expect for taking on a particular kind of risk, relative to some alternative.

Buy a bond and hold it until it matures and you know what you will get back.

Invest in equities and the range of outcomes is wide.

With equities, you could make a lot of money, but you could lose a lot.

Equities have to have a higher expected return to compensate investors for taking on this risk.

Otherwise, if the risk premium is not there – why bother with stocks at all?

Now – on bonds

That’s the rub these days, for many investors. Why invest in stocks when interest rates are higher and you can earn 4-5% essentially risk-free?

Of course, there is no way of knowing how equities or bonds will perform until returns for each happen. You can consider rebalancing your portfolio from time to time between stocks and bonds because you expect equities will do better longer-term but that doesn’t mean they will short-term.

Which brings me back to this: risk is the price of the entry ticket to buy and hold stocks. Continue Reading…

An Evidence-based guide to investing

Posted By |

What’s the point of investing, anyway? We invest our money for future consumption, with the idea that we’ll earn a higher rate of return from investing in a portfolio of stocks and bonds than we will from holding cash.

But where does this equity premium come from? And how do we capture it without taking on more risk than is needed? Moreover, how do we control our natural instincts of fear, greed, and regret so that we can stay invested long enough to achieve our expected rate of return?

For decades, regular investors have put their trust in the expertise of stockbrokers and advisors to build a portfolio of stocks and bonds. In the 1990s, mutual funds became the investment vehicle of choice to build a portfolio. Both of these approaches were expensive and relied on active management to select investments and time the market.

At the same time, a growing body of evidence suggested that stock markets were largely efficient, with all of the known information for stocks already reflected in their prices. Since markets collect the knowledge of all investors around the world, it’s difficult for any one investor to have an advantage over the rest.

The evidence also showed how risk and return are intertwined. In most cases, the greater the risk, the higher the reward (over the long-term). This is the essence of the equity-risk premium – the excess return earned from investing in stocks over a “risk-free” rate (treasury bills).

Evidence-based investing also highlights the benefit of diversification. Since it’s nearly impossible to predict which asset class will outperform in the short-term, investors should diversify across all asset classes and regions to reduce risk and increase long-term returns.

As low-cost investing alternatives emerged, such as exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that passively track the market, the evidence shows that fees play a significant role in determining future outcomes. Further evidence shows that fees are the best predictor of future returns, with the lowest fees leading to the highest returns over the long term.

Finally, it’s impossible to correctly and consistently predict the short-term ups and downs of the market. Stock markets can be volatile in the short term but have a long history of increasing in value over time. The evidence shows staying invested, even during market downturns, leads to the best long-term investment outcomes.

Evidence-based Guide to Investing

So, what factors impact successful investing outcomes? This evidence based investing guide will reinforce the concepts discussed above, while addressing the real-life burning questions that investors face throughout their investing journey.

Questions like, should you passively accept market returns or take a more active role with your investments, should you invest a lump sum immediately or dollar cost average over time, should you invest when markets are at all-time highs, should you use leverage to invest, and how much home country bias is enough?

To answer these questions, I looked at the latest research on investing and what variables or factors can impact successful outcomes. Here’s what I found:

Passive vs. Active Investing

The thought of investing often evokes images of the world’s greatest investors, such as Warren Buffett, Benjamin Graham, Peter Lynch, and Ray Dalio: skilled money managers who used their expertise to beat the stock market and make themselves and their clients extraordinarily wealthy.

But one man who arguably did more for regular investors than anyone else is the late Jack Bogle, who founded the Vanguard Group. He pioneered the first index fund, and championed low-cost passive investing decades before it became mainstream.

Jack Bogle’s investing philosophy was to capture market returns by investing in low-cost, broadly diversified, passively-managed index funds.

“Passive investing” is based on the efficient market hypothesis: that share prices reflect all known information. Stocks always trade at their fair market value, making it difficult for any one investor to gain an edge over the collective market.

Passive investors accept this theory and attempt to capture the returns of all stocks by owning them “passively” through an index-tracking mutual fund or ETF. This approach avoids trying to pick winning stocks, and instead owns the market as a whole in order to collect the equity risk premium.

The equity risk premium explains how investors are rewarded for taking on higher risk. More specifically, it’s the difference between the expected returns earned by investors when they invest in the stock market over an investment with zero risk, like government bonds.

Bogle’s first index fund – the Vanguard 500 – was founded in 1976. At the time, Bogle was almost laughed out of business, but nearly 50 years later, Vanguard is one of the largest and most respected investment firms in the world. Who’s laughing now?

In contrast, opponents of the efficient market hypothesis believe it is possible to beat the market and that share prices are not always representative of their fair market value. Active investors believe they can exploit these price anomalies, which can be observed when trends or momentum send certain stocks well above or below their fundamental value. Think of the tech bubble in the late 1990s when obscure internet stocks soared in value, or the 2008 great financial crisis when bank stocks got obliterated.

Comparing passive vs. active investing

Spoiler alert: there is considerable academic and empirical evidence spanning 70 years to support the theory that passive investing outperforms active investing.

The origins of passive investing dates back to the 1950s when economist Harry Markowitz developed Modern Portfolio Theory. Markowitz argued that it’s possible for investors to design a portfolio that maximizes returns by taking an optimal amount of risk. By holding many securities and asset classes, investors could diversify away any risk associated with individual securities. Modern Portfolio Theory first introduced the concept of risk-adjusted returns.

In the 1960s, Eugene Fama developed the Efficient Market Hypothesis, which argued that investors cannot beat the market over the long run because stock prices reflect all available information, and no one has a competitive information advantage. Continue Reading…

Is a Tax Credit a better way to support Social Housing?

Posted By |
image courtesy CMI Financial Group

By Kevin Fettig

Special to Financial Independence Hub

One of the biggest challenges in Canada’s rental housing crisis is the lack of new affordable housing units being built.

Despite efforts through the National Housing Strategy’s five programs, only 17,000 units were delivered after four years. This disappointing outcome is only a modest improvement over Ottawa’s track record in the past 30 years. For example, between 1996 and 2013, fewer than 7,000 new units were provided by federal and provincial governments.

In contrast, the United States built 3.5 million subsidized rental units from 1987 to 2021. Adjusted for population, this is equivalent to building 11,000 units per year in Canada. Both countries have tightened the tax benefits of rental real estate, but the U.S. offset this policy shift by introducing the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) to mitigate the impact of these changes on low- and middle-income renters.

A Canadian LIHTC would offer an alternative method of federal funding by leveraging private-sector expertise in owning, building, and managing low-income rental housing. The LIHTC would provide tax credits to both for-profit and nonprofit owners of rental housing, with nonprofits having the option to sell these tax credits. A key aspect of the program would be its efficient resource allocation, achieved by creating competition among developers for tax credits and using a market-based test for the viability and need for low-income housing.

Complements existing Renter Support Initiatives

The program could be designed to complement existing renter support initiatives, such as local government programs, housing allowances, and rent supplements. It would work by providing tax credits to developers, who would then pass them on to investors to offset their income tax.

Unlike earlier tax credit programs like the Multiple Unit Residential Buildings (MURB) provision, this program would have a cap, with credits allocated annually to each region based on population. The credits would be federally funded and awarded according to provincial objectives. Continue Reading…