Inflation

Inflation

Bull Markets don’t die of Old Age … They get Slaughtered

Image courtesy Shutterstock/Outcome

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Yes, I’m stuck in the middle with you
And I’m wondering what it is I should do
It’s so hard to keep this smile from my face
Losing control, yeah, I’m all over the place

Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you

  • Stuck in the Middle With You, by Stealers Wheel

Caught between the Rock of FOMO and the Fear of FOL

With the current bull market now into its fourth year and many global stock indices at or near record levels, investors could be forgiven for wondering how much upside there can be from here and when the party will end.

While almost nobody with whom I have spoken believes that a bear market is imminent, they are concerned that it is becoming more likely. Despite this increased wariness, people are also cognizant that running for the hills could entail foregoing considerable gains should markets continue their trajectory. They are trapped between the “rock” of FOMO (fear of missing out) and the “hard place” of FOL (fear of losses). Buffett best described this recurring dilemma in his statement:

“The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities — that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future — will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.”

This month, I discuss whether the current bull market has reached a stage where it is something to be feared. To this end, I will ascertain whether it represents an outlier from a historical perspective with respect to its longevity, magnitude, and valuation. I will also discuss the catalysts that have brought an end to previous bull markets and whether any such “markers” are lurking in the shadows.

It’s not a Question of IF, but WHEN

As the following table illustrates, bear markets have hardly been uncommon.

I have no idea when the next bear market will arrive or how severe it will be. For what it’s worth, I don’t think anybody else does either. However, unless you believe that bear markets have become extinct, markets will continue to suffer periodic episodes of malaise. As the saying goes, You don’t need to know when something will happen to know that it will.”

Looking for the Signs: Mapping the Present to the Past

From a purely statistical perspective, some measures suggest that the current bull market may have considerable life remaining. However, there are also some signs that have portended the demise of its predecessors.

In terms of length, the current runup in equities does not appear long in the tooth. As of the end of last month [June], it has been 1357 days since the end of 2022’s bear market in mid-October of 2022. By contrast, the average duration of bull markets since WWII has been 1905 days.

With respect to returns, the present bull market appears similarly unalarming, with the S&P 500 Index producing a total return of 123.2%, as compared to an average return of 177.4% for all previous bull markets in the postwar era. However, this average is heavily skewed by the bull run that included the late 1990s tech bubble, during which the index produced a total return of 582.1%. Once this extreme data point is removed, the average bull market return falls from 177.4% to a far more modest 140.6% that makes the current bull market appear considerably less youthful.

From a rate-of-appreciation perspective, the current bull run appears somewhat ahead of itself. In its 1357 days of existence, the S&P 500 Index has delivered a total return of 123.2%, as compared to an average return of 104.8% over the same period during the three previous bull markets. Only the post-global-financial-crisis bull run had a greater rate of ascendance, returning 125.4% over its initial 1357 days. However, when equities troughed in March 2009, the forward P/E ratio of the S&P 500 was approximately 11. Once investors became comfortable that the world was not collapsing, bargain basement prices and hyper-stimulative monetary policies served as rocket fuel for stock prices. In contrast, the current bull run began with a P/E ratio of over 16 and current rates are particularly accommodative, which makes this bull market’s pace of gains appear somewhat anomalous.

Perhaps the most striking feature of the U.S. market is its strength over an extended period. With the exception of the short-lived Covid Crash and the relatively shallow and short bear market of 2022, markets have been on a largely uninterrupted winning streak. Annualized returns over the past 10 years through the end of 2025 are 14.68%, as compared to an average of 10.97% for all rolling 10-year periods in the postwar era. In a worst-case scenario, reversion to the long-term mean would require a 44% decline, while a more benign path would necessitate subpar returns over an extended period.

Lots of Steak. But also, some Sizzle

Don’t get me wrong:  if earnings growth had kept pace with stock prices over the past ten years, I would not be particularly concerned that stocks have gotten ahead of themselves.  After all, it is widely understood that the S&P 500 Index has become increasingly dominated by a handful of mega cap tech stocks that have delivered phenomenal earnings growth. Continue Reading…

The renewed case for Global Investing

Franklin Templeton

By Stephen Dover, CFA, Franklin Templeton Institute

(Sponsor Blog)

Any consideration of emerging markets must begin with the case for global investment strategy. The decision to allocate capital internationally is not just about geographic diversification. Rather, it is increasingly driven by fundamental shifts in absolute and relative returns that drive global capital flows, by the discovery of new investment opportunities, and by the need to identify and manage concentration risk.

This section establishes the reasons why active international allocation strengthens institutional portfolios that also reinforces the rationale for emerging market allocations.

In an extended period of “US exceptionalism”—roughly spanning the 15 years from the global financial crisis to the middle of the current decade — investors increasingly gravitated to US equity and credit markets. That was understandable, given the superior returns — in absolute and risk-adjusted terms — delivered by US financial assets.

Importantly, superior returns on US assets were driven by superior fundamentals, including growth, institutional solidity, vast market liquidity, innovation and historic levels of profitability.

At the same time, however, US-based equity returns became more concentrated, as mega-
capitalization stocks accounted for a growing share of widely followed market-capitalization indexes.
Partly driven by concerns about concentration risk and partly because of improving returns in other
markets, investors have more recently begun to look for opportunities in other markets.

Over the past year, European, Japanese and emerging equities, and particularly emerging debt, have episodically produced superior returns to those found in US equity and fixed income markets. Those outcomes have begun to raise awareness of global opportunities, among them in emerging markets.

Renewed interest in global investing stems from other factors as well. Economic and monetary policy
divergence is becoming more significant. Prior to the US-Iran War, the Federal Reserve (Fed) was
biased to cut rates, the European Central Bank (ECB) had paused its easing cycle, the Bank of Japan
(BoJ) had already cautiously begun to hike rates, and various emerging central banks were prepared
to cut rates amid falling inflation. Those divergences in policies had contributed to a weakening of
the US dollar since early 2025, which in turn boosted investor interest in non-US markets, including
in emerging markets.

With the outbreak of the war and the impairment of shipping via the Strait of Hormuz, policy
perceptions have again shifted. The Fed and emerging central banks are now (mostly) on hold, the
ECB and the BoJ are inclined to tighten their monetary policies. Unsurprisingly, volatility, correlation
and returns have shifted markedly.

But the underlying point remains: Divergence in the conduct of monetary policy creates opportunity for tactical re-allocation. And it isn’t just about monetary policy. In many respects, fiscal policy divergence is even more notable.

In the United States, large structural budget deficits are forecasted over the next decade.

Meanwhile, Japan’s new government is promising more fiscal stimulus as well.  So, too, are Germany and the European Union.

In contrast, over the past decade many emerging countries have been pursuing more disciplined,
orthodox fiscal policies, with the upshot that their sovereign credit fundamentals are improving in
absolute and relative terms. That trend lends support to secular declines in risk premia and should
manifest in even lower nominal and real interest rates, as well as stronger emerging currencies.
Directly, that boosts emerging debt returns, but it also lends greater resilience to many parts of the
emerging complex.

As noted, global markets — including emerging markets — have recently exhibited episodes of
outperformance relative to US equity and fixed income returns. That is important, because for most of
the past 15 years US exceptionalism has been dominant. So much so, indeed, that if one compares the
efficient frontiers of investing with and without emerging markets since 2010, it is clear emerging
market allocations had almost no positive impact on portfolio returns, adjusted for risk, over the past 15
years.

But we believe those historic results are not likely to persist. Owing to improving emerging market
fundamentals, which we describe in detail in the next section of this paper, absolute and relative
expected returns are shifting in their favor. Using our estimated year-ahead returns across all
markets — developed and emerging, public equity and debt — a clear upward and leftward shift in the
efficient frontier is apparent when comparing a developed market only to a blended emerging and
developed portfolio. We believe emerging markets (alongside other non-US developed markets) are
therefore poised to contribute to improved portfolio performance in the year ahead: and most
probably for longer.

EMs are undergoing a profound transformation, one that is not cyclical in nature but structural, durable and increasingly self-reinforcing. The traditional narrative of emerging markets as externally dependent, volatility-prone economies is being reshaped by a new set of underlying forces that are redefining their role in the global economy.

EMs have generally shown significant resilience this decade, facing down a series of shocks arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, the inflationary outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war and the US Fed’s sharp interest-rate hikes during 2022-2023, and last year’s substantial tariff volatility. Not only did EMs survive this period, but many have thrived.

As world trade reconfigures and global actors realign geopolitically, EMs have found themselves generally well-placed to benefit from these global shifts: including some that are likely to benefit under the new tariff regime. This compares to earlier years when EMs would often face crises (whether debt, balance of payments and/or in banking systems) from global shocks.

The fact that EMs are in a favorable position now is largely a result of policy choices that have situated them handsomely to face a rapidly changing world economy. In this regard, we note three significant global regime changes that we believe EMs are now well-placed to benefit from: structural improvements in EMs, global trade econfiguration, and a shift in the US dollar’s ability to attract global capital inflows.

Regime change: EMs are structurally sounder

Policy responses with respect to both monetary and fiscal policy have improved significantly across EMs over the past couple of decades. Adoption of sound, credible policies and nurturing of institutions (such as inflation targets, fiscal rules and independent central banks) have helped policy formulation and improved the market’s perception of the credibility of EM policymakers. Continue Reading…

Book Review: Rethinking Investing

Amazon.ca

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub

 

I liked Charles Ellis’ book Winning the Loser’s Game so much that I had to read his latest: Rethinking Investing.  It is very short at just over 100 small pages, but is packed with good advice.  Some of it is specific to U.S. tax laws, but most of it is useful for Canadians.

Ellis takes on three huge areas of personal finance.  The first is your portfolio allocation, or what you should invest in.

The second is your savings plan, and the third is your “spending rule,” or how to spend your assets during retirement.

A detailed treatment of these areas could easily run to thousands of pages, so this book is necessarily at a high level.  Ellis wants you to get the broad ideas right, so that you won’t make big mistakes as you fill in the details.

Ellis calls compounding investment returns “your power curve.”  He explains that most of your investment growth comes at the end, which provides motivation to begin early.  Saving is “your first priority.”

Saving

He offers thirteen specific suggestions for saving money, such as use employer matching, automate deductions from pay, invest bonuses, buy preowned cars, consider a smaller house, “self-insure for auto damages under $10,000 — or whatever you can comfortably afford to pay in the unlikely event of a major accident” — and use term life insurance.

Unlike recent popular advice to focus only on big expenses, Ellis says that “Lots of small-expense items can add up and cut your potential savings.”

Investing

Ellis repeats the main themes of Winning the Loser’s Game to explain why low-cost index investing is the way to go.  “The growing market dominance of expert professional investment managers … has made the market harder and harder to beat.”

There are three factors slowing down the “widespread adoption of indexing.”  Referring to index investing as “passive” has negative connotations for most people.  “Nobody wants to be known as passive.”  The second factor is that “most investors find it hard to believe that talented active managers with superb information won’t beat the market.”

These active managers “fought against indexing as though they and their careers were seriously threatened: as they surely were and certainly are!”  The third factor comes from the media, who know “that indexing’s persistent successes would not make for compelling or even interesting copy.”

When investors make active choices on market timing, they tend to perform poorly.  Unfortunately, Ellis points to reports from DALBAR for evidence of this pattern.  While it’s true that retail investors make poor market timing choices on average, DALBAR’s methodology for computing their losses is nonsense.

Bond allocation

Ellis makes an interesting pitch for investors to own more stocks and fewer bonds.  He asks investors to include the following as part of their bond allocation: “home equity, the present value of your Social Security benefits [CPP and OAS in Canada], and your future estimated savings plus any likely inheritance.”

While I think many people would be better off with a lower bond allocation during their working years, I have to push back on the future estimated savings and inheritances.  Maybe government workers can treat future savings as bond-like, those in the private sector have a lot of uncertainty in their future savings.

As for an inheritance, I see huge uncertainty in most cases.  A parent may end up needing the money for elder care, or may give it to someone else, or may have less money than you think.  The money I will leave to my sons is mostly invested in stocks, and they will get what’s left after all my spending.  The amount they will get does not have bond-like attributes.

All that said, if thinking about home equity, government payments, future savings, and an inheritance helps people tolerate the short-term swings in stock prices, then maybe Ellis is right to give this advice, even if it isn’t all technically correct.

Retirement spending rule

Ellis encourages people to think about drawing from their savings in retirement like a university endowment.  “First, average the year-end values of your assets over the prior several years (preferably more than five years) to dampen the impact of market fluctuations.”  Then choose a prudent annual withdrawal percentage, “likely 4–5%.”

“For example, if you settle on a 5% rate of withdrawal and a six-year moving average of the year-end value of your assets, a 30% drop in the stock market would lead to only a 5% reduction in your payout that year.”  This approach offers an alternative to “having a portfolio laden with low-return bonds.” Continue Reading…

BDAY: Bitcoin exposure with DayMAX™ advantage

By Hamilton ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

Bitcoin has become an increasingly accessible asset for investors, with growing participation from both institutional and retail investors through regulated investment vehicles. Institutional adoption, new regulatory frameworks and improved custody solutions continue to bring Bitcoin further into the mainstream.

Cryptocurrency ownership among U.S. investors has increased from 6% in 2021 to 17% in 2025, according to Gallup[1].

At Hamilton ETFs, we focus on developing innovative solutions that address real portfolio needs. As interest in Bitcoin has grown, we saw an opportunity to apply our options expertise to the asset class in a way that addresses the needs of income-oriented investors while avoiding the traditional trade-off between income generation and upside participation.

Introducing BDAY

The Hamilton Enhanced Bitcoin DayMAX™ ETF (BDAY) is a first-of-its-kind strategy designed to provide 100% exposure to Bitcoin’s potential upside while generating income through Hamilton’s innovative DayMAX™ strategy, which utilizes zero-days-to-expiration covered call writing (0DTE).

Until now, investors seeking income from Bitcoin have generally faced a trade-off: generating option premium in exchange for less Bitcoin upside potential. By not writing call options on BDAY’s Bitcoin holdings (achieved through investing in IBIT, iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF), we preserve full participation in Bitcoin: up or down. In addition, the actively managed DayMAX™ covered call strategy offers more opportunities for income generation by monetizing volatility every day.

In short, BDAY consists of:

  • 100% Bitcoin exposure, via iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT), without covered calls
  • 25% Nasdaq 100 exposure, via Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM), from modest leverage, on which to apply 0DTE options strategy to generate attractive semi-monthly income

The DayMAX advantage

BDAY brings our popular DayMAX™ approach to investors seeking Bitcoin exposure and income. Rather than writing covered calls directly on Bitcoin, BDAY generates attractive tax-efficient yield through a separate QQQM sleeve and an actively managed 0DTE covered call strategy.

This structure allows the portfolio to clearly separate its roles. Bitcoin serves as the growth potential, providing 100% exposure to the asset, while QQQM in conjunction with the DayMAX™ strategy is used to generate option premium income.

Key features of the DayMAX™ strategy include: Continue Reading…

The underestimated Power of Pensions

Adobe Stock Image, courtesy CAAT Pension Plan

By Anthony Damtsis

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Expectations of the future shape how we behave today, especially when it comes to planning for retirement. When people overestimate or underestimate where their retirement income will come from, it can affect how they save, how they plan, when they retire, and how financially secure they feel over time.

That sounds simple enough. But retirement has a way of making simple things complicated.

Recent research from CAAT Pension Plan shows a clear gap between what working Canadians expect retirement to look like and what retirees actually experience.

The retirement we picture

Nearly one in four working Canadians expect personal savings to be their primary source of income in retirement. In reality, only about one in seven retirees rely on personal savings as their primary source of income.

At the same time, working Canadians appear to underestimate the role of workplace pensions. Among working people with a pension, only 10% expect it to be their primary source of income in retirement. But among retirees with a pension, 23% say their pension is their primary income source.   Pensions are a foundational source of income for many. Retirees with pensions report approximately $2,750 more in average monthly household income than retirees without pensions.

For many Canadians, that is the difference between getting by and living well. Defined Benefit [DB] pensions can provide a predictable stream of retirement income, reduce the burden of managing investments alone, and help protect against the risk of savings running out.

This expectation gap matters because expectations are not harmless. If people expect personal savings to carry more significance than they realistically will, they may delay planning, undersave, or assume they will have more time to catch up later. That can increase the risk of outliving savings, delaying retirement, or becoming more dependent on public supports.

The reality today is that 38% of Canadians without a workplace pension report taking little or no action toward saving for retirement. Among Canadians with household income below $50,000, that figure rises to 60%.

This can show up as delayed retirement. For Canadians, the average ideal retirement age is 60, while the average expected retirement age is 67. For many people, there is a meaningful seven-year gap between the retirement they hope for and the retirement they think is realistic.

There is a quiet lesson in that gap. When people do not have a clear path to retirement, they do not always change their savings behaviour today. Sometimes they change their expectations about tomorrow.

The pension habit

This research challenges the idea that pensions crowd out personal saving. Savings habits are an important building block in creating predictable income in retirement. Pensions can act as a foundation for those habits because they make saving structured, automatic, and easier to sustain.

This matters because good financial behaviour is often less about willpower than design. If saving depends on making the right decision every month, life has plenty of opportunities to get in the way. A pension changes the architecture of the decision. It turns saving from something people have to repeatedly choose into something that happens more reliably in the background.

The research suggests this happens in the real world. Pension plan members are nearly four times more likely than non-pension plan participants to report using a full suite of retirement savings tools, such as TFSAs, RRSPs, and non-registered accounts. Specifically, 27% of pension members use a full suite of savings tools, compared with just 7% of those without a pension.

Canadians with workplace pensions are also more likely to use multiple savings approaches at the same time, 30% compared with 16% of those without a pension.

Access is the real barrier

Many Canadians want to save, but they do not always have access to the tools that make saving easier. Continue Reading…