Inflation

Inflation

What on Earth is Happening?

Posted By |
image from wikimedia commons

By Noah Solomon

Special to the Findependence Hub

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…

Is it time to time the market?

Posted By |

By Steve Lowrie

Special to the Findependence Hub

Has market news got you thinking it might be time to rethink your market positions?  It’s certainly understandable if the economic uncertainty unfolding in the daily news has left you wondering – or worrying – about what lies ahead.  No matter how you feel about the U.S. entering into a trade war with China, it’s hard to deny that the prospect is currently causing considerable market turmoil.  It is also hard to avoid the recent financial media obsession with an “inverted yield curve” (a rare situation when short-term bond maturities are yielding more than longer-term maturities).

You might have heard that each U.S. recession since the 1970s has been preceded by an inverted yield curve.  However, perhaps for the sake of sensationalism, not all articles correctly report that this relationship does not always hold true.  In reality every yield curve inversion does not lead to an imminent recession and/or lower equity prices.  Recent analysis by professors Eugene Fama and Ken French tested this very hypothesis.  Using data from the U.S. and 11 other developed markets, they found “no evidence that inverted yield curves predict stocks will underperform bills (bonds).”

Regardless of how the coming weeks and months unfold, are you okay with gritting your teeth, and keeping your carefully structured portfolio on track as planned?  This probably doesn’t surprise you, but that’s exactly what we would suggest.  Unless, of course, new or different personal circumstances warrant revisiting your asset allocation for reasons that have nothing to do with all the tea in China.

That said, the recent news is admittedly unsettling. If you’ve got your doubts, you may be wondering whether you should somehow shift your portfolio to higher ground, until the coast seems clear.  In other words, might these stressful times justify a measure of market-timing?

Here are four important reminders on the perils of trying to time the market – at any time. It may offer brief relief, but market-timing ultimately runs counter to your best strategies for building durable, long-term wealth.

1) Market-Timing is Undependable 

Granted, it’s almost certainly only a matter of time before we experience another recession.  As such, it may periodically feel “obvious” that the next one is nearly here.  But is it?  It’s possible, but market history has shown us time and again that seemingly sure bets often end up being losing ones instead.  Even as recently as year-end 2018, when markets dropped precipitously almost overnight, many investors wondered whether to expect nothing but trouble in 2019.   Continue Reading…

Everything owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway

Posted By |
Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway, which just held its first live annual meeting since Covid hit.

By Akshay Singh

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

You’ve probably heard of the multi-billion dollar company Berkshire Hathaway, owned by mega-billionaire and philanthropist Warren Buffett, but what does Berkshire Hathaway do exactly?

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is a conglomerate holding company, meaning it does not produce goods or services and instead has a controlling interest in and owns shares of other companies to form a single corporate group.

That leads us to our next question: What companies does Berkshire Hathaway own to make it one of the most valuable companies on the planet? The team at Indyfin turned to the 2021 Berkshire Hathaway annual report to create this compendium of all of the Berkshire Hathaway companies. The holding company has a controlling interest in more than 60 companies and partially owns another 20 on top of that. You’ll recognize a lot of brand names from a wide variety of industries that make up the impressive Berkshire Hathaway portfolio.

Does Berkshire Hathaway own one of your favorite or most-used brands? Check out this roundup of Berkshire Hathaway companies from Indyfin to find out.

What Is Berkshire Hathaway?

Berkshire Hathaway is an American conglomerate holding company with a market cap of US$774.24 billion, making it the seventh most valuable company in the world. What is a conglomerate? A conglomerate is a combination of businesses from a variety of different industries that operate as a single economic entity under one corporate group. Conglomerates are usually large and multinational and generally include a parent company and many subsidiaries. The “conglomerate fad” was big in the 1960s due to low interest rates, rising prices, and a decline in the stock market, which led to large corporate conglomerates like Berkshire Hathaway forming. The parent company in this scenario is also referred to as the holding company, as it holds a controlling interest in the securities of all of the other companies. Holding companies do not produce goods or services; instead, they own shares of other companies to form a single corporate group. Holding companies are beneficial because they reduce risk for shareholders and can hold and protect assets like trade secrets or intellectual property.

What Does Berkshire Hathaway own? Continue Reading…

Why it might be time to rebalance the 60/40 Rule

Posted By |

 

Investors follow the 60/40 rule because they are told bonds will protect capital while equities grow it. Why recent drops in bond prices should make us reconsider that rule. 

 

 

By Paul MacDonald, CIO, Harvest ETFs

(Sponsor Content)

From the moment they start putting money in the market, investors are told to follow the 60/40 rule. It is the broadly accepted wisdom that, for an average retail investor, a 60% allocation to equities and a 40% allocation to bonds will result in a robust portfolio. Equities should deliver growth prospects in the long term while bonds will offset downsides in equities by delivering uncorrelated returns. Bonds preserve capital, and equities grow capital. That’s the accepted wisdom. 

Countless investment fund issuers have packaged this logic into their balanced funds. These funds offer a specific allocation to equities and bonds, usually in line with the 60/40 rule, forming the core of a retail investor’s portfolio.

The problem with accepted wisdom is sometimes circumstances turn it upside down. In the past months we have seen volatility in equity markets and a significant drop in bond prices. That is because the investment landscape has changed. 

Why are bond prices dropping? 

After over a decade of historically low interest rates, followed by massive rate cuts by central banks at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, inflation has begun to set in. With rising inflation comes pressure on central banks to raise rates and market expectation that rates will rise, which is itself pushing interest rates higher.  Continue Reading…

Death of Bonds or time to buy short-term GICs?

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column looks at a recent spate of media articles proclaiming the “Death of Bonds.” You can find the full column by clicking on the highlighted headline: Do bonds still make sense for retirement savings?

One of these articles was written by the veteran journalist and author, Gordon Pape, writing to the national audience of the Globe & Mail newspaper. So you have to figure a lot of retirees took note of the article when Pape — who is in his 80s — said he was personally “getting out of bonds.”

One of the other pieces, via a YouTube video, was by financial planner Ed Rempel, who similarly pronounced the death of bonds going forward the next 30 years or so and made the case for raising risk tolerance and embracing stocks. The column also passes on the views of respected financial advisors like TriDelta Financial’s Matthew Ardrey and PWL Capital’s Benjamin Felix.

However, there’s no need for those with risk tolerance, whether retired or not, to dump all their fixed-income holdings. While it’s true aggregate bond funds have been in a  de facto bear market, short-term bond ETFs have only negligible losses. And as Pape says, and I agree, new cash can be deployed into 1-year GICs, which are generally paying just a tad under 3% a year;  or at most 2-year GICs, which pay a bit more, often more than 3%.

One could also “park” in treasury bills or ultra short term money market ETFs (one suggested by MoneySense ETF panelist Yves Rebetez is HFR: the Horizons Ultra-Short Term Investment Grade Bond ETF.) It’s expected that the Fed and the Bank of Canada will again raise interest rates this summer, and possibly repeat this a few more times through the balance of 2022. If you stagger short-term funds every three months or so, you can gradually start deploying money into 1-year GICs. Then a year later, assuming most of the interest rate hikes have occurred, you can consider extending term to 3-year or even 5-year GICs, or returning to short-term bond ETFs or possibly aggregate bond ETFs. Watch for the next instalment of the MoneySense ETF All-stars, which addresses some of these issues.

Some 1-year GICs pay close to 3% now

Here’s some GIC ideas from the column: Continue Reading…