Building Wealth

For the first 30 or so years of working, saving and investing, you’ll be first in the mode of getting out of the hole (paying down debt), and then building your net worth (that’s wealth accumulation.). But don’t forget, wealth accumulation isn’t the ultimate goal. Decumulation is! (a separate category here at the Hub).

Four Strategic ways to invest in U.S. Stocks using BMO ETFs

Posted By |
Image courtesy BMO ETFs/Getty Images

By Erin Allen, Vice President, Direct Distribution, BMO ETFs

(Sponsor Blog)

As of May 31, 2024, the U.S. stock market accounts for approximately 70% of the MSCI World Index1, making it a significant component of global equity markets: and likely a substantial portion of your investment portfolio as well.

While Canadian investors often favour domestic stocks for tax efficiency and lower currency risk2, incorporating U.S. stocks can enhance exposure to sectors where the Canadian market — predominated by financials and energy — falls short, particularly in technology and healthcare.

For Canadian investors looking to tap into the U.S. market affordably and without the hassle of currency conversion, there are numerous ETF options available. Here are four strategic ways to build a U.S. stock portfolio using BMO ETFs, catering to different investment objectives.

Low-cost broad exposure

If your objective is to gain exposure to a broad swath of U.S. stocks that reflect the overall market composition, the S&P 500 index is your quintessential tool.

This longstanding and highly popular benchmark comprise 500 large-cap U.S. companies, selected through a rigorous, rules-based methodology combined with a committee process, and is weighted by market capitalization (share price x shares outstanding).

The S&P 500 is notoriously difficult to outperform: recent updates from the S&P Indices Versus Active (SPIVA) report highlight that approximately 88% of all large-cap U.S. funds have underperformed this index over the past 15 years.3

This statistic underscores the efficiency and effectiveness of investing in an index that captures a comprehensive snapshot of the U.S. economy.

For those interested in tracking this index, BMO offers two very accessible and affordable options: the BMO S&P 500 Index ETF (ZSP) and the BMO S&P 500 Hedged to CAD Index ETF (ZUE), both with a low management expense ratio (MER) of just 0.09% and high liquidity.

While both ETFs aim to replicate the performance of the S&P 500 by purchasing and holding the index’s constituent stocks, they differ in their approach to currency fluctuations.

ZSP, the unhedged version, is subject to the effects of fluctuations between the U.S. dollar and the Canadian dollar. This means that if the U.S. dollar strengthens against the Canadian dollar, it could enhance the ETF’s returns, but if the Canadian dollar appreciates, it could diminish them.

On the other hand, ZUE is designed for investors who prefer not to have exposure to currency movements. It employs currency hedging to neutralize the impact of USD/CAD fluctuations, ensuring that the returns are purely reflective of the index’s performance, independent of currency volatility.

Large-cap growth exposure

What if you’re seeking exposure to some of the most influential and dynamic tech companies in the U.S. stock market, often referred to as the “Magnificent Seven?”

For investors looking to capture the growth of these powerhouse companies in a single ticker, ETFs tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index offer a prime solution. As of June 27, all of these companies are prominent members of the index’s top holdings4.

The NASDAQ-100 Index is a benchmark comprising the largest 100 non-financial companies listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. This index is heavily skewed towards the technology, consumer discretionary, and communication sectors, from which the “Magnificent Seven” hail.

BMO offers two ETFs that track this index: the BMO Nasdaq 100 Equity Hedged to CAD Index ETF (ZQQ) and the BMO Nasdaq 100 Equity Index ETF (ZNQ). Both funds charge a management expense ratio (MER) of 0.39%. Again, the key difference between them lies in their approach to currency fluctuations.

Low-volatility defensive exposure

You might commonly hear that “higher risk equals higher returns,” but an interesting phenomenon known as the “low volatility anomaly” challenges this traditional finance theory.

Research shows that over time, stocks with lower volatility have often produced returns comparable to, or better than, their higher-volatility counterparts, contradicting the expected risk-return trade-off. Continue Reading…

Private Equity: A Portfolio Perspective

Posted By |

So don’t ask me no questions
And I won’t tell you no lies
So don’t ask me about my business
And I won’t tell you goodbye

  • Lynyrd Skynyrd
Image courtesy Outcome/Shutterstock

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

I know virtually nothing about investing in private companies. However, I do know a thing or two about the theoretical and practical aspects of asset allocation and portfolio construction. In this vein, I will discuss the value of private equity (PE) investments within a portfolio context. Importantly, I will explain why PE investments may contribute less to one’s portfolio than is widely perceived.

Before I get into it, I am compelled to state one important caveat. Generalized statements about PE are less meaningful than is the case with public equities. The dispersion of returns across public equity funds is far lower than across PE managers. Whereas most long stock funds fall within +/- 5% of the average over a several year period, there is a far wider dispersion among underperformers and outperformers in the PE space. As such, it is important to note that the following analysis does not apply to any specific PE investment but rather to PE as an asset class in general.

The Perfect Asset Class?

PE allocations are broadly perceived as offering higher returns than their publicly traded counterparts. In addition, they are regarded as having lower volatility than and lower correlation to stocks. Given these perceived attributes, PE investments can be regarded as the “magic sauce” for increasing portfolio returns while lowering portfolio volatility. In combination, these attributes can significantly enhance portfolios’ risk-adjusted returns. However, the assumptions underlying these features are highly questionable.

Saturation, Lower Returns, & Echoes of Charlie Munger

It is reasonable to expect that average returns within the PE industry will be lower than in decades past. The number of active PE firms has increased more than fivefold, from just under two thousand in 2000 to over 9000 today. This impressive increase pales in comparison to growth in assets under management, which went from roughly $600 billion in 2000 to $7.6 trillion as of the end of 2022. It seems unlikely if not impossible that the number of attractive investment opportunities can keep pace with the dramatic increase in the amount of money chasing them.

Another reason to suspect that PE managers’ returns will be lower going forward is that their incentives and objectives have changed. The smaller PE industry of yesteryear was incentivized to deliver strong returns to maximize performance fees.  In contrast, today’s behemoth managers are motivated to maximize assets under management and management fees. The name of the game is to raise as much money as possible, invest it as quickly as possible, and begin raising money for the next fund. The objective is no longer to produce the best returns, but rather to deliver acceptable returns on the largest asset base possible. As the great Charlie Munger stated, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.”

There are no Bear Markets in Private Equity!

It is also likely that PE investments on average have both higher volatility and greater correlation to stocks than may appear. The values of public equities are determined by exchange-quoted prices every single day. In contrast, private assets are not marked to market daily. Not only do PE managers value their holdings infrequently, but they also must employ a significant degree of subjectivity in determining the value of their holdings. Importantly, there is an inherent bias for not adjusting private valuations when public equities suffer losses. Continue Reading…

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…

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…