Early in 2020, I re-positioned a meaningful portion of my clients’ equity positions into inverse products (they go up when the market goes down and down when the market goes up). Critics, colleagues, suppliers and friends have seized the opportunity to call me a “market timer.” I beg to differ.
What I am doing is putting something that might be generally described as a form of insurance in place: expressly in light of high valuations. The Shiller CAPE (a widely accepted benchmark for market valuations) for the S&P 500 is currently over 31 and has hovered between 28 and 33 for about three years now. The historical average is under 17.
Think of buying a ten-year life insurance policy when you take on a mortgage. Is that an example of “death timing? Are you buying insurance because you EXPECT to die in the ensuing decade – or simply to protect against the consequences of something terrible happening?
If you don’t die in the decade, but still have a mortgage, are you ‘stubbornly doubling down’ after having made the ‘wrong call’? If a decade were to pass and you were still breathing, was the money spent on premiums over the previous decade ‘wasted’? To hear my critics … and to extend their logic based on what they are telling me, the answers would all be an accusatory “yes” to all these questions.
Here’s my thinking as explained via metaphor:
What I’m saying/ doing The Insurance Equivalent
Inverse sleeve Term life insurance
Temporarily high valuations Temporary unfunded liability on death
Renew if still high Renew if unfunded liability persists
Cancel if no longer high Cancel if unfunded liability is paid off
Offer relief if markets tumble Offer relief if premature death
Everyone dies eventually. Markets always have major pullbacks eventually. No one knows when either is likely to happen. See the parallel? Despite all this, people are generally portrayed as being “prudent” when they buy life insurance, but “market timers” when they incorporate an inverse sleeve. I simply don’t buy it. Perhaps I should start challenging my critics, colleagues, suppliers and friends for their “reckless disregard for the substantial risk they are taking while doing nothing to manage that risk.” See what I did there?
John De Goey, CIM, CFP, FP Canada™ Fellow, is a Portfolio Manager with Toronto-based Wellington-Altus Private Wealth Inc. This blog originally appeared on the firm’s “Newswire” site on Feb. 5, 2020 and is republished on the Hub with permission.
It would have been interesting if you could have shared those small tools of inverse ETFs!
John, You say that you “re-positioned a meaningful portion of my clients’ equity positions”. It is the words meaningful portion that makes it market timing. As a “meaningful portion” it goes beyond insurance. When we buy life insurance we are buying the amount necessary to protect us against a low probability event with a un-meaningful portion of our incomes and wealth. A meaningful amount invested in life insurance is called an investment. When we insurance our house we do not build 2 houses in case one burns down. By doing a meaningful portion, you are suggesting a detrimental event is highly likely. Sorry that is a bet on the future and IS market timing. Note I did not say you are wrong, just that you should Stand Up and admit that it is action based on your belief of an approaching event. Market timing.
On behalf of John De Goey:
Gord,
Please define “meaningful portion”, my friend. I know what I had in mind, but…
Let’s look at this using five options:
1. No inverse
2. 1-50% inverse
3. 50% inverse
4. 51-99% inverse
5. 100% inverse
We’re clearly not talking about option 1. I strongly agree that option 5 constitutes market timing. Where reasonable people may differ, IMO is on options 2, 3, and 4. The extent that I’m using inverse NOTES (not ETFs) is consistent with option 2…. and I stand by my depiction.
BTW and FWIW, my usage is in the 30% to 40% range.