Tag Archives: asset allocation

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…

Are Alternative Investments really the Holy Grail of Investing?

Posted By |
Amazon.ca

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub 

Tony Robbins’ latest book, The Holy Grail of Investing, written with Christopher Zook, is a strong sales pitch for investors to move into alternative investments such as private equity, private credit, and venture capital.

I decided to give it a chance to challenge my current plans to stay out of alternative investments.  The book has some interesting parts — mainly the interviews with several alternative investment managers — but it didn’t change my mind.

The book begins with the usual disclaimers about not being intended “to serve as the basis for any financial decision” and not being a substitute for expert legal and accounting advice.  However, it also has a disclosure:

“Tony Robbins is a minority passive shareholder of CAZ Investments, an SEC registered investment advisor (RIA).  Mr. Robbins does not have an active role in the company.  However, as shareholder, Mr. Robbins and Mr. Zook have a financial incentive to promote and direct business to CAZ Investments.”

This disclosure could certainly make a reader suspect the authors’ motives for their breathless promotion of the benefits of alternative investments and their reverence for alternative investment managers.  However, I chose to ignore this and evaluate the book’s contents for myself.

The most compelling part of the pitch was that “private equity produced average annual returns of 14.28 percent over the thirty-six-year period ending in 2022.  The S&P 500 produced 9.24 percent.”  Unfortunately, the way private equity returns are calculated is misleading, as I explained in an earlier post.  The actual returns investors get is lower than these advertised returns.

Ray Dalio and uncorrelated investment strategies

The authors frequently repeat that Ray “Dalio’s approach is to utilize eight to twelve uncorrelated investment strategies.”  However, if the reported returns of alternative investments are fantasies, then their correlation values are fantasies as well.  I have no confidence as an investor that my true risk level would be as low as it appears.

Much of the rest of the authors’ descriptions of alternative investments sounds good, but there is no good reason for me to believe that I would get better returns than if I continue to own public equities.

I choose not to invest in individual stocks because I know that I’d be competing against brilliant investors working full-time.  I don’t place my money with star fund managers because I can’t predict which few managers will outperform by enough to cover their fees.  These problems look even worse to me in the alternative investment space.  I don’t lack confidence, but I try to be realistic about going up against the best in the world. Continue Reading…

Index Investing and the S&P 500

Posted By |
Image BMO ETFs/Getty Images

By Chris McHaney, CFA

(Sponsor Blog)

Index investing, a strategy adopted by cost-conscious investors and passive investing aficionados, is continuing to gain in popularity across individual investors, advisors and institutions alike.

The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as a gauge of the overall large-cap U.S. equities market. The index, which dates back to the 1920s, includes 500 leading companies and covers approximately 80% of available market capitalization.1  Other popular indices for U.S. equities include the Dow Jones Industrial Average (covering a smaller number of companies: ~30), and the Nasdaq 100 Index (tracking the largest 100 companies listed on the Nasdaq Stock Market).

ETFs make index investing more efficient, helping investors save time and money relative to holding all the constituents of their favorite market index. Take the S&P 500, for example. Not only would you need to buy 500 companies, you would need to make sure they maintain the appropriate weight in the portfolio over time: requiring a lot of time, and money in trading those securities.

ETF units are primarily bought and sold between different investors. This means there are typically fewer realizations of capital gains and losses with ETFs than with other investment products. Similarly, as passive ETFs track the performance of a specific benchmark, they tend to have lower overall portfolio turnover. Fewer transactions within the ETF again means fewer realizations of capital gains and losses that may flow through to ETF holders.

Investing in the S&P 500 Index has been made simple with ZSP2 – BMO S&P 500 Index ETF.  Also available in hedged and USD (ZUE/ZSP.U)2, these ETFs give you exposure to this broad market index at a low cost of 0.09% 6(MER – Management Expense Ratio) and can be used as a core in your portfolio.  Index based ETFs like ZSP provide broad market exposure and diversification across various sectors and asset classes according to their underlying index. It’s not about timing the market with index-based ETFs, it’s about time in the market and these solutions provide a long-term strategy for investors.

What does the research show?

Another reason index-based investing is becoming a staple in investors’ portfolios is the increase in available research showing passive outperforming active over the long term. The best known of this research, the SPIVA report, which coming from S&P Dow Jones Indexes research division has been looking at this phenomenon for 20 years, measuring actively managed funds, against their index benchmarks worldwide.

Looking at the data as of Dec 31st 2023, and focusing on Canadian Equity Funds, 96.63% of active fund managers underperform the S&P/TSX Composite over 10 years.  Put another way just 3.37% of funds outperformed the S&P/TSX composite over that time period.3 This research holds across time periods and geographies, with the numbers changing year to year but the story remaining compellingly in favor of passive. While there are active managers that out-perform their benchmark, this can be challenging to do consistently over time, even for the professionals.

Innovation in Index Investing

“Losses loom larger than gains.” – Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversk4

Famed researchers in behavioural finance, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, once hypothesized the psychological pain of loss is about twice as powerful as the pleasure of gaining. After strong performances from U.S. stocks over the past two quarters, some may find themselves dusting off the pair’s work and asking, is now the time to lock in gains and take some downside insurance?

We have seen a remarkable run from stocks such as Nvidia, lifting the S&P 500 Index to all-time highs. This may cause some valuation concerns among investors. The S&P 500 is currently trading at a price-to-earnings ratio9(P/E) of about 25 times, which from a historical perspective can be considered rich relative to the average of 17.5 Continue Reading…

Dividend ETFs: Finding Stability and Growth in Income Investments

Posted By |

Discover the Keys to Identifying Dividend ETFs that offer Consistency, Quality, and Long-Term Growth

Image from Pexels/Anna Nekrashevich

Higher interest rates mean dividend-paying stocks must increasingly compete with fixed-income investments for investor interest. However, sustainable dividends still offer an
attractive and growing income stream for investors.

Companies that pay regular and growing dividends have performed very well over the long run when compared to the broad market indices. For example, a simple strategy such as selecting stocks with an extended history of uninterrupted dividend growth, such as represented by the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats, has added 11.5% per year over the past 30 years. This compares to the 10.0% annual gain for the S&P 500 Index. And not only did the dividend payers beat the overall market, but they were also less volatile.

The superior long-term performance of the dividend growth companies can be attributed to a combination of several factors: Companies with long histories of regular and growing dividend payments generally have sound competitive business models and growing profits; these are also companies with experienced managements that make disciplined capital allocation decisions, strive for lower debt levels, and operate firms more profitable than their peers.

Notably, though, the Dividend Aristocrats’ performance lagged over the past 5 years against the S&P 500 index.

Most of this underperformance came over the last year and a half, as higher interest rates made fixed-income investments, such as GICs, more attractive for income-seeking investors when compared to dividend-paying equities.

The dividend sweet spot

Income-seeking investors who decide to take on the risk of the stock markets are faced with a wide range of options including “yield enhanced” dividend-paying ETFs, moderate-yielding companies with average growth rates, and low-yielding but fast-growing companies. Then there is also the group of companies that have very high dividend yields and may seem attractive but, unfortunately, come with elevated risk.

In many cases, a high yield may be a warning sign that all is not well with a company and that future dividend payments are at risk of being cut.

As well, a dividend cut, or even an outright dividend suspension, is often accompanied by a steep decline in the share price, as income investors dump their former dividend favourites.

A 2016 study by a group of U.S.-based academics provides some statistical guidelines for sensible dividend-based investing.

In reviewing the performance of almost 4,000 U.S. companies over 50 years, they found that dividend-paying stocks beat non-dividend payers.

In particular, the middle group of dividend yielders (i.e., those with an average yield of 4.3%) surpassed both the low yielders and the high yielders in terms of total return. Equally important, this superior performance was achieved with lower risk, as measured by the standard deviation of returns.

Based on this long-term study, it makes sense to avoid the highest-yielding stocks and rather look for companies with moderate yields and sound growth prospects. This safety-first approach will result in a lower yield but likely provide a better total return (dividends plus capital) at lower risk.

How to spot dividend ETFs worth investing in

When investing in dividend-paying companies through an ETF, here are key factors to consider: Continue Reading…

The revival of the 60/40 rule: Good for brokers, but not for investors

Posted By |

The revival of the 60/40 rule is a plus for brokers – but not for investors

Image by Pexels: RDNE Stock Project

Some experienced brokers (now more often referred to as investment advisors) are pleased at the recent rise in interest rates and inflation. After all, it could lead to a revival of the 60/40 rule, which was in common use for much of the second half of the 20th century, especially among experienced stockbrokers. Veteran brokers understood how to use it to spur clients to do more trading between stocks and bonds, and pay more brokerage commissions and fees.

The 60/40 rule is based on the proposition that a good-quality, balanced portfolio is made up of 60% good-quality stocks and 40% good-quality bonds. This idea leads to another: that investors can enhance their results by “rebalancing” their portfolios when they get away from that 60/40 goal, due to divergences between the bond and stock markets.

This is one of those clever ideas that at first glance, seems to make sense to many investors. It makes sense to brokers because it’s sure to make money for them. The payoff is rather less certain for the paying customers: the investors.

The problem is that stock and bond prices rise and fall under the influence of ever-changing sets of random factors: sometimes moving them in the same direction, other times moving them apart. These sets of random factors will vary in a random fashion as well. The stock/bond balance in a portfolio can hold steady for long periods, or swing abruptly from the “ideal” 60/40 split in a single day. This can happen even on a quiet day with few news developments to promote buying or selling.

The 60/40 rule gives the broker a rationale for proposing trades in a portfolio when changes in stock and bond prices have moved the portfolio away from the idealized 60/40 split.

This leads to another of the many conflicts of interest that exist in the investment business. However, unlike the hidden bond commissions I mentioned above, some brokers made a living out of the 60/40 rule. In my days as a broker, some old-timers in the office told me they could use the rule to add 2% to 4% of a client’s total portfolio to their gross annual commissions.

Any trade in your portfolio will cost you money in the form of fees and/or commissions, regardless of whether you make or lose money. But every trade you do in your portfolio will make money for the brokerage firm and/or salesperson, of course. That’s how they get paid.

Useless as a market indicator, great as a marketing device

We’ve often pointed out that market indicators sound a lot better than they perform. The 60/40 rule falls a step or two below an indicator. Rather than telling investors how they can make money in their investments, as market indicators supposedly do, this rule tells brokers and financial advisors how they can encourage their clients to do more buying and selling in the market, and thus increase broker incomes.

After all, the rule is based on a belief about the supposed advantage of a particular ratio of stocks to bonds in a portfolio. It’s not as if the rule comes with instructions on when to buy or sell, as you can derive from many market indicators. Instead, it gives brokers a rationale for advising their clients to buy bonds and sell stocks (or vice versa) more often. Continue Reading…