Tag Archives: asset allocation

MoneySense Retired Money: Should GICs be the bedrock of Canadian retirement portfolios?

Posted By |

My latest MoneySense Retired Money column, just published, looks at the role Guaranteed Investment Certificates (GICs) should play in the retirement portfolios of Canadians. You can find the full column by going to MoneySense.ca and clicking on the highlighted headline: Are GICs a no-brainer for retirees? 

(If link doesn’t work try this: the latest Retired Money column.)

Now that you can find GICs paying 5% or so (1-year GICs at least), there is an argument they could be the bedrock of the fixed-income portfolios, especially now that the world is embroiled in two major conflicts: Ukraine and Israel/Gaza. Should this embolden China to invade Taiwan, you’re starting to see more talk about a more global conflict, up to an including the much-feared World War 3.

Of course, trying to time the market — especially in relation to catastrophes like global war and armageddon — generally proves to be a mug’s game, so we certainly maintain just as much exposure to the equity side of our portfolios.

I don’t think retirees need to apologize for sheltering between 40 and 60% of their portfolios in such safe guaranteed vehicles. Certainly, my wife and I are glad that the lion’s share of our fixed-income investments have been in GICs rather than money-losing bond ETFs: the latter, and Asset Allocation ETFs with heavy bond exposure, were as most are aware, badly hit in 2022. But not GICs; thanks to a prescient financial advisor we have long used (he used to be quoted but now he’s semi-retired chooses to be anonymous), we had in recent years been sheltering that portion of our RRSPs and TFSAs in laddered 2-year GICs. Since rates have soared in 2023, we have gradually been reinvesting our GICs into 5-year GICs, albeit still laddered.

The MoneySense column describes a recent survey by the site about “Bad Money advice,” which touched in part on GICs. Almost 900 readers were polled about what financial trends they had “bought into” at some point. The list included AI, crypto, meme stocks, side hustles, tech and Magnificent 7 stocks and GICs. Perhaps it speaks well of our readers that the single most-cited response was the 49% who said “none of the above.” The next most cited was the 16% who cited a “heavier allocation to GICs.” You can read the full overview here but I did find a couple of other findings to be worthy of note for the retirees and would-be retirees who read this column: Not surprisingly, tech stocks (FANG, MAMAA. etc. were the first runnerup to GICs, receiving 13.24% of the responses. Not far behind were the 10.55% who plumped for crypto and NFTs (Non-fungible tokens). AI was cited by 3.7%: less than I might have predicted; and meme stocks were only 2.81%.

As I said to executive editor Lisa Hannam in her insightful article on the 50 worst pieces of financial advice, GICs are at the opposite end of the spectrum from such dubious investments as meme stocks and crypto. (I’d put Tech stocks and A.I. in the middle).

GICs won’t grow Wealth for younger investors, aren’t tax-efficient in non-registered accounts

The GIC column passes on the thoughts of several influential financial advisors. One is Allan Small, a Toronto-based advisor who occasionally writes MoneySense’s popular weekly Making Sense of the Markets column. He is among GIC skeptics. He told me his problem with GIC is that they “don’t grow wealth. They can act as a parking lot for money for some people but over time there have been very few years in which people have made money with GICs, factoring in inflation and taxation.” Continue Reading…

Why would anyone own bonds now?

Posted By |

 

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub 

“Many investors have been saying for years that rates can only go up from here, rates can only go one direction, rates will eventually go up. Will they?” – My Own Advisor, September 2021.

My, how things can and do change.

In today’s post, I look back at what I wrote in September 2021 to determine if I still feel that way for our portfolio.

Why would anyone own bonds now?

Why own bonds?

For years, decades, generations in fact, bonds have made sense for a diversified, balanced portfolio.

The main reason is this: bonds can reduce volatility due to their low or negative correlation with stocks. The more that investors learn about diversification, the more likely they are to add bonds to their portfolios.

That said, they don’t always make sense for everyone, all the time, always.

I’ll take a page from someone who was much smarter than I am on this subject:

Ben Graham on 100% stocks and cash

Ben Graham, on stocks, bonds and cash. Source: The Intelligent Investor.

Another key takeaway from this specific chapter of The Intelligent Investor is the 75/25 rule. This implies more conservative investors that don’t meet Ben Graham’s criteria above could consider splitting your portfolio between 75% stocks and 25% bonds. This specific split allows an investor to capture some upside by investing in mostly stocks while also protecting your investments with bonds.

Because stocks offer more potential upside, there is higher risk. Bonds offer more stability, so they come with lower returns than stocks in the long run.

As a DIY investor, this just makes so much sense since I’ve seen this playout in my/our own portfolio when it comes to our 15+ years of DIY investment returns. Our long-term returns exceed the returns I would have had with any balanced 60/40 stock/bond portfolio over the same period.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a 60/40 balanced portfolio held over decades, of course.

From Russell Investments earlier this year:

“Fixed income has historically been considered the ballast in a portfolio, offering stability and diversification against equity market fluctuations. Over the last 40 years, a balanced portfolio of 60% Canadian equities and 40% Canadian bonds would have returned 8.5% annualized with standard deviation of 9.3%. While a portfolio consisting solely of fixed income would have had lower return with lower risk, a portfolio consisting solely of equities would have had only slightly higher return but substantially higher risk.”

Source: https://russellinvestments.com/ca/blog/the-60-40-portfolio

1/1983 – 12/2022 Canada Equities Canada Bonds Balanced Portfolio 
Annualized Return 8.8% 7.2%  8.5%
Annualized Volatility 14.4% 5.3%  9.3%

Pretty darn good from 60/40.

So, while I continue to believe the main role of bonds in your portfolio is essentially safety – not investment returns – we can see above that bonds when mixed with stocks can be enablers/stabilizers and deliver meaningful returns over long investment periods as well.

As Andrew Hallam, a Millionaire Teacher has so kindly put it over the years, including some moments on this site to me:

… when stocks fall hard, bonds act like parachutes for your portfolio. Bonds might not always rise when the equity markets drop. But broad bond market indexes don’t crash like stocks do …

Is that enough to own bonds in your portfolio?

Maybe.

Here are a few reasons to own bonds, in no particular order: Continue Reading…

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Posted By |
The 100% equity ETFs from iShares and Vanguard/Canadian Portfolio Manager

By Mark Seed, myownadvisor

Special to Financial Independence Hub

A reader recently asked me the following based on reading a few pages on my site:

Mark, does it make sense to have 100% of your portfolio in stocks? If so, at what age would you personally dial-back to own more cash or GICs or bonds? Thanks for your answer.

Great question. Love it. Let’s unpack that for us. 

References:

My Dividends page.

My ETFs page.

Should you have 100% of your portfolio in stocks?

Maybe as a younger investor, you should.

Let me explain.

Members of Gen Z, which now includes the youngest adults able to invest (born in the late-1990s and early-2000s), represent a cohort that could be investing in the stock market for another 60 more years. 

According to a chart I found on Ben Carlson’s site about stuff that might happen in 2023, over 60+ investing years in the S&P 500 (as an example) historical indexing performance would suggest you’d have a better chance of earning 20% returns or more in any given year than suffering an indexing loss. Pretty wild.

S&P 500 - 100 stocks

Source: A Wealth of Common Sense. 

Shown another way as of early 2023:

S&P 500 Returns Updated

Source: https://www.slickcharts.com

This implies younger investors, in my opinion, should at least consider going all-in on equities to take advantage of long-term stock market return power when they are younger given:

  1. As you age, your human capital diminishes – your portfolio (beyond your home?) can become your greatest asset.
  2. Younger investors can also benefit from asset accumulation from periodic price corrections – adding more assets in a bear market; allowing assets to further compound at lower prices when corrections or crashes occur (i.e., buying stocks on sale).

Consider in this post on my site:

In the U.S.:

  • a market correction occurs at least once every 2 years, of 10% or more
  • a bear market at least every 7 years, where market value is down 20% or more
  • a major market crash at least every decade.

And in Canada for additional context:

The C.D. Howe Institute’s Business Cycle Council has created a classification system for recessions, grouping them together by category.

According to the council: Continue Reading…

An answer to “Can you help me with my investments?”

Posted By |

By Michael J. Wiener

Special to Financial Independence Hub

Occasionally, a friend or family member asks for help with their investments.  Whether or not I can help depends on many factors, and this article is my attempt to gather my thoughts for the common case where the person asking is dissatisfied with their bank or other seller of expensive mutual funds or segregated funds.  I’ve written this as though I’m speaking directly to someone who wants help, and I’ve added some details to an otherwise general discussion for concreteness.

Assessing the situation

I’ve taken a look at your portfolio.  You’ve got $600,000 invested, 60% in stocks, and 40% in bonds.  You pay $12,000 per year ($1000/month) in fees that were technically disclosed to you in some deliberately confusing documents, but you didn’t know that before I told you.  These fees are roughly half for the poor financial advice you’re getting, and half for running the poor mutual funds you own.

It’s pretty easy for a financial advisor to put your savings into some mutual funds, so the $500 per month you’re paying for financial advice should include some advice on life goals, taxes, insurance, and other financial areas, all specific to your particular circumstances.  Instead, when you talk to your advisor, he or she focuses on trying to get you to invest more money or tries to talk you out of withdrawing from your investments.

The mutual funds you own are called closet index funds.  An index is a list of all stocks or bonds in a given market.  An index fund is a fund that owns all the stocks or bonds in that index.  The advantage of index funds is that they don’t require any expensive professional management to choose stocks or bonds, so they can charge low fees.  Vanguard Canada has index funds that would cost you only $120 per month.  Your mutual funds are just pretending to be different from an index fund, but they charge you $500 per month to manage them on top of the other $500 per month for the poor financial advice you’re getting.

Other approaches

Before looking at whether I can help you with your investments, it’s worth looking at other options.  There are organizations that take their duty to their clients more seriously than the mutual fund sales team you have now. Continue Reading…

Violating my Principles

Posted By |

By Noah Solomon

Special to Financial Independence Hub

As I have written in the past, predicting stock market returns is largely an exercise in futility. Over the past several decades, the forecasted returns for the S&P 500 Index provided by Wall Street analysts have been slightly less accurate than someone who would have merely predicted each year that stocks would deliver their long-term average return. Importantly, not one major Wall St. strategist predicted either the tech wreck of the early 2000s or the global financial crisis of 2008-9.

To be clear, I am still adamant that consistently accurate forecasts are beyond the reach of mere mortals (or even quant geeks like me). Any investor who could achieve this feat would reap returns that put Buffett’s to shame. However, there may be some hope on the horizon. Good is not the enemy of great. The objective of any investment process should not be perfection, but rather to make its adherents better off than they would be in its absence.

To this end, I have decided to sin a little and model some of the most commonly cited macroeconomic variables that influence stocks market returns, with the objective of (1) ascertaining whether and how these factors have historically influenced markets and (2) what these variables are signaling for the future.

Don’t Fight the Fed

It is often stated that one shouldn’t fight the Fed. Historically, there has been an inverse relationship between changes in Fed policy and stock prices. All else being equal, increases in the Fed Funds rate have been a headwind for stocks while rate cuts have provided a tailwind.

Prior 1-Year Change in Fed Funds Rate vs. 1-Year Real Returns: S&P 500 Index (1960-Present)

As the preceding table illustrates, the difference in one-year real returns following instances when the Fed has been pursuing tighter monetary conditions has on average been 6.6%, as compared to 10.6% following periods when it has been in stimulus mode.

As of the end of June, the Fed increased its policy rate by 3.5% over the past 12 months. From a historical perspective, this change in stance lies within the top 5% of one-year policy moves since 1960 and is the single largest 12-month increase since the early 1980s. Given the historical tendency for stocks to struggle following such developments, this dramatic increase in rates is cause for concern.

Valuation, Voting, and Weighing

Over the past several decades, valuations have exhibited an inverse relationship to future equity market returns. Below-average P/E ratios have generally preceded above-average returns for stocks, while lofty P/E ratios have on average foreshadowed either below-average returns or outright losses.

Trailing P/E Ratio vs. 1-Year Real Returns: S&P 500 Index (1960-Present)

Since 1960, when P/E ratios stood in the bottom quintile of their historical range, the S&P 500 produced an average real return over the next 12 months of 9.4% compared with only 6.9% when valuations stood in the highest quintile. Sky high multiples have proven particularly poisonous, as indicated by the crushing bear market which followed the record valuations at the beginning of 2000.

To be clear, valuations have little bearing on the performance of stocks over the short term. However, their ability to predict returns over longer holding periods has been more pronounced. As Buffett stated, “In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.”

Although valuations are currently nowhere near the nosebleed levels of the tech bubble of the late 1990s, they are nonetheless elevated. With a trailing P/E ratio hovering north of 21, the S&P 500’s valuation currently stands in the 84th percentile of all observations going back to 1960 and is at the very least not a ringing endorsement for strong equity market returns.

From TINA To TARA To TIAGA

At any given point in time, stock market valuations must be considered in the context of the yields offered by high quality money market instruments and bonds. The difference between the earnings yield on stocks and interest rates has historically been positively correlated to future market returns.

Earnings Yields Minus Fed Funds Rate vs. 1-Year Real Returns: S&P 500 Index (1960-Present)

When the difference between earnings yields and the Fed Funds rate has stood in the top quintile of its historical range, the real return of the S&P 500 Index over the ensuing 12 months has averaged 8.7% versus only 2.2% following times when it has stood in the bottom quintile.

Until the Fed began to aggressively raise rates in early 2022, TINA (there is no alternative) was an oft-cited reason for overweighting stocks within portfolios. Yields on bank deposits and high-quality bonds yielded little to nothing, thereby spurring investors to reach out the risk curve and increase their equity allocations.

As the Fed continued to raise rates, increasingly higher yields made money markets and bonds look at least somewhat attractive for the first time in years, thereby causing market psychology to shift from TINA to TARA (there are reasonable alternatives). Continue Reading…