Tag Archives: indexing

My journey to Passive Index Investing – Part 1

Posted By |
By Dr. Networth
Special to the Financial Independence Hub

“If I were you, I would check out ETFs.”

And that’s how it started.   An idea was planted in my head.   A little nudge from a friend of mine.   This was back in 2009, when Exchange-traded Funds (ETFs) were not widely known.   I had never heard of the term before, and I did not know much about investing apart from hearing whispers  that I should just go to MD Management, hand over my money and let them “handle it.”

I was just finishing up with residency/fellowship, and was about to embark on my first staff physician job.  Since my pay cheque was about to dwarf my resident’s salary, I figured I should probably know the basics about investing, so I asked my friend for his advice.   At the time, he was working as a financial advisor at Bank of Montreal (BMO) with “high-net worth clients” (portfolios over $1 million); thus he seemed like a good resource to start with.  Looking back, I am extremely grateful for his honesty and transparency, as he could’ve easily recommended that I hand over my money and let him “handle it.”

I asked him what he recommended to his “high-net worth clients” to invest in.   His answer: BMO mutual funds.  Made sense, since he was at BMO.

Not all advisors invest alongside their clients

Then I asked him what he invested his own money in.  To my surprise, he invested his own money in ETFs, and did not hold a single BMO mutual fund.  I had always thought “wealthy” clients had access to the “best” investment products, so naturally, he would have done the same.

What???   I was confused!

Paraphrasing his answer:   “At the beginning of each month, financial advisors are told to recommend specific mutual funds to their clients in order to meet quotas, which in turn results in bonuses/commission fees.   The funds usually have a high MER (2% and above).   It lines my pockets and the bank’s pockets.  If I were you, I would check out ETFs.”

Looking back, I realize my friend was not your typical financial advisor.  He enjoyed reading books on personal finance/investing topics, and was quite knowledgable about investing.  Needless to say, he become disillusioned with the banking industry with all the sales tactics and the commissions and quotas driven nature of it all.   Not long after our conversation, he left the banking industry to pursue a career in a different industry that made him much happier.

Continue Reading…

A snapshot of Canadian investors’ appetite for risk: Vanguard’s Canadian risk speedometers

Posted By |

Figure 1: Vanguard’s Canadian risk speedometers, September 30, 2017

By Todd Schlanger, Senior Investment Strategist, Vanguard Canada

(Sponsor Content)

As part of Financial Literacy Month in Canada, we are proud to announce the launch of Vanguard’s Canadian risk speedometers.

These speedometers were originally designed by my colleagues in the United States to provide a factual representation of how investor risk appetite is trending today, relative to the past.

In order to generate the speedometers, we calculated net cash as a percentage of total assets under management, (in this case, within the universe of Canadian mutual funds and ETFs) into high-risk and low-risk asset categories. We then looked at the relative cash flows into high- versus low-risk asset classes, relative to history.

The end result is a risk measure that can be tracked through time and displayed in a risk speedometer index, as shown in Figure 1 over the 1-, 3-, and 12-month periods ending September 30, 2017. When risk appetite is above its historical average — such as over the 12-month period — the needle is to the right of centre, indicating higher risk appetite. When the needle is to the left of centre, risk appetite is below average. In addition to the current risk appetite readings, we also display the prior 1-, 3-, and 12-month readings for comparison.

Notes: Vanguard’s risk speedometers measure the difference between net cash flows into higher-risk asset classes and lower-risk asset classes, in this case within the universe of Canadian mutual funds and ETFs. The lighter-shaded areas represent values that are within one standard deviation of the mean, which means they occur roughly 68.2% of the time (34.1% higher and 34.1% lower). The middle shades represent readings between one and two standard deviations from the mean, occurring 27.2% of the time (13.6% higher and 13.6% lower). The dark edges represent values more than two standard deviations from the mean, occurring the remaining 4.6% of the time (2.3% higher and 2.3% lower). Speedometer values for previous periods may change from what was initially reported as the current value in prior periods because of changes made in Morningstar, Inc., data, and to the updating of the five-year average.

Along with the risk speedometers, we will be providing underlying asset category details (the top winners and losers in each category) in terms of net cash flows and changes in assets under management that resulted in the current risk appetite readings, as shown in Figure 2 (for the same periods, ending September 30, 2017).

Figure 2: Highest net inflows and outflows Continue Reading…

Low future returns? The coming bull market in advice

Posted By |

A bull market in advice? This novel idea is the basis of my latest Motley Fool blog, which came out of the 2017 Vanguard Investment Symposium held this Tuesday.

Hopefully, the title is self-explanatory. Click on the highlighted text to access the whole blog: Lower future returns from balanced portfolios means a bull market in advice.

Click through to get Vanguard’s forecasts for future returns. Suffice it to say that they don’t believe the next five years will be as good as the last five years have been for balanced investors.

All of which means good financial advice will be at a premium.  Naturally, Vanguard believes that the lower expected future investment returns are, the more important it is to reduce costs and taxes, which of course its low-cost index funds and ETFs facilitate. But it also believes advisors can help investors by addressing the so-called  “behaviour gap.” It’s been well documented that poor investing behaviour (buying high, selling low) are destructive to returns, which is why a good financial advisor can more than recoup his/her fees.

Advisors can add 3% value per a year

Many fee-based advisors use the kind of investment funds Vanguard provides and Vanguard believes good advice can “add value” of roughly 3% per year to clients’ investment returns.

Behavioural coaching is the single biggest value-add: 150 basis points (1.5%). “Staying the course is difficult,” but “a balanced diversified investor has fared relatively well,” said one Vanguard presenter quoted in the Motley Fool piece, Fran Kinniry.

Behavioural coaching is followed closely by 131 beeps for cost-effective product implementation (using low expense ratios). This alone can add 1 to 2 percentage points of value, Vanguard says, attributing the finding to “numerous studies.” Rebalancing accounts for another 47 beeps, and Asset Location between 0 and 42 beeps (as opposed to Asset Allocation, which it says adds “more than 0 beeps.”)

A proper spending strategy (identifying the order of withdrawals in the decumulation stage) accounts for another 0 to 41 beeps. All told, the potential value added comes to “about 3%,” Kinniry says.

Vanguard says a “strong move to fee-based” compensation is accelerating. In 2015, 65% of advisors’ compensation came from asset-based fees, while wealthier investors are “most willing to pay AUM-based fees.” Gradually this will ‘flow down” to less well-heeled clients, “as smaller balances can now be well-served” in a fee-based model because of scale and technology.

Using Cerulli data from 2015, Vanguard estimates the median asset-weighted advisory fee is 1.39% for the mass market ($100,000 assets), 1.28% for the middle market ($300,000), 1.09% for the mass-affluent market ($750,000), 0.92% for the affluent market ($1.5 million to $5 million) and 0.70% for the High Net Worth market ($10 million or more).

On average across all clients, the median fee is 1.07%.

 

Do you need to “De-FANG” your portfolio of giant US tech stocks?

Posted By |

Do you need to De-FANG your portfolio or are you so focused on Canada that you’re actually underweight on the big US tech stocks?

My latest MoneySense column looks at the post-Trump surge in tech stocks and the more recent retrenchment in the sector. For the full article, click on the highlighted text here: Do you need to de-FANG your portfolio.

FANG is of course the famous acronym created by Mad Money’s Jim Cramer and stands for Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google.

But as the piece goes into in some detail, and per the image above, there are alternative acronyms that include Apple and Microsoft, although not IBM (despite the graphic above).

The question is whether so-called “Couch Potato” type investors who use the MoneySense ETF All-stars already have sufficient technology exposure to participate in the expected long-term growth of technology and particularly Internet giants like Google, Facebook, Amazon and the like. Certainly after last week’s  big announcement that Amazon seeks to acquire Whole Foods, this question is increasingly relevant.

As you’ll see, broad-based ETFs tracking the S&P500 index already have significant tech exposure: roughly a third in these names. Less so for global ETFs exposed to firms outside North America, although these too have healthy exposure to the sector.

Canadian-centric investors woefully underweight technology

Continue Reading…

How to add value in the Great Migration from mutual funds to ETFs

Posted By |

 

By Luciano Siracusano III, Chief Investment Strategist, WisdomTree

and Christopher Carrano, Investment Analyst

 

Over the past few years, as hundreds of billions of dollars has flowed out of equity mutual funds and into exchange-traded funds (ETFs), a great migration of assets has been under way in the asset management business. This is occurring because of the changing business models of advisors and brokers-dealers and because of the unique benefits that ETFs can bring to investors, including relatively lower fees1, transparency of holdings, intraday liquidity and the potential for greater tax efficiency.

In many cases, “low-cost beta” ETFs, which track broad indexes, have outperformed the vast majority of active managers over time.2 This has made the decision to move assets from actively managed mutual funds into ETFs not just a decision based on cost, but also one based on performance.

But investors making this migration today have a choice that goes beyond just low-cost beta. For the past 10 years, WisdomTree has been showing investors ways to generate “low-cost alpha” in the form of fundamentally weighted ETFs that provide broad market exposure but that rebalance equity markets based on income, not market value. In recent years, other ETF managers have followed similar paths, creating narrower exposures that seek to tap into return premiums such as value, size, quality, momentum or low volatility—all of which have been associated with generating excess returns versus the market over time.

In the table above, we show how portfolios targeting value, size, quality, momentum and low volatility have performed compared to the S&P 500 Index in each calendar year since 2000. The last column on the right shows the annualized returns of these factor-based baskets over the 16-year period. Note that in each and every case, the annualized returns exceeded those of the broader market over the entire holding period.

Factors’ long-run performance

Yet, it is important to note that, despite all five of these factors outperforming the S&P 500 since 2000, they did not do so in each and every year. Factors are subject to the ebbs and flows of the business cycle, much like the sectors of the S&P. But, unlike factors, it is impossible for every sector of the S&P 500 to individually and collectively outperform the entire S&P 500 Index over time. The appeal of factor-based investing is that these major return premiums, based on decades of data, appear not to be subject to this same constraint.

Continue Reading…