Fishing and diversification

stephen-momot-UivGzIDhVyw-unsplash.jpg

I love salmon fishing. I love all sorts of fishing, but salmon fishing is special. Instead of the romantic image of fly fishing in a river, or the flashy idea of big-time bass fishing, or even the nostalgic memory of fishing off a rowboat with your grandpa, salmon fishing is more like a battle. Forget everything you know about traditional casting and reeling, salmon fishing involves rigging up multiple fishing rods, attaching them to downriggers and various mechanisms for getting the lures down deep, and a slow troll on open water. The key to catching fish has nothing to do with technique or sport, it’s about setting a broad array of bait covering many different depths. We call it a ‘spread.’ If you only had one or two rods you’d be poorly served, it’s simply not a sufficient level of depth diversification. Ideally, you want 8 to 12, or even 15 to 18 in the case of professional charter boats. Here’s a quick visual:

downriggers2

Notice how the lines are prudently spread across varying depths? Investing is the same way! Stick with me here; the water is the stock market, the lines/rods are investment dollars, and the different depths are asset classes. We don’t know which depth, or depths, will produce fish, we just know the fish swim all over the place and that if we’ve got a good spread (lines at different depths) we’re bound to catch something. Same with asset classes! We know that they all perform over time, but we don’t know which one is going to hit next year or which one will be best over the next 5 years. So we own all of them. Imagine how dumb it would be to have one line out in the water trolling for salmon, it makes no sense. Even if that one line is set at the depth that has produced the most fish over the last few weeks, it still doesn’t make sense. Fish move around all the time, why would you not want to cover the whole water column/stock market? Just like downriggers and multiple lines ‘enable the whole water column to be covered when trolling,’ diversification allows you to own the whole market when investing! No guesswork, no hoping, no predicting, no gut feelings, no casting lots, no anxiety, just well balanced, widely diversified investments. I’m not saying it’s easy, salmon fishing is a lot of work, but when you’re eating your salmon dinner at the end of it, you’ll be glad you diversified.

Are you market timing?

Market timing is the practice of moving money in and out of the market, or in and out of specific sectors of the market, based on a belief that the market, or specific sectors of the market, will do well (in which case you’d be in) or poorly (in which case you’d pull out) in the future. If you’ve read about stock picking, market timing might sound familiar. Market timing is similar because it’s also built on a false premise that the market is inefficient, but it’s also a little bit different. Market timing is more subtle than stock picking. Instead of a belief that you can buy underpriced stocks and sell overpriced stocks, market timing is a larger bet on the future of entire market sectors. It gives the allusion that you can simultaneously be well-diversified and engage in market timing since you might always own a few different asset classes. It’s sort of like stock picking in disguise (it’s often called ‘tactical asset allocation’ which sounds super smart) because it’s essentially picking market sectors (asset classes) instead of stocks. Market timing can seem more legitimate than stock picking, but it’s still essentially gambling.

Market timing is unfortunately just as pervasive in the investing world as stock picking. It is often incited by panic, people move their money around or out when the market seems especially scary and move it back again (or not) when the market feels more safe. The timing tends to be exactly opposite of what should be done, people end up selling low and buying high and sacrificing millions of dollars in returns. But damage is done apart from panic too. Dalbar (an investor research company) reports that the average equity (stock) fund investor stays invested in their funds for only 4 years before jumping to a different set of funds, perhaps unintentionally market timing. Money managers routinely shift strategies within popular mutual funds (referred to style drift), shifting focus between market sectors. Pundits constantly discuss market trends which include market timing suggestions. Similar to stock picking, we’re so immune to market timing that it just sounds like normal investing at this point. That’s bad, here are a few reasons why:

1) People are bad at market timing. A study by William Sharpe conducted in 1975 (Likely Gains from Market Timing) concluded that in order for a market timer to beat a passive fund they would have to guess right about 74% of the time. An update to the study by SEI Corporation in 1992 concluded that the market timer would have to guess right at least 69% of the time, and sometimes as high as 91% of the time in order to beat a similarly invested passive fund. So the important question is: does anyone guess right with that frequency? Maybe you’ve made your own guess by this point, the answer is a resounding no. CXO Advisory did a fascinating study on the success ratios of market timers between 2005 and 2012. They looked at 68 ‘experts’ who made a total of 6,582 predictions during that period. The average accuracy of all predictions? 46.9%, well short of the minimum 69% threshold. These predictions sell news subscriptions and online adds, but they’re detrimental to investor returns.

2) Market timers miss out on returns. Trends are a big topic in the world of investing. Market timers analyze previous trends, they track current trends, and they look for the next trend, it’s incessant. Nejat Seyhun in a 1994 study entitled “Stock Market Extremes and Portfolio Performance” analyzed the period between 1963 and 1993 (a total of 7,802 trading days) and found that only 90 of the days were responsible for 95% of the positive returns. That’s about 3 days per year on average where 95% of returns came from. In all the misguided ‘trends’ talk and the popular practice of moving money in and out and all around, market timers routinely miss the most rewarding days in the market. Instead of focusing on market trends, investors would do much better to focus on the whole market and ride the general stint of the market upwards.

3) Market timers misunderstand the market. The most culpable cause of market timing is panic. People do crazy things when they’re scared and their money is on the line. Don’t get me wrong, the stock market can seem pretty scary, and it definitely involves money, but just because it seems scary doesn’t mean you should be scared. The average market crash of 10% or more lasts just under 8 months, 4 months until it hits the bottom, and just under 4 months to return to the pre-crash high. That’s not so scary. Over the last 93 years (going back as far as we have super-reliable data) 68 years were positive by an average of 21%, 25 years were negative by an average of 13%. Also not so scary. There are 45 countries in the world with free markets and the ability to buy and sell stocks and over 17,000 companies to invest in. What would it take for a well diversified portfolio to lose everything? Only some type of global apocalyptical event, at which point you probably wouldn’t be concerned with the amount of money in your portfolio. That is scary but not because of the market, it’s actually pretty reassuring as far as your portfolio is concerned. Instead of panicking, investors would do much better to rebalance during turbulent markets and capture returns on the way back up.

So market timing is a losing game. It can’t provide any consistent value to a portfolio, it actually causes a drag on returns, and it’s often driven by an inaccurate understanding of the market. Unfortunately it’s prevalent, and many portfolios engage in market timing while investors remain unaware. So take a look, have an advisor do an analysis for you. It pays to understand how you’re invested and to avoid market timing in your portfolio.

Sources:

https://www.ifa.com/12steps/step4/#footnote_3

https://money.usnews.com/investing/buy-and-hold-strategy/articles/2018-06-19/no-right-time-for-market-timing

3 Questions to Ask your Financial Advisor

Your investment advisor is a very important person. You rely on this person to help you navigate your lifelong financial journey, and hopefully guide you to a successful outcome. There are obvious characteristics we want in an advisor: integrity, honesty, diligence, etc., all good things. But there are other, almost equally important things most of take for granted in an advisor: What’s their investment strategy? What’s their view on the market? How do they expect to help you capture returns? These are questions we don’t tend to ask, after all, they’re the professionals, but the answers to these questions will have a profound impact on your future.

  1. Do you think the market is efficient or not?

This is a simple question with massive implications. Basically, you’re asking whether or not your advisor thinks he/she can consistently get you better returns than the market by actively buying and selling stocks (stock picking), moving in and out of different market sectors (market timing), and using funds with the best recent return history (track-record investing). If the market is not efficient then these are valid exercises. An inefficient market means that stock prices could be underpriced or overpriced and assumes that smart advisors should be able to figure out which stocks are which and pick the ones that will outperform all of the others. Unfortunately, advisors don’t consistently beat the market, they can’t consistently pick the winners. The results of choosing stocks and timing the market have been overwhelmingly negative and research has resoundingly supported the assertion that the market is actually efficient (Efficient Market Hypothesis). An efficient market means a stock is never overpriced or underpriced, its current price is always the best indication of its current value. If the market is efficient, that means it’s impossible for anyone to consistently predict or beat it, in fact, attempts to do so are more like gambling than investing. Instead of trying to outperform the market, the goal should be to own the whole of it as efficiently as possible. This brings us to the next question.

2. What Asset Classes Do I Own?

In order to efficiently own the market, you need broad diversification. That means you want to own many companies, but more importantly, you want to own many companies in many different asset classes (large companies, small companies, value companies, international companies, etc.). When you ask, most advisors are going to tell you that the large majority of your money is in Large US Growth companies (S&P 500), which is unfortunate because the Large US Growth company asset class is one of the lowest returning asset classes in history. That’s not to say the asset class is a bad investment, it’s great for diversification, but it’s certainly not where you want most of your money. Small and Value asset classes return better over time, so you want to ensure you’re broadly and significantly invested in those asset classes.

3. How will you help me capture returns?

There are three important components to successfully capturing returns: 1) diversify, 2) rebalance, 3) remain disciplined. Diversification (1) means you’ll have ownership in companies of all different shapes and sizes all over the world. Good diversification does two things for an investor: it reduces risk/volatility and increases return. Since we don’t know which sectors or stocks will do best this year, we own all of them, and then we rebalance, which brings us to point 2. The goal in rebalancing (2) is to keep an ideal percentage of each of the different asset classes in your portfolio. Since stocks and asset classes don’t all move the same way every year when one asset class is up and another is down your portfolio percentages get out of whack. That’s where rebalancing comes in. In order to rebalance your portfolio, your advisor will sell some of the asset class that went up and buy some of the asset class that went down, bringing the percentages back into alignment. This must happen systematically, for example, it could be every quarter, in order for it to be effective. The end result is that you’re automatically selling high and buying low. There’s no gut instinct, no guessing, no market timing, it’s committed disciplined rebalancing, which brings us to point 3. Discipline (3) isn’t something that comes naturally to most of us, but it’s extremely important in capturing returns and planning for your future. There’s a behavior element that all of this hinges on, if an investor doesn’t have the discipline to ride out the ups and downs in the market they can’t be a successful investor. The average investor switches advisors and funds and strategies every 3.5 years, that’s a losing game. So how will your investor help you stay disciplined and on track to capture those returns and achieve your goals?

Since I’m writing this and I’m an advisor, you probably assume I’ve got answers to these questions, your assumption is correct. But this isn’t just a sales pitch, good answers to these questions are critical for successful investing, and far too many people simply have no idea what their advisor is doing for them, whether good or bad. So ask a few questions!

Pay attention to asset classes, not returns

When people think about deciding between investment advisors, or mutual funds, or even stocks, the temptation is to look at past performance. That’s the default. And it seems basic, you’re looking for returns, what else would you look at? What else could you even look at?

The problem is the past performance we see is short term. You’ll see three to five year histories on your account statements, Morningstar defaults at a ten year history (if the fund has been around that long), and the news rarely talks about anything further back than the last year. Those are relatively short periods of time, especially when we’re talking about market returns. Instead of comparing past performance in advisors and mutual funds over the past ten years, we should be looking at long-term historical returns of asset classes.

An asset class is a group of similar securities that tend to move together. The main general asset classes are equities (stocks), fixed income (bonds), and cash. Each of these, but especially the equities group, can be broken down further. In equities, we see large vs small, value vs growth, U.S. vs international. For an example, a very popular asset class is U.S. Large Growth, which is basically the S&P 500. We have returns data on these asset classes all the way back to the early 20th century. That information can tell us much more than the past ten years. We can see which asset classes tend to outperform others, we can see how the different asset classes correlate to each other, and we can know what returns and risk a fund or portfolio can expect over long periods of time. A ten-year history of returns is almost irrelevant. Over ten years any asset class could outperform any other, but we don’t know when or which. So to look backward at the performance of a fund is not only unhelpful, it’s more often hurtful. A good ten-year history on a fund, or even an asset class, deceives us into thinking the performance will continue in the future. The short-term history the only information we know to use, and besides that, it seems to make sense. But that’s the opposite of a good investing strategy. Instead, let’s analyze the asset class data going back as far as it goes, understand where returns come from, and diversify our portfolio’s in a way that’s consistent with the data. Then we let the market perform and deliver results. Our balanced diversified portfolio won’t always be the big winner year by year, but over the long haul, it will outperform anyone trying to predict market movements based on ten-year histories, or any other material information.

What’s going on inside your investment portfolio?

Part of my job is to analyze customer portfolios. The gist is that we dig into the different investments, usually contained within different mutual funds, to figure out what people actually own in their portfolios. For many of us, it’s tough to know what’s going on behind the scenes in our portfolio because the quarterly statements only show pie charts and weird mutual fund names. So, I help to figure out what the actual stock holdings are, then organize the information by asset classes to see how many different asset classes people are invested in and what percentage of their money is allocated to each. Essentially it’s a determination of diversification, which, as we know, is the single most important component of a portfolio (check out Where do returns come from?). It’s a fun exercise, and helpful for clients. The results tend to be a little more sobering.

I estimate that about 95% of portfolios we analyze are not diversified like they should be, and about 75% of portfolios are heavily bent toward one asset class: US Large Growth (S&P 500). Those are estimates, the point is that the large majority of portfolios we see are diversified poorly or hardly at all. There are two problems here: 1) diversification is lacking, 2) the most popular asset class to load up in is US Large Growth.

The first problem has to do with the Modern Portfolio Theory. Lacking diversification means that the portfolio is subject to more risk (volatility) and will expect less return over time than an efficiently diversified portfolio. Many people think that they’re pretty well diversified because of the number of mutual fund names they see on their statement. However, we find that those mutual funds typically have significant overlap with each other. The large majority of portfolios are loaded up in US Large Growth companies because the mutual funds they own are loaded up in US Large Growth companies. Just because there are a bunch of different mutual funds doesn’t mean there are a bunch of different asset classes represented within them. Seldom do we find small companies or value companies within these mutual funds, and we almost never see small value companies. These portfolios also infrequently own anything internationally, which makes up about half of the global stock market (in 2017, the US accounted for 51.3% of the global market, leaving 48.7% often untapped). These asset classes are largely ignored in favor of US Large Growth.

The second problem has to do with the US Large Growth asset class. If US Large Growth was the best performing asset class, a lack of diversification in your portfolio would have at least some defense. The risk would still be higher than it should be, but at least you could expect some decent returns. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Going back as far as we have air-tight data on the stock market (almost 100 years), US Large Growth has been one of the worst performing asset classes in the world. That’s not to say US Large Growth a total waste, the asset class still provides good returns, and it’s valuable as a piece of a well-diversified account, but the lean towards these companies has a handicapping effect on portfolios. You simply won’t be able to expect the same level of return as you would in an efficiently diversified portfolio. Here’s a snapshot of average asset class returns over the years:

Why do most portfolios lean toward the S&P 500 despite the evidence? It seems that there are a few reasons. 1) The S&P 500 is the popular companies, the ones you’ve heard of, like Apple and Google and Amazon. They’re also all we hear about in the news. The S&P 500, the Dow Jones, and the Nasdaq are all categories of Large US companies. The news cycle is constantly spinning stories about them. They’re familiar companies, and we like to think we know them better. 2) The US Large Growth asset class is cheap to trade in. There is so much trading activity going on with these stocks, they’re always in demand, there’s always a market for them. Since much of the industry is still actively trading in an attempt to beat the market, they have to trade where the trades are cheaper. If they were actively making trades in an account with small value companies, the trading costs alone would submarine any return expectations.

When we see these disappointing results in a client’s portfolio we offer them a few things. 1) For the money they can move, we offer a well-diversified portfolio which will take advantage of returns offered from higher performing asset classes while simultaneously reducing risk. 2) If the money is locked up in a 401k with a current employer, we help them analyze their options within the 401k to get as close to an efficiently diversified portfolio as possible.