Index issues (part 2)

 

claudio-schwarz-purzlbaum-8j6_3iUcgec-unsplash

Alright, so we know passive investing trumps active investing, and we know that index investing, while passive, has some serious deficiencies. So what’s left?
We want to own the market passively, but that doesn’t mean we’re restricted to index funds. There is a much more responsible way to allocate money to different companies and sectors – structured funds. Structured funds deal with each of the index funds issues:

1. Instead of an arbitrary grouping of companies, a structured fund can make it’s own set of rules to decide which companies are in an asset class or fund and which are not. The S&P 500 is 500 of the largest companies in the U.S., but what if that’s not the best way to own the U.S. Large growth asset class? The same question can be asked of any index. Instead of abiding by the arbitrary index rules, a structured fund makes its own rules based on a century of market data. Just like the S&P 500 has rules to decide which companies are in and which are out (largely based on that 500 number), a structured fund has a set of rules that a company has to meet (size, profitability, book to value ratio, etc.) in order to be included in that fund. It’s still passive (in fact, often more passive than index funds), the rules are what determine which companies are in and out not an advisor’s gut feelings, but it’s a different type of investing. And it’s based on actual market research instead of arbitrary measurements.

2. We know that small companies outperform large companies over time, but indexes, by necessity (because of cap-weighting), own the least amount of the small companies. Even small company indexes like the Russell 2000 (which owns the smallest 2,000 companies in the U.S.) have much more money invested in the larger several companies than in the smaller hundreds of companies. If you’re in a target dated fund (the ones with a year at the end) in a 401k or a total U.S. market index fund, you’re missing out on the best returns the market has to offer because of cap-weighting.

3. Structured funds are not as cheap to own, and they’re much more scarce than index funds. You’ll probably have to work with an advisor to gain access to them. They rarely let investors put their finger on the trigger. Over time, these funds outperform traditional index funds because they’re designed to maximize return. An index fund would have to pay you to achieve similar returns, even after the additional costs of structured funds are considered. And because investors can only access them through an advisor, the likely-hood that investors consistently realize the returns (instead of hopping in or out or all around at the wrong time) increases significantly.

Often times index funds are the only decent option available (this is true in many 401k accounts), but when the options are open, a good advisor offering good structured funds is the best option.

Value Investor

sean-stratton-ObpCE_X3j6U-unsplash.jpg

Value investing sounds really cool. It sounds savvy, it sounds smart, it sounds responsible, it sounds like it makes a lot of money. I mean, Warren Buffet is a value investor!

So what is a value investor? Well, a value investor is someone who invests in value companies. So what’s a value company? I’m glad you asked. Essentially, a value company is one whose stock price is about the same (could be a little higher or lower) than its intrinsic, or book, value. A lot of words there but stick with me. The intrinsic value of a company is what you get when you add up all the company’s assets, its land, warehouses, products (which can include patents), equipment, cash, etc. It might seem a little odd that a company’s stock price wouldn’t always be close to its intrinsic value, but the stock market prices of growth companies (the opposite of value companies) can actually trade multiples of 8 times higher than its intrinsic value. This happens because the market expects the growth company to continue growing. Value companies aren’t typically expected to grow much, they’re often characterized as distressed. So value investors are analyzing these value companies and deciding which ones they think are actually undervalued and which ones could bounce back. Again, it sounds great, they’re the brilliant nerdy guys reading all of the fine print and finding the deals in the stock market, the companies that are underpriced. All you have to do is hitch up to their wagon and ride those value companies up when everyone else figures out how valuable they actually are. Sounds pretty responsible, right?

A semi-famous value investor, Michael Burry, featured in the Big Short (as Christian Bale) crushed the growth stock market from 2001-2005. In the middle of 2005, he was up 242% when the U.S. large growth market (S&P500) was down 6.84%. Michael Burry is the quintessential weird genius that we love to fall in love with, and hand our money over to. He did things differently, he didn’t take normal massive fees, he was incredibly awkward with people in person, he kept to himself, he obsessively studied the interworkings of the companies he invested in, just about everything you would expect from the next market genius. He’s most famous for predicting, and attempting to short, the housing crash in 2007. And now’s he’s rich, and famous, and still investing. He recently stated that passive investing is a bubble, that he’s concentrated on water (you get it), that GameStop is undervalued, and that Asia is where it’s at. While these investment tips might accord with the laws of value investing, they hardly seem prudent.

Michael Burry is definitely smarter than I am, but here’s what I know:

1) Ken French, a professor of finance at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, who has spent much of his adult life researching and publishing in the sphere of economics and investing, conducted a study of mutual-fund managers (Luck versus Skill in the Cross-Section of Mutual Fund Returns) and found that only the top 2% to 3% had enough skill to even cover their own costs. Eugene Fama, another father of economic and investing academia, who co-wrote the paper with Ken French, summarizes their findings this way: “Looking at funds over their entire lifetimes, only 3% demonstrate skill after accounting for their fees, and that’s what you would expect purely based on chance.” Of the managers who do exhibit enough skill to cover their own costs, it’s hard to determine whether an actual skill is at work or it’s simply a facet of luck; most free-market scholars lean towards luck.

2) Fama continues: “Even the active funds that have generated extraordinary returns are unlikely to do better than a low-cost passive fund in the future.” Some managers do well enough to cover their own costs and beat the market in a given year. Unfortunately, their success languishes quickly and they regress to the same plane that active managers, on the whole, occupy, underperforming the market.

So is Michael Burry, or any value investor, the weird, brilliant savant that we desperately want to attach our life-savings to, or is he one of the 3% of managers who have done well enough to cover their own fees, but who the data says is more likely to regress to market underperformance mean than to do it again? I know which side I’m playing.

Financial Advisors aren’t evil (mostly)​

hunters-race-MYbhN8KaaEc-unsplash.jpg

I met a stranger this morning (the beauty of Facebook marketplace). He had looked me up in advance, not to be creepy (he assured me), just to make sure he wasn’t meeting a crazy person. He saw that I’m a financial advisor and wondered if I had ever met his financial advisor, whom he trusts very much. In fact, he trusts his financial advisor so much he recently handed over full discretion, meaning the advisor no longer needs his permission to make trades and move money. It was becoming cumbersome to give the okay every time the advisor wanted to make a trade. I informed him that I had not met his financial advisor, and he assured me that his advisor is a great guy.
Here’s the thing, I’m sure he is a great guy, I’m sure his intentions are (mostly) pure. Many financial advisors are really great, and they really care. But that little discretionary bit he shared with me is alarming. When it becomes cumbersome to approve every trade your advisor wants to make, that’s a problem. According to the data, financial advisors who actively trade routinely underperform the market, even advisors who are really great guys. Don’t work with an advisor only because he or she is a great person. Find an advisor who is a great person, but who also understands how the market works, how to most efficiently capture returns, how to avoid stock picking and market time and trying to beat the market, and most importantly, how to coach you. Your future depends on more than the integrity of your advisor. He may not be evil, but he may also be submarining your retirement.

Recession rumblings

jason-roberts-6AQY7pO1lS0-unsplash.jpg

I’ve been hearing a lot of rumblings about the next recession recently. Just last week a podcast host went through great pains to explain why the next recession will hit within the next year. I even agree with some of the foundations of his economic arguments, but there’s always a leap of faith involved when a prediction is made, especially when it comes to an economic recession. Here are a few things to think about the next time you encounter one of these predictions:

  • No one has a good grasp on what the market will do tomorrow, let alone what it will do in the next few weeks or months, or especially years. The reason it’s so hard to predict the market is that there are trillions upon trillions of data-points that all influence how the market will move. These trillions of data-points are also constantly moving, so even if you did have a pretty good grasp of what was happening in the market, five minutes later it will have all changed. It’s simply impossible for us to get a full picture of the happenings in the market.
  • Even if you did have a solid continuous grasp of the trillions upon trillions of data points in the market as they changed, it would still be impossible to predict market movements because the market moves based on data in the future. Even if you understand the current market completely, unless you know the future you’re going to have a tough time predicting where it will go.
  • Let’s pretend for a moment that you can see the future and you know for sure that a recession is coming, that would be awesome. But there’s still a problem, not only would you have to know for sure that a recession is coming, you’d have to know exactly what day it would begin and exactly what day it would end in order to profit from that knowledge. The market moves quickly, if you miss just a few of the best days (which often come right after recessions) it would have been better for you to remain invested and ride out the storm than to pull your money out and wait to get back in. Market timing is a deceptive thing. We intuitively think the best move is to get our money out of the market when a recession is coming, but the opposite is true. Even in the face of a recession, the best move is to remain invested. Unless you can comprehend trillions of data-points and know the future with an incredible level of specificity, don’t buy into the recession rumblings.

Is a recession coming?

markus-spiske-5gGcn2PRrtc-unsplash.jpg

Last week Wednesday (the 14th) was a bad day, at least it was a bad day for the markets. I actually had a pretty nice day, maybe you did too. The market took a hit though, the DOW was down 800 points (about 3%), its worst day of this year, and other indexes didn’t fare much better. The chatter is heating up, the next recession is on the horizon! But is it?
Well, the Wall Street Journal certainly seems to think so. In an article title Stocks losses deepen as a key recession warning surfaces published last week, the WSJ espouses the fearful sentiment pervading the industry last week. A few quotes:

Whether the events presage an economic calamity or just an alarming spasm are unclear. But unlike during the Great Recession, global leaders are not working in unison to confront mounting problems and arrest the slowdown. Instead, they are increasingly at one another’s throats.

This sounds especially bad. At least in 2008 people were trying to fix the problem!

“The stars are aligned across the curve that the economy is headed for a big fall,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at MUFG Union Bank. “The yield curves are all crying timber that a recession is almost a reality, and investors are tripping over themselves to get out of the way.”

Yikes, sounds like someone is about to get trampled.

The U.S. economy has shown signs of weakening in recent months, but high levels of consumer spending in the United States have helped enormously. Still, the escalating trade war between Trump and Chinese leaders has stopped many businesses from investing. And there are signs that the large tariffs he has placed on many Chinese imports is costing U.S. businesses and consumers billions of dollars.

If this isn’t a rollercoaster of emotion I don’t what is. Signs of weakening? Oh no! High levels of consumer spending? Okay, so not too bad. Tariffs are costing U.S. business and consumer billions? Run from the market!

I kid, but this is actually serious stuff. The WSJ is only one among many news outlets forecasting the next crash. The problem is, no one knows when the next crash will be, regardless of ‘key recession warning’ claims, because the market moves on new news and information, things that no one knows. Unless of course, you know the future.

Just today, exactly one week later, we’ve got a new narrative in the news: Stocks are on a comeback. Dow rises 250 points. The rollercoaster is exhausting.

Instead of tuning into the cycle, remember that great returns don’t come from any ability to time the next crashThe market recesses sometimes, and it could be contracting now, or next year, or in five years. We don’t know when, we just know that’s how the market works. The disciplined investor who has a plan for whenever the next crash comes and a coach to get them through it will always win.