Off balance?

Three years ago on this blog, I introduced the Amish Portfolio — essentially a bare-bones, low-cost portfolio for those who get a little buggy by complex investment recommendations. If you have a wood-burning computer to track it, all the better.

The portfolio consists of three funds:

* Vanguard Total World Stock Index fund (ticker: VTWSX). The beauty of this fund is that you don’t have to fret about how much to have in international stocks and how much to keep at home. It’s all in there, according to market capitalization: 56.5% North America, 21.5% Europe, 20.8% Asia, and 8.0% emerging markets. Cost for the investor shares: 0.19% a year, or $1.90 per $1,000 invested.

* Vanguard Total Bond Index fund (VBMFX). You get broad exposure most types of U.S. bonds. Current yield: 2.54%. Cost: 0.15%, or $1.50 per $1,000.

* Vanguard Prime Money Market (VMMXX). Hey, it’s a money fund. It yields 2.03% after its 0.16% expenses.

The suggestion for conservative investors: 20% Vanguard Total Bond, 20% Vanguard Prime Money Market and 60% Vanguard Total World stock. You can add to stocks (and reduce cash or bonds) depending on your personal risk profile.

A mix of stocks, bonds and money market funds is remarkably self-balancing: Despite the stock market’s runup, the conservative blend above is at 65% stocks, 18% bonds and 18% money market funds. It probably doesn’t need to be rebalanced now.

Had this been your portfolio for the past five years, however, you’d now be 76% in stocks — far more than your initial target. In this case, you’d want to sell enough from your stock fund and add to your money fund and bond fund to get to your original 60% stocks, 20% bonds, 20% money fund allocation.

Rebalancing too frequently means that you’ll be cutting off your gains too quickly. (In a taxable account, it means you could be triggering taxes, too). Using the 10% rule typically means occasional rebalancing, and often when one market — stocks or bonds — are a bit frothy. If you’ve been in the market for a while, and you have a set allocation to stocks, now might be the time to rebalance.



Why buy bonds?

Why do economists continue to give interest-rate forecasts, despite the fact that they’re generally awful at predicting interest rates? Probably because people ask them to. But if you’re thinking of investing in a bond fund now, it would help to have a forecast in mind – if only to give you an idea of the risks you’re incurring.

People ask economists to give interest rate forecast because so many things depend upon your assumption for rates, and that’s especially true for bonds. Bond prices fall when interest rates rise and they rise when interest rates fall.

Just how vulnerable is your fund to interest-rate changes? You can get a good idea by looking at the fund’s duration, which tells you how much a bond’s price will fall, given a rise in interest rates of one percentage point. Consider the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF (BND), the largest bond ETF, which is also a good proxy for, well, the total U.S. bond market.

The Vanguard ETF, for example, has a duration of 6.09 years, meaning a rise in rates of one percentage point would mean a principal loss of about 6.09%. That loss would be offset, somewhat, by the interest investors receive from the bonds. The ETF has a yield of 3.13%, according to Morningstar Direct. If you were to assume that rates will rise by a percentage point, your total return – price decline plus interest – would about a 3% loss.

Interest rates have been rising since July 2016, when the bellwether 10-year Treasury note hit an all-time low of 1.38%. It’s trading at 2.85% now. Since that date, Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund ETF has lost 1.75%, including reinvested interest. While interest payments have certainly offset most of the fund’s losses, it hasn’t been enough to eliminate them entirely. The past 12 months, the fund has lost 0.82%.

Army ants.

Here’s where the forecast comes in. If you were to assume that interest rates will rise a percentage point in the next year, you should brace yourself for roughly a 3% loss. That’s not a catastrophic loss – bond bear markets are like getting attacked by very mean ants – but you might consider a few other options.

One is a money market fund. Just as the 10-year T-note yield has been rising, so has the yield on money market funds. Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund Investor Shares (VMMXX) has a yield of 2.02% and – assuming the fund maintains its constant price of $1 per share – it has very little potential for a principal loss.

Another is a fund with a tolerable track record of managing interest-rate risk. (Typically, these funds are also deft with credit risk – buying bonds from shaky companies that are getting better). One is Dodge & Cox Income (DODIX). It has a duration of 4.2 years, a 3.02% yield, and an expense ratio of 0.43%.  The past two years, the fund has averaged a 2.94% gain – not much, but better than the average fund.

Bear in mind if bonds are a part of a long-term plan, you shouldn’t dump your bond funds because you’ve got a feeling rates will rise.  Over the long term, bonds have a great record in dampening the effects of stock downturns. But if you’re trying to figure out where to invest money now, a money fund or Dodge & Cox Income are two good places to start.

A word for the naive: Well done!

One of the duties on the long list of grownup responsibilities is to figure out how much money to put into your company’s 401(k) offerings. Many people, rather than figuring out their long-term goals and tolerance for risk, simply split their money equally between all the options.

This is known as the 1/n portfolio among the nerdly, or more generally, the naive portfolio. And its results generally aren’t that bad, even when compared with high-powered optimized portfolios.

What makes the naive portfolio more interesting is that companies don’t choose their 401(k) offerings much differently than naive investors do: That is, they tend to offer very large funds with a good near-term track record. The odds are good that your fund’s 401(k) offerings are simply the largest funds available. Here are the 10 largest mutual funds, ranked by assets, and how they performed last year.

Name Ticker Morningstar Category 2017 gain
Vanguard Total Stock Mkt Idx Inv VTSMX US Fund Large Blend 21.05%
Vanguard 500 Index Investor VFINX US Fund Large Blend 21.67%
Vanguard Total Intl Stock Index Inv VGTSX US Fund Foreign Large Blend 27.40%
Vanguard Institutional Index I VINIX US Fund Large Blend 21.79%
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Inv VBMFX US Fund Intermediate-Term Bond 3.46%
American Funds Growth Fund of Amer A AGTHX US Fund Large Growth 26.14%
American Funds Europacific Growth A AEPGX US Fund Foreign Large Growth 30.73%
Vanguard Total Bond Market II Idx Inv VTBIX US Fund Intermediate-Term Bond 3.51%
JPMorgan US Government MMkt Capital OGVXX US Fund Money Market – Taxable 0.77%
Fidelity® 500 Index Investor FUSEX US Fund Large Blend 21.72%

Dividends, gains reinvested through Dec. 29. Data via Morningstar.

The portfolio’s total return: 17.8%, which lags the Standard and Poor’s 500 stock index by a bit more than four percentage points. On the other hand, the portfolio is only 70% invested in stocks, which is what you’d want in a diversified portfolio. The 20% allocation to bonds and 10% allocation to money market securities (as well as a 10% slug of foreign stocks) are reasonable diversification for a moderate portfolio.

Of note, too: This is a dirt-cheap portfolio, with an average expense ratio of 0.25%. Low expenses are one of the single most important predictors of future returns: The less you give to your fund company, the more you get to keep for yourself.

What could go wrong? Three things, none of which seem terribly serious. The first is the preponderance of index funds, which will guarantee you nothing more (or less) than what the market does. If the S&P 500 goes down 20%, this portfolio’s two S&P 500 index funds will go down 20%, too. But it’s unlikely that actively managed funds will get out of the way in time, either: Most didn’t during the 2007-2009 bear market. And remember, the portfolio is only 70% in stocks.

The second is that, thanks to the market’s runup, you’re now about 74% in stocks. This is not particularly something to worry about at the moment. Now, if you had been in these 10 funds for the past 10 years, your portfolio would be 81% in stocks.  This is better than watching your stock allocation shrink. But you might have a greater exposure to stocks in the next bear market than you’d like. If that’s the case, you should sell enough of your winning funds and reinvest the proceeds in your laggards, bringing you back to your original 70% stock allocation.

The final problem is that the 10 funds in the chart are there because they have been wildly successful in the past decade. Money follows success.  It’s a good bet that the 10 largest funds today won’t be the 10 largest in the next decade. When you’re at the top, there’s nowhere to go but down.

Unfortunately, if you’re simply investing in what the company offers, there’s not much you can do about that. Nor, for that matter, can you predict accurately what the 10 largest funds of 2028 will be. The main thing is to keep an amount in stocks that you can live with.







The Three Percent Solution

When I was growing up, we had a lot of cats. I don’t mean three or four cats. We usually had upwards of ten, all descended from a single calico named Caroline. My parents underestimated both the gestation period of the common house cat, as well as the neighbors’ interest in adopting kittens, no matter how tri-colored and adorable. I thought little of it: I liked cats, and still do, and to me, having 10 or more cats in the house was perfectly normal. It wasn’t until I was older that I realized how peculiar that was.

One of the peculiarities of the past decade – and it’s been a singularly peculiar decade – has been the exceptionally low level of interest rates. The average yield on the three-month Treasury bill the past 10 years has been 0.38%, according to the Federal Reserve. And that figure is inflated somewhat by the first 12 months of the series, when three-month T-bill yields averaged a whopping 2.14%. After that, the three-month bill yielded an average 0.18%. (For purists, this is the market yield, not the discount yield).

For anyone who has been investing the past decade, 0.18% seems about normal. Money market mutual funds, whose yields track the short-term T-bill, have yielded next to nothing – and sometimes actually nothing – for much of the past decade. The same is true for bank CDs. But this is not normal. The average yield for the three-year T-bill since 1934 is 3.5%. If we want to get rid of the very highest and very lowest yields, we get a typical yield of 3.18% over that 83-year period.

Why is this important? For large swaths of the nation’s history, you could get a yield of 3% or more by taking virtually no risk. But for the past decade, that 3% yield has been entirely elusive. To get even a modest 3% yield, you had to take unprecedented risk, either by investing in dividend-producing stocks, or by investing in corporate bonds.

Barring some unforeseen disaster, the period of rock-bottom rates is over. From October 2009 through October 2015, the three-month T-note yielded an average 0.07%, as the Fed kept rates low to stimulate the moribund economy. Today it stands at 1.26% and, should the Fed raise rates as expected, will rise to about 1.5%. Analysts widely expect the Fed to raise rates another half percent or more next year, bringing T-bill rates to about 2% to 2.25%.

While this is still low by historical standards, it holds some interesting implications for long-suffering savers. First, a 2.25% riskless yield could be enough to dull investors’ interest in dividend-producing stocks. Currently, the Standard & Poor’s 500 yields 1.9%. While companies are flush with cash – and get more so should corporate tax rates fall – a 1.9% yield is not a terrific reward for stock market risk when T-bills are sitting at 2.25%.

Yields on bank CDs are already rising. The highest yielding nationally available one-year CD, offered by online bank Banesco, weighs in at 1.75% with a $1.500 minimum, according to Goldman Sachs Bank USA offers a one-year CD at the same rate. A five-year CD from Capital One 360 yields 2.45%, but it makes little sense to lock in for five years when rates are rising.

Money fund rates are rising as well. Vanguard Money Market Prime (VMRXX) currently sports a 1.20% yield. And lists three bank money market accounts with yields of 1.5%. (Bear in mind that bank money market account yields are set by the bank, while money market accounts are set by the market).

Investors who decided to seek a bit more yield by investing in short-term bond funds may want to rethink that strategy. Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index fund (VBISX), for example,  has gained 1.39% the past 12 months, including reinvested dividends. Its 12-month yield is 1.54%, indicating that investors have taken a modest loss on principal. If the Fed continues to raise rates, investors will get higher yields, but also increased principal losses.

If you’re a long-term investor with reasonable risk tolerance, there’s nothing wrong with investing in a stock fund that aims for high or growing dividends. Members of the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index have record amounts of cash, the economy is growing, and they may get even more cash through proposed corporate tax cuts. And several funds offer a convenient way to buy dividend stocks. T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth (PRDGX), for example, has gained 17.35% the past 12 months and offers a 1.4% yield. Fidelity Dividend Growth (FDGFX) has gained 16.13% the past 12 months with a 1.47% yield. Vanguard Dividend Growth, alas, is closed to new investors.

If you’re simply looking for income, however, and you’re worried about the stock market, you may soon be able to put some of that worry to rest by going to cash. Any reasonable portfolio needs exposure to stocks for long-term growth, so don’t sell everything. But if you want to raise a little cash, you’ll get a bit more reward than you have for most of the past 10 years. And that’s one thing about our current investment climate that actually isn’t peculiar.


Lots of cash and animal spirits: What could possibly go wrong?

If you’ve ever been to a particularly raucous New Year’s party, you know that there’s a logical progression from the first awkward arrivals and introductions until you’re sleeping in a car full of raccoons and empty Cheetos bags.  And, at the time, each step makes wonderful sense.

Right now, the markets are at a spot where spirits are high and cash is flowing like liquor at your broker’s annual Christmas party. Let’s take a look at the animal spirits first.

University of Michigan, University of Michigan: Consumer Sentiment© [UMCSENT], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;, January 1, 2017.

 University of Michigan, University of Michigan: Consumer Sentiment© [UMCSENT], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis;, January 1, 2017.

As you can see, consumer sentiment has been rising since the dark days of 2009; it now stands at 98.2 — the chart is lagged by a month. Sentiment is now higher than it was in January 2015 (98.1), and the highest since February 2004.

Soptimism-graphmall business confidence is also up post-recession, but it jumped markedly after the election, presumably on the hopes of lower taxes and regulation by the new administration.

And that confidence — plus the 12% gain by the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index this year — has sparked optimism among investors. The American Association of Individual Investors sentiment survey now stands at 45.6% bullish, vs. its 38.5% historical average. Similarly, just 25.7%  of those surveyed said they were bearish, vs. a historical average of 30.5%. Bullish sentiment is at a five-week high, and its third-highest level of 2016.

At the same time, there’s plenty of money on the sidelines, and some of it appears to be returning to stock funds. In the last week of 2016, investors poured an estimated $118 million into U.S. stock funds. But that’s a piker compared to the previous week, when an estimated $18.6 billion flooded — more than the previous 24 months combined, according to the Investment Company Institute, the funds’ trade group.

As of the end of November, there was $2.7 trillion in money market mutual funds, earning approximately zilch. A roaring stock market provides a great deal of temptation for at least some of that money.  Stock funds had about 3.2% of their assets in cash, which is not particularly high, and that figure’s usefulness has been eclipsed somewhat recently.

Another potential source of cash: Companies in the S&P 500 have a record $1.5 trillion in cash cooling its heels on their balance sheets. They can use this for buying back stocks, paying dividends, or — and this is crazy talk — reinvesting in plants, equipment and their own employees.

The bad news is that the stock market is already expensive. The S&P 500 sells at about 24 times earnings, as opposed to a historical norm of about 17 times earnings. S&P predicts that earnings will rise through 2017, bringing down the PE ratio to about 18. Bear in mind that forecasts are notoriously unreliable, particularly when they’re about the future.

Bear in mind, too, that the Federal Reserve is likely to continue to raise interest rates, and at a faster pace if the economy grows faster than expected.

Right now, it looks like animal spirits and plenty of cash will keep the market party going, and that can be good, clean fun. Enjoy the ride. Just remember that market rallies always last longer than a sober person would think. But remember that many things must go right for the rally to continue. It’s probably a good time to readjust your portfolio back to your original goals. No one ever went broke taking a bit of profits.





Greetings from Lacunaville

SDSC_0368tarting in January, I’ve been writing full-time for InvestmentNews, doing a monthly column for Money magazine, and studying for the Certified Financial Planner mark. (This, apparently, is also a test of your prowess with a hand-held calculator). And I went to Africa.

The blog, as you may have noticed, has, um, languished. I’m hoping to revive it on a somewhat irregular basis, which, come to think of it, is pretty much its usual schedule.

I’ll be updating my links pages in the next week or so. In the meantime, here are some things to watch for today, as well as some things I’ve found interesting or peculiar.

This week, all eyes are on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ employment situation report, out at 8:30 a.m. Friday. But the stock market seems to be resigning itself to an interest rate hike, probably in June or July. (A later hike would give the impression of a political motivation, and the Fed generally doesn’t like to do that). The current consensus estimate for new nonfarm jobs is 158,000, according to Bloomberg, with the unemployment rate falling to 5%. (And, yes, the total unemployment rate is still high, but it’s the nonfarm payrolls number that Wall Street watches.)

Wages also seem to be firming up, and it should be interesting to see if traditional summer employers, such as ice cream vendors and lawn mowers, have a hard time finding help this year. All of these would seem to give the green light to the Fed to raise rates.

Of course, we’d be talking about a lordly fed funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% after a Fed hike, an increase that will be promptly reflected in your credit card bill and eventually in your money market mutual fund account. For those who still watch their money fund account, the average money fund now yields 0.10%, nearly triple its rate at the start of the year.

DSC_0353The stock market typically dislikes interest-rate hikes. Higher rates mean bonds become more competitive with stocks, and increase short-term borrowing rates. On the other hand, higher short-term rates mean that companies will earn somewhat more on their cash, and that savers will earn slightly more on their cash.

The old adage about Fed rate hikes — three steps and a stumble — meant that the stock market takes the first two hikes as a sign that the economy is improving, and rallies. At the third hike, stock investors realize the Fed wants the economy to slow, and stocks sell off. Bear in mind that the adage originated when a normal fed funds rate was 4% to 5%. It would take a stairway, not a few steps, to get us back to the traditional stumble level, assuming the Fed raises rates at a quarter-point a pop.

I’m an optimist, and think that rising earnings are a good thing — in fact, the one thing that the economy desperately needs for sustained growth. Most companies, despite their complaining, have nice profit margins, good balance sheets, and plenty of cash. They might even be surprised to learn that when their employees get raises, they spend more — and even on the products their employers sell.

DSC_0488The one caveat: Stocks aren’t cheap, at least by the price-to-earnings ratio of the Standard and Poor’s 500 stock index. The current PE, based on forward earnings estimates, is 17 — a tad feverish, although nothing like the levels during the technology bubble. Nevertheless, at these levels, it’s a bit like driving a bit too fast on old tires. If the market takes a rate hike really badly, investors could find that both bond and stocks slide off the road. And in that case, having a bit of cash in a money fund might be a good safeguard.


How the naive are faring

You could line up all the advisers from here to Albuquerque, and you still wouldn’t reach a conclusion as to the best diversified portfolio for your retirement savings.

Because of that, many investors simply use the 1/n portfolio — which is to say, they divide their money equally among all the options in their 401(k) plan. Among those who study these things, this is called the Naive Portfolio.

What would a Naive Portfolio look like? Most 401(k) plans are not exactly paragons of fund-picking: They often choose the largest funds. After all, those funds typically have decent long-term records and low expense ratios, and no one is going to get sued using those criteria.

Let’s compose a naive portfolio of the 10 largest mutual funds. It would look like this, ranked by size:

Tot. ret. Tot. ret.
Fund Ticker Category 2015 5 years
Vanguard Total Stock VTSMX Large blend 2.37% 13.98%
Vanguard 500 Index VFINX Large blend 2.89% 14.23%
Vanguard Total Intl Stock Idx VGTSX For. large blend -2.35% 3.30%
Vanguard Total Bond VBMFX Interm. bond 0.68% 2.86%
Growth Fund of Amer A AGTHX Large growth 6.98% 13.78%
Europacific Growth A AEPGX For. large growth 1.57% 5.49%
Vanguard Prime MM VMMXX Money market 0.03% 0.03%
Fidelity Cash Reserves FDRXX Money market 0.01% 0.01%
JPMorgan Prime MM VPMXX Money market 0.01% 0.01%
Fidelity Contrafund FCNTX Large growth 7.93% 13.87%
Average 2.01% 6.76%

Source: Morningstar.

So how did our naive investors do? At least this year, they have done pretty darn well. The average expense ratio in this portfolio is 0.35%, which, honestly, you can’t beat with a stick.

Furthermore, a 2% return is just a shade lower than what you would have gotten with a single investment in the Vanguard Total Stock Index fund. And you would have gotten that return with far less risk than a pure stock index fund, given that 30% was in money market funds and 10% in bonds.


Just how successful a naive investment would be over the long term is a more difficult calculation, which I’ll tackle in future posts. But the takeaway is that naive diversification is probably better than no diversification at all.