Why Low-Cost Investing Likely Results in Above Average Returns

Several studies found that only the top 2 to 3 percent of active-fund managers have enough skill to cover their costs. It’s hard enough to save for a house or retirement. So why pay big fees for subpar investment returns? Maybe think about low-cost investing, with an eye toward index investing.

To quote Nobel Prize winning economist Eugene Fama on active managers: “You’re charging people for stuff you can’t deliver.”

We are in the early stages of a move toward low-cost investing as huge sums of money have been flowing out of actively managed mutual funds and into index funds. According to Barry Ritholtz, “we are in the middle of the Copernican Revolution about the proper way to invest or at least the rational way to invest.”

It’s easy to think — by seeing the ads and reading newspaper articles — that if you’re just clever enough, you’re going to win. The delusion comes in the form of how the stock markets actually work.  We don’t understand the negative-sum nature of active investing. Whatever you win, I lose. Whatever I win, you lose, and we both pay to play that game. So the negative-sum nature of investing is one problem that’s often overlooked.

And then there is the second problem, which is, most people suffer from overconfidence, particularly in noisy environments where the feedback is weak. That describes the stock market. It’s incredibly noisy and it’s really easy to misinterpret what the return on your portfolio means.

Simple, perhaps, but elusive. In part because the alternative — the gamble of picking stocks — is so seductive. Which may explain why it took so long for index funds to really catch on. The index fund is more predictable, and boring — which, as Jack Bogle sees things, is its virtue. “It diversifies away the risk of individual investments. It diversifies away the risk of picking a hot manager and diversifies away the idea that you can pick market sectors like healthcare, technology, or whatever it might be.”

And then there’s the cost comparison. According to Vanguard founder Jack Bogle, “They charge a lot for this service. We estimate the average expense ratio is almost one percent for an actively managed fund. Then these active funds, all of them have sales loads. The index funds do not. The active funds further turn over their portfolios at a very high rate and that’s costly. You add that all up and the cost of owning a mutual fund on average is two percent. You can buy an index fund of, an S&P 500 Index Fund, let’s say, for as little as four basis points, four one-hundredths of one percent. In a 7 percent market, you’re going to get 6.96 percent.”

That difference — two percent versus four one-hundredths of one percent — may not sound like a lot. But over time, those numbers are compounded by what Bogle calls the “relentless rules of humble arithmetic.”

Again according to Jack Bogle, “if the market return is 7 percent and the active manager gives you 5 after that two percent cost, and the index fund gives you 6.96 after that four basis point cost — you don’t appreciate it much in a year — but over 50 years, believe it or not, a dollar invested at 7 percent grows to around $32 and a dollar invested at five percent grows to about $10. Think what an investor thinks about when he looks at that number. He says, “Wait a minute! I put up 100 percent of the capital. I took 100 percent of the risk and I got 33 percent of the return.” Well, anybody that thinks that’s a good deal, I’ve got a bridge I want to sell them.”

To paraphrase Bogle, here’s the reality of the actively-managed mutual fund business, you get precisely what you don’t pay for. So, if you pay nothingⁱ, you get everything!

Now there are those who can and some people have and have for long periods of time. Look no further than Warren Buffett. The challenge is being able to identify in advance who will outperform the market, for them to beat the market consistently year over year, and then to do it in excess of costs, fees, taxes, commissions. How can an investor tell when it is luck or skill? 

The bottom line is most people are better off with low-cost indexing for most of their invested money. Active investment management may have a role in asset allocation and portfolio construction, but only when it’s low cost, adds diversification and is not used to exacerbate behaviors detrimental to accumulating wealth.

C. Blakely CFP®, CTFA                        10/2017

ⁱ - by nothing, I mean almost nothing.

Sources: Bloomberg View - Ritholtz, Freakonomics – Bogle interview, Fama Interview 

Jobs and Asian Investing

The current economic downturn has been called a housing crisis, a financial crisis and a debt crisis, but now, according to nearly everyone running for office, we are in a jobs crisis. Politicians currently talk of vague jobs plans, filled with serious-sounding phrases and little real meaning.

Think about it, when has a corporate CEO ever been rewarded for hiring people who aren’t absolutely required. Most companies hire only when its workforce can no longer keep up with the demand for its products.

The government’s ability to create jobs is pretty disappointing and that’s ok. The most popular types of jobs programs involve state tax breaks or subsidies that seek to move a company from one state to another. These policies don’t add to overall employment so much as they just shuffle jobs around.

John Maynard Keynes’s view is that government can create jobs by spending a lot of money. The stimulus, however, has to be borrowed, and it has to be huge — probably something close to $2 trillion — to fill the gap between where the economy is and where it would be if everyone was spending at pre-recession levels.

Many Republicans follow the more fiscally conservative University of Chicago School, which argues that Keynesian stimulus can’t heal a sick economy — only time can. Chicagoans believe that economies can only truly recover on their own and that policy interventions only slow the recovery.

Of course, Republicans can’t say, “wait this thing out while we cut taxes and regulation.” These policies may make the economy healthier in 5 to 10 years, but the immediate impact would require firing a large number government workers.

The U.K., as part of its austerity measures, is in the process of firing about 500,000 government workers under the notion that the private sector would expand (lower taxes and regulation) and employ all those laid-off. But this isn’t happening. The British economy continues to grow slowly, if at all and few government workers have found new jobs in the private sector.
The second area of agreement is the most important: an economy is truly healthy only when its people know how to make and do things that others will pay them a decent amount for. Jobs are not the cause of a healthy economy, they’re the product.

The economy that emerges from this recession is going to be different. Without the distortion of a credit bubble, it is clear that far too many Americans don’t know how to do anything that the world is willing to pay them a living wage for (Kardashians excepted).For confirmation, look to the aptly named rustbelt and also look at the negative correlation between education and unemployment.

An economic downturn is the time to learn new skills – move forward and learn about something that can help produce a paycheck. Those who can’t find a job where they live should consider moving to places where there are more jobs than applicants.

With Europe plugging the nearly insolvent country dyke that seems to spring a new leak every six months and until the U.S. economy, somewhat mired in mud, gets unstuck, emerging economies will be a beacon to investors.

Take for instance, The Matthews Asian Growth and Income Fund, the Fund invests in dividend-paying common stock, preferred stock and other equity and convertible securities of companies located in Asia – it’s paying a 3.4 percent current dividend. Investors are becoming increasingly aware of the attractive demographics and strong economic growth that exist in the region.

Over the last 15 years the Fund has delivered risk adjusted performance (alpha) of 7.24 percent ABOVE the index. And during this period of economic volatility, the Fund was able to accomplish one of its main aims—to offer a degree of downside protection—and cushion shareholders from the worst of the sell-off.

To index is smart when the market is terribly efficient. Managers cannot consistently outperform in highly efficient markets as prices instantly change to reflect new public information. This is true of the Treasury market and may be true of the domestic large cap stock market. In inefficient markets a good manager can exploit this to the shareholders advantage. Small cap stocks and emerging markets currently fall into this category. Indexing in these markets may not be as profitable over the long-term.

 CBlakely CFP®. CTFA 11/2011

Sources: PlanetMoney – Adam Davidson, Bill Gross-PIMCO, Matthews Asia

Stories Sell

Happy Ending?

The stories our leaders tell us matter, nearly as much as the stories our parents tell us as children, because they orient us to what is and to what could be. Our brains evolved to expect stories with a particular structure, with good guys and bad guys, a hill to be climbed or a battle to be won.  

 In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. We are all scared and angry. Many have have lost their jobs, some their homes. This was a disaster made by Wall Street’s best educated, who speculated with our assets and therefore our futures. It was caused by politicians like Phil Gramm who told us that if we just deregulated we would be more competitive. Unabashed greed and recklessness were the unintended consequences.

We are suffering from the same ending we experienced 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods. Can we draw on their wisdom?

Like most Americans, at this point, I have no idea what the President believes on virtually any issue. The president tells us he prefers a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, one that marries “revenue enhancements” (a weak way of describing popular taxes on the rich and big corporations that are evading them) with “entitlement cuts” (an equally poor choice of words that implies that people who’ve worked their whole lives are looking for handouts).

When 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans, when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically, it bodes ill for the U.S. economy. Now that Standard & Poor’s has downgraded the U.S.’s AAA credit rating, it is important to respond boldly and, at the same time, lower expectations.

The first step is for our political leaders to frankly acknowledge the problems at hand: The U.S. economy will face a hard slog for an extended period; the political system is polarized; and, under current policies, the budget deficit will remain large.

Expect Slow Growth
We can expect sluggish economic activity for years, not quarters, and we face the risk of another recession. Those who in January were predicting growth of 4 percent or more for 2011 did not sufficiently appreciate the evidence from economists that foretell what most often comes after a systemic financial collapse is a decade of weak growth. (Read “This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises.”) Two years ago Bill Gross of PIMCO called it the “new normal.” I sense he was right.

Government Opportunity

We should take this opportunity to reconsider what government should properly do. We need to invest more in roads, bridges, railroads and the like, and the best way to do this would be to create a new infrastructure bank in the same mold as the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The Executive branch needs to lead us again with a simple but strong narrative repeated over and over to keep our attention focused on the slog ahead and importantly the light at the end of the tunnel.

Our Opportunity

Rahm Emanuel, the former White House chief of staff, once famously remarked that one should never let a serious crisis go to waste. It may be time to make nuanced shifts in your portfolio.

This correction is likely near a bottom and therefore, valuations in the U.S. are now attractive on a long-term basis. Price to earnings ratios on forward (future) earnings for most major U.S. stock market averages are under ten. On an earnings yield basis, stocks look remarkably attractive relative to bonds.

On a relative basis, stocks are about as cheap as they have ever been compared with bonds.

 Hard Assets - It’s too late to buy gold and other precious metal safe havens for this cycle. In the long-run no one knows. But, a price drop would happen quickly, if at all.


 Bonds - Keep your powder dry. Shorten bond durations and look to corporate notes for a little yield, or Canadian or German government bonds if you must own sovereign debt. There is very little value left in the U.S. Treasury curve at this point.


 Equities - Financials have completely broken down, but have dropped to extremely attractive long-term values. Consumer staples and utilities act defensively during market downturns, but leadership usually shifts to other sectors at the bottom of the market. Consumer discretionary, industrials, materials and tech should lead as the economy finds stable footing.

CBlakely CFP, CTFA  08/2011

Sources: This Time is Different: A Panoramic View of Eight Centuries of Financial Crises, Reinhart, Rogoff: The New York Times Sunday Op-ed page July 2011, Bloomberg LP. PIMCO

Why You Should Invest for Dividends

As a bond maven I get that coupon income dominates total return. The same is true with equities, even more so, dividends have dominated stock market returns historically and are likely to continue dominating future returns.

We buy stocks because we think they will "go up" and we can sell them for a gain. But think about it. Stocks go up presumably because the business is worth more. A business is necessarily worth more if it has large and rising distributions of cash (dividends) to company owners (stockholders). Unless you subscribe to a vast greater-fool theory - wherein someone is always willing to pay you more than you paid for a stock regardless of its "worth" - the final buyer has to be buying with the expectation of holding it in perpetuity based on its intrinsic value. If you are holding a stock with little expectation of selling it , the biggest value it generates is the cash dividend you receive from it. In the daisy chain of buyers and sellers, it mostly comes down to cash!

The point of investing in stocks may be access to cash streams in the form of a dividend, but the reality is that throughout the history of the modern markets speculation in stocks has made up a significant portion and at times the majority of market activity - this is true currently. Viewing the stock market as a casino where you can come away a winner overnight has been an all to common fallacy to many investors. Its the same logic that leads people, otherwise rational, to habitually buy lottery tickets.

The mack daddy of value investing, Benjamin Graham, devotes the entire first chapter of "The Intelligent Investor" to differentiating between investing and speculating. For him, "an investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis promises safety of principal and an adequate return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative." Graham necessarily set the bar high,:" investment is serious business - everything else is speculation."

Dividends dominate the components of total return. Total return, in any given measurement period, is the combination of the income received in the form of a dividend plus the change in the asset value - the stock price movement - both divided by the starting asset value. Whether looking a data going back over the last 80 years or longer, about half the average annual return from from stocks (about 4.5 percent) comes directly from the dividend. The other half come from capital appreciation, a rise in the price of the stock. And what is the reason for the capital appreciation, or at least the lion's share of it? Increased dividend distributions! The market's aggregate dividend distribution has grown at a compound rate of 4.4 percent since 1926. That is, of the markets' total return of 9.7 percent since 1926, about 80 percent of it came from dividends. Basically stocks go up because dividends go up!

How do you invest for dividends? First, determine whether to do it yourself or pay a professional. A lot of basic research is available on the Internet and discount brokers provide decent research and the ability to buy and safekeep your securities at a modest cost. There are several good books you can use to educate yourself and help build a proper portfolio. With that said and only partly out of self-interest, do I earnestly recommend the latter course of action. As full-time managers of dividend focused products we have substantial human resources and technology at our disposal. This is no guaranty of making a lot of money but due to risk controls and systems put in place over the last several years the chances of losing money are low.

CBlakely  CFP, CTFA  06/2011

Sources: Manias, Panics and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, The Intelligent Investor, Shiller database, Yale Univ. http://www.econ.yale.edu/shiller/data.htm