The question of whether to buy or rent a home is of enormous economic significance for most families. Home equity represents the vast majority of American families’ net worth (see chart below). In a post in mid-2011, I discussed some of the major economic variables in the decision to buy a home. My conclusion was that buying a home made sense, but not because housing generates attractive long-term investment gains. The long-term data suggests houses have historically increased in value at a rate only slightly higher than inflation. The best arguments for owning a home, I argued, were historically-low interest rates, the mortgage interest tax deduction, and the inflation hedge provided by locking in your costs for shelter for the long-term. Since that time, housing prices and rents have risen dramatically. In the past week I read two thoughtful and interesting articles on the economics of owning a home that motivated me to revisit this topic for 2014.
In the financial advisory business, one of the most pressing and controversial topics is how much money people need to save during their working years in order to provide for long-term retirement income. The research on this topic has evolved quite a lot in recent years, and a recent issue of Money magazine features a series of articles representing the current view on this critical topic. These articles, based around interviews with a number of the current thought leaders on this topic, deserve to be widely read and discussed.
The series of articles in Money kicks off with perspectives by Wade Pfau. Pfau’s introductory piece suggests a difficult future for American workers. A traditional rule-of-thumb in retirement planning is called the 4% rule. This rule states that a retiree can plan to draw annual income equal to 4% of the value of her portfolio in the first year of retirement and increase this amount each year to keep up with inflation. Someone who retires with a $1 Million portfolio could draw $40,000 in income in the first year of retirement and then increase that by 2.5%-3% per year, and have a high level of confidence that the portfolio will last thirty years. It is assumed that the portfolio is invested in 60%-70% stocks and 30%-40% bonds. The 4% rule was originally derived based on the long-term historical returns and risks for stocks and bonds. The problem that Pfau has noted, however, is that both stocks and bonds are fairly expensive today relative to their values over the period of time used to calculate the 4% rule. For bonds, this means that yields are well below their historical averages and historical yields are a good predictor of the future return from bonds. The expected return from stocks is partly determined by the average price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, and the P/E for stocks is currently well-above the long-term historical average. High P/E tends to predict lower future returns for stocks, and vice versa. For a detailed discussion of these relationships, see this paper. In light of current prices of stocks and bonds, Pfau concludes that the 4% rule is far too optimistic and proposes that investors plan for something closer to a 3% draw rate from their portfolios in retirement. I also explored this topic in an article last year.
As the market rally persists, many investors will no doubt be kicking themselves and wishing that they had bought in earlier. Some will convince themselves that they better get on board or risk missing out on this bull market. There are many good reasons to invest money, but choosing to get in because of the potential gains that you could have made is not one of them. In the same way that people capitulate and sell out near market bottoms, there is also a big behavioral driver that seems to make people capitulate and join the herd towards the end of big bull markets. I am not saying that we are poised for decline (I am not a good market timer), but simply noting that buy or sell decisions made on the basis of what you wished you had done last month or last year is often truly dangerous. Continue reading
Every year when the forecasts for the hurricane season are issued, there have been a spate of articles on implications for investors. This year was no exception. USA Today reported that U.S. natural gas prices jumped 3% on the basis of a forecast for an active hurricane season in 2013. It is also common to read that companies are attributing poor earnings to unusual weather. Continue reading
The intent of target date strategies is to provide investors with fully-diversified portfolios that evolve appropriately as investors age. Target date funds have enjoyed enormous growth over recent years, not least because the Pension Protection Act of 2006 allows employers to direct retirement plan participants into these funds as the default investment option. Consultancy Casey Quirk projects that target date funds will hold almost half of all assets in 401(k) plans by 2020.
Target Date Folios are an alternative to traditional target date funds, launched on the Folio Investing platform in December of 2007. These portfolios now have more than five years of performance history. Prior to the design of the Folios, a detailed analysis of target date funds suggested that they could be considerably improved. The Folios were designed to provide investors with an enhanced target date solution. In this article, I will discuss the design and performance of the Folios and target date mutual funds over this tumultuous period. The risk and return characteristics of these funds and Folios provides insight into the effectiveness of different approaches to portfolio design and diversification. Continue reading
There is increasing evidence of big flows of money into equities and leaving bonds. This is being seen at all levels in the market, including among institutional investors such as pension plans. The Wall Street Journal just published an article discussing this shift called Are Mom and Pop Heading for Wall Street? Mutual fund flows suggest that investors are finally returning to equities, after selling in droves over the past several years. This article summarizes the issue:
From April 2009 through now, mutual-fund investors sold a quarter trillion dollars in stock funds, according to recent data from the Investment Company Institute.
Ironically, that selloff coincided with a period of stellar performance in stocks—when the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped more than 60%. Continue reading
Folio Investing’s Successful ETF-Based Alternative to Legacy Target-Date Funds Offers Superior Diversification, Risk Targeting and Flexibility; Firm Seeks Distribution Partner to Broaden Availability
Folio Investing announced today that, over the five years since they were brought to market in December 2007, its Target Date Folios have significantly outperformed traditional target-date funds. The Folios have provided both higher returns and lower volatility than the competing funds during this tumultuous period. Continue reading
There is currently $5 Trillion invested in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), $4.7 Trillion invested in self-directed retirement plans provided by employers (401(k), 457, and 403(b) plans), and $2.3 Trillion invested in traditional pension plans offered by private companies. These numbers are stunning for a number of reasons. First, self-directed retirement plans (IRAs, 401(k)’s, etc.) dramatically dwarf the amounts invested in traditional pensions. This is part of a long-term trend, as employers move away from traditional pensions, but the magnitude of the shift is striking. With the assets in IRA’s surpassing the $5 Trillion mark earlier this year, the amount of money in individual accounts is moving ahead of employer-sponsored plans. What’s more, it is anticipated that IRA’s will continue to grow relative to employer-sponsored plans as people retire and roll their savings from their ex-employer’s plan into an IRA. This matters because investors in IRA’s have even less help in creating and maintaining their portfolios than investors in employer-sponsored plans. Continue reading
One of the most-discussed issues in long-term investing is whether to focus on income generation or simply to think in term of total return (price gains plus income). The discussion of this topic often focuses on whether investors should seek out stocks that pay dividends vs. simply planning to sell a fraction of their portfolio periodically to provide income. I recently wrote a long article on this topic, which has been cited in a very interesting discussion of this theme going on at Bogleheads. One of the most active participants in the debate on the Bogleheads forum and elsewhere is Larry Swedroe, a well-known advisor and author. As I read the Bogleheads discussion thread, it strikes me that there is considerable confusion around this topic, so I thought I would add a few more thoughts. Continue reading
In this post, I continue the discussion of behavioral finance with examples of some of the key behavioral biases and where they can be seen in recent market behavior. The specific focus of this post is those biases that drive investment fads and bubbles.
It is almost invariably the risk that we ignore that really hurts us. The market today is, for the most part, discounting inflation risk. Historically, inflation has been a major threat, especially to bond investors. Today, with yields at historic lows, the implied inflation expectations are exceedingly low. The process by which the market comes up with rationales as to why a risk, that has historically done major damage, no longer matters is at the heart of every bubble. We have had the housing bubble (in which investors became convinced that houses were an infinite source of capital appreciation), the Tech bubble (in which investors decided that valuations based on earnings were irrelevant) and now the government debt bubble (in which investors are implicitly assuming that inflation risk is no concern). The bubbles get out of control largely because people assume that what has worked recently will continue to work. Continue reading