Category Archives: Risk

Goldman Sachs Predicts 4.5% 10-year Treasury Yields

Treasury BondGoldman Sachs just came out with a prediction that 10-year Treasury bond yields will rise to 4.5% by 2018 and the S&P 500 will provide 6% annualized returns over that same period.  The driver for this prediction is simply that the Fed is expected to raise the federal funds rate.

Because rising yields correspond to falling prices for bonds, Goldman’s forecast is that equities will substantially outperform bonds over the next several years.  If you are holding a bond yielding 2.5% (the current 10-year Treasury yield) and the Fed raises rates, investors will sell off their holdings of lower-yielding bonds in order to purchase newly-issued higher-yielding bonds.  If Goldman’s forecast plays out, bondholders will suffer over the next several years, while equity investors will enjoy modest gains.

Historical Perspective

This very long-term history of bond yield vs. the dividend yield on the S&P 500 is worth considering in parsing Goldman’s predictions.

Bond Yield vs. Dividend Yield

Source: The Big Picture blog

Prior to the mid 1950’s, the conventional wisdom (according to market guru Peter Bernstein) was that equities should have a dividend yield higher than the yield from bonds because equities were riskier.  From 1958 to 2008, however, the 10-year bond yield was higher than the S&P 500 dividend yield by an average of 3.7%.

Then in 2008, the 10-year Treasury bond yield fell below the S&P 500 dividend yield for the first time in 50 years.  Today, the yield from the S&P 500 is 1.8% and the 10-year Treasury bond yields 2.5%, so we have returned to the conditions that have prevailed for the last half a century. But the spread between bond yield and dividend yields remains very low by historical standards.  If the 10-year Treasury yield increases to 4.5% (as Goldman predicts), we will have a spread that is more consistent with recent decades.

Investors are likely to compare bond yields and dividend yields, with the understanding that bond prices are extremely negatively impacted by inflation (with the result that yields rise with inflation because yield increases as bond prices fall), while dividends can increase with inflation.  During the 1970’s, Treasury bond yields shot up in response to inflation. Companies can increase the prices that they charge for their products in response to inflation, which allows the dividends to increase in response to higher prices across the economy.  The huge spread between dividend yield and bond yield in the late 70’s and early 80’s reflects investors’ rational preference for dividends in a high-inflation environment.

What Has to Happen for Goldman’s Outlook to Play Out?

To end up with a 4.5% 10-year Treasury yield with something like a 2% S&P 500 dividend yield, the U.S. will need to see a sustained economic recovery and evidence of higher prices (inflation) driven by higher employment and wage growth.  In such an environment, investors will be willing to accept the lower dividend yield from equities because dividends grow over time and tend to rise with inflation.  This has been the prevailing state of the U.S. economy over the last fifty years.  Most recently, we had 10-year Treasury yields in the 4%-5% range in the mid 2000’s.  If, however, we continue to see low inflation and stagnant wages in the U.S. economy, bond yields are likely to remain low for longer.

Low Beta Market Sectors

With U.S. equity markets near their record highs and a bull market run that is starting its sixth year, the potential for a correction is a growing concern.  In addition, U.S. equity prices look fairly high when viewed in terms of the PE10 ratio.  Another factor that concerns some market watchers is that volatility (as measured by VIX) is at very low levels, reminiscent of 2007.  This type of complacency has historically been followed by increasing volatility, as levels return to their historical average, accompanied by a sell-off in higher-risk assets as investors adjust their portfolios to mitigate the effects of higher volatility.

Investors seeking to remain invested in equities at a target level but who want to reduce their exposure to market swings and to mitigate the impact of a rise in market volatility have historically been well-served by increasing their allocations to low-beta market sectors.  In this article, I will review the defensive value of low-beta allocations as well as examining the consistency of beta over time.

Beta measures the degree to which a security or a portfolio responds to a move in a benchmark index such as the S&P500.  A portfolio with beta equal to 80% (also written as 0.8) tends to go up 0.8% when the market rises 1.0% and vice versa.  Beta may be thought of as showing whether a security amplifies the moves in the benchmark (beta greater than 100%) or damps the moves in the benchmark (beta less than 100%).

How Beta Varies by Sector

The SPDR Select Sector ETFs provide a convenient way to break out the sectors of the U.S. equity markets by dividing the S&P500 into nine sectors.  These sectors illustrate how much beta varies.

Low Beta Market Sectors - 1

Betas and 10-year average annual returns for major sectors and indexes

The S&P500 has a beta of 100%, by definition.  Some readers may be surprised that emerging market stocks have beta of almost 140%, which means that emerging market equities tend to go up (down) 1.4% for every 1% gain (drop) in the S&P500.  Even before the market crash of 2008, emerging market stocks were high beta—this is not a new phenomenon.

There are three U.S. equity sectors with betas well below 100%: consumer staples (XLP), healthcare (XLV), and utilities (XLU).  It is often believed that low-beta equities have very low average returns.  In fact, a well-known but now widely-discounted model of equity returns (the Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM) assumes that beta of an equity or asset class corresponds directly to expected return.  High-beta asset classes have high expected return and vice versa.  Low-beta equities have historically substantially out-performed what would be expected on the basis of CAPM, however, and the past ten years is no exception.  These three sectors have all out-performed the S&P500 over the past ten years.  The return numbers shown here are the arithmetic averages, including reinvested dividends.

Low Beta Asset Classes in 2007-2008

The first question that is worth asking about beta is the degree to which beta corresponds to losses in really bad market conditions.  In the table below, I have tabulated beta calculated using three years of data through 2007 for each of the funds above, as well as the returns for each of these in 2008.

Low Beta Market Sectors - 2

Beta calculated through 2007 vs. 2008 returns

The three sectors with the lowest betas going into 2008 (consumer staples, healthcare, and utilities) had an average return of -22.3% in 2008, as compared to -36.8% for the S&P500.  An equity tilt towards these lower beta sectors could have reduced losses in that year.

Consistency of Beta through Time

The astute reader may notice that the betas calculated using ten years of data through May of 2014 (shown in the first table) are, in some cases, quite different from the betas calculated using three years of data through December of 2007 (shown in the second table).  Beta varies through time.  The betas calculated using three years of data through May 2014 provide an interesting contrast to the three-year betas through the end of 2007.

Low Beta Market Sectors - 3

Comparing betas for two 3-year periods

We are looking at two distinct 3-year periods, separated by almost six and a half years and, in general, low-beta sectors at the end of 2007 remain low-beta today and high-beta sectors back then are still high-beta.  The two most notable exceptions are international equities (EFA) and the technology sectors (XLK).  These changes notwithstanding, the three sectors with the lower betas in 2007 also have the lowest betas in 2014.

There are a number of factors that will determine whether any sector will weather a broad market decline better than others.  Beta is one important factor, but there are others.  In 2008, the financial sector suffered disproportionately large losses—well beyond what would have been expected on the basis of beta alone.  The underlying drivers of the 2008 market crash were most severe in the financial sector.  Small-cap stocks, by contrast, fell considerably less than the beta value of this sector would have suggested.

Low-Beta and Asset Allocation

Low-beta asset classes have historically provided some protection from market declines and increasing volatility.  There are a range of other considerations that potential investors should consider, however when creating a portfolio.  The selection of individual asset classes should be made with consideration of the characteristics of the total portfolio, including desired risk level, interest rate exposure, and income generation.  The target for total portfolio beta is primarily determined by an investor’s total risk tolerance.  A target beta level can be achieved both by choosing how to allocate the equity portion of a portfolio among sectors and by varying the balance between equity (stocks) and fixed income (bonds) investments.  Fixed income asset classes tend to have very low—even negative—values of beta.  In my next blog entry, I will explore these two approaches to managing beta at the portfolio level.

History suggests that low-beta sectors can provide some protection from market downturns.  The length of the current equity rally, and the substantial increases in equity valuations in recent years, are motivating some investors to consider their best defensive alternatives to protect against the inevitable reversal.  The question for investors to ask themselves is whether they are best-served by reducing portfolio beta by reducing their exposure to equities, by shifting some portion of assets from high-beta to low-beta sector, or both.

Is Twitter the Canary in the Coal Mine?

Investors are shrugging off the suggestion that stocks are over-valued or that the technology innovators are a one-way path to riches if the year-to-date performance of Tesla Motors (TSLA) and Facebook (FB) are any indication. Twitter’s stock (TWTR), which soared from a $45 closing price on its first day of trading (November 7, 2013) to a high of $73.30 on December 26, has fallen 32% since the start of 2014. Twitter is now trading at slightly below $45. Given the excitement surrounding the Twitter IPO less than six months ago, what does this apparent reversal of (expected) fortunes suggest? It is certainly too soon to conclude that a business model that made sense at the IPO has proven to be faulty. Does Twitter’s dramatic decline signal a shift in investors’ willingness to bet heavily on a future earnings stream that is almost impossible to predict? Continue reading

Low Interest Rates Through 2014 and Beyond

Ben Bernanke, in a speech on November 19th, made it very clear that the Fed is likely to hold interest rates low for an extended period of time.  This comes on the heels of similar comments by his likely successor at the Fed, Janet Yellen, during her confirmation hearings.  On top of this, inflation numbers released on the morning of the 20th show almost no increases in consumer prices over the past year and existing home sales have just registered a drop.  In related events, Larry Summers just gave a widely-noted presentation to the IMF in which he warned that the U.S. may be settling into a long-term economic malaise.  Larry Summers, who was previously a contender to be the next Fed chairman, surely considered his comments to the IMF very carefully. Continue reading

Planning for College Costs, Part II

In part 1 of this article, I explored how you can estimate how much college will cost and how much you need to save, going forward, to accumulate enough savings to cover the amount that you plan to contribute towards your child’s college costs.  One of the major variables in this calculation is what you assume about how you will invest the money that you save.  While you can design a portfolio yourself, it is also worth looking at funds that combine the major asset classes into portfolios at various risk levels.  Continue reading

The Strange Case of Apple Stock and Structured Products

Jason Zweig at the Wall Street Journal published a disturbing article that deserves more attention.  The basic story is this.  A number of banks sold a complex financial product to retail investors who have subsequently lost quite a bit of money.  Here is the basic pitch that was apparently made to individual investors in 2012.  You are going to buy an investment product that is currently invested in bonds and is producing 8% in income per year.  The performance of this product is tied to the stock price of Apple, however.  In exchange for the high income, you take on the risk of a decline in Apple’s stock price.  These products were sold when Apple stock was soaring, so a fair number of people apparently saw this as a favorable bet.  With the stock down more than 30% from its peak, many of these investors have lost a considerable amount of money.  Read Zweig’s piece for more details.  These products have a number of variations and he discusses one specific structure.  Here is another.  The title of Zweig’s article, How Apple Bit Bondholders, Too, gives the impression that bonds were responsible for these losses.  This is not the case, but the title serves to illustrate the subtlety of the problem.  Continue reading

The Yield Paradox

I have been struggling to understand a problem that I am going to refer to as the ‘yield paradox.’  Yields for individual asset classes look low.  The 10-year Treasury bond is yielding about 1.9%, and 30-year Treasury bonds are yielding a similarly paltry 3%.  The S&P 500 is yielding 2.1%, which is very low by comparison to historical levels.  Investment-grade corporate bond indexes are yielding less than 4% (see LQD, for example, at 3.8%).  Given that the official rate of inflation for 2012 was 1.7%, these yields mean that investors are getting very little yield net of inflation.  The very low yields on bonds and on stock indexes is a direct result of the Fed’s actions in holding interest rates at historical lows via Quantitative Easing.  We have not yet gotten to the paradox. Continue reading

Target Date Strategies Over The Last Five Years

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

Folio Investing Celebrates Its Target Date Folios’ Five-Year Record of Outperformance

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

Apple’s Share Price and Behavioral Finance

The price of a share of Apple (AAPL) is almost 30% below the high that it set back in September 2012—about five months ago.  Even before its peak, the price of Apple shares had already made it the most valuable company in history.  In those heady times, Apple shares reached $702.  Today, they are at $503.  Even today, however, Apple remains the largest single holding in the S&P 500 at about 3.6% of the total index.  It is mind boggling to consider that the market value of the most valuable public firm in history could decline by 30% in five months, without some sort of catastrophic event.  But this is the situation and there are some lessons to be drawn. Continue reading