One of the most important questions for investors and advisors is identifying a set of asset classes that will be considered for inclusion in a portfolio. Some people will decide that all they need or want is one broad stock market index fund and one bond fund. Others will choose to include Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and commodities. There are well-thought-out arguments that inflation-protected government bonds (TIPS) are a major core asset class. It is also quite common for investors or advisors to break stocks out into value vs. growth and small cap vs. large cap. Continue reading
In Part I of this article, I explained why I have issues with the traditional idea that individuals should provide for their required level of retirement income (beyond what is provided by Social Security and any pensions) entirely with assets with zero risk of loss of principal (e.g. Treasury bonds). In Part II, I discuss the alternative approaches.
There are two investments that have zero loss of principal: traditional Treasury bonds and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), which are Treasury bonds with embedded protection against inflation.
I agree with the notion that people need to save and invest so as to be able to provide a very reliable and consistent income stream in retirement. Zvi Bodie has presented a compelling argument that investments in stocks do not become less risky as you hold them for longer periods, so that investors cannot rely on stocks as part of their required income stream. I have performed detailed analysis of Bodie’s argument and I agree with his argument: the magnitude of loss that you can face with an equity-heavy portfolio increases the longer you hold the portfolio. As I noted in Part I, William Bernstein has recently advocated for a portfolio in which all of your required income is provided by Treasuries and annuities, largely consistent with Bodie. Continue reading
Portfolio Income: The Trouble With Treasury Bonds
The current economic environment is making it very hard for investors to generate reasonable levels of income through traditional means such as bond ladders. While it is always dangerous to suggest that ‘it’s different this time,’ I believe that we are facing some unprecedented conditions that require new approaches. Income-seeking investors with low risk tolerance—those who have traditionally favored government bonds—are in the most difficult situation.
The problem of low savings and investment rates in the U.S. is huge. I have written about this in the past, along with many others. Every study on retirement savings notes that Americans need to save more. Having the ability to support yourself from a portfolio of savings is not, however, just about the amount that you save. There is also the issue of how much income you can derive from each dollar in your portfolio. Today, with historically low yields on government bonds, retirees and others seeking to live on the income from low-risk investments are faced with an enormous challenge that compounds the savings rate problem. To be able to live on the income provided by very low-risk investments, the necessary savings rates increase dramatically relative to savings rates when investors are willing to bear some risk. Continue reading
In a recent blog post, I reviewed a new book on the future of the Equity Risk Premium (ERP). For those who are not familiar with the ERP, it is the additional return that investors expect to receive for bearing the risk of owning company stock vs. owning a low-risk asset like government bonds. As readers of the book, Rethinking the Equity Risk Premium will discover, there is little agreement on how the ERP should be measured historically and even less consensus on how to estimate the future ERP.
We all know that there is no guarantee that stocks will deliver higher returns than bonds. In fact, at the depths of the last market crash (think back to early 2009) bonds had out-performed stocks over a trailing period of more than 40 years. If markets are at all rational, it would make sense that Continue reading
My article in last week’s Advisor Perspectives titled, “The Greatest Anomaly in Finance: Understanding and Exploiting the Outperformance of Low-Beta Stocks,” explores what the findings of a 2011 paper published in the Financial Analysts Journal called “the greatest anomaly in finance.” The issue at hand is one that I have written about in a number of articles including “Why Low Beta Strategies are Worth Another Look,” and one that I’d like to explore further in today’s blog post.
Financial theory suggests that risk and return go hand-in-hand. While higher-return assets do tend to be riskier than lower-return assets, there is a notable exception. Continue reading
Bob Huebscher over at Advisor Perspectives just published an interesting article that gives an overview of Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo & Co.’s (GMO) outlook for the coming years. The article is based on a talk given by Ben Inker, head of asset allocation at GMO.
Most investors who are aware of GMO first encounter the Boston-based investment management firm by reading some of the brilliant essays of Jeremy Grantham, one of the firm’s founders. Grantham’s market outlooks have historically been prescient.
A Bleak Outlook?
GMO’s broad outlook for investors — the firm manages $107 billion in assets — has changed since last year. Continue reading