Tag Archives: assets

How I Created My Portfolio Over A Lifetime – Part V

Summary Introduction and series overview. The hardest lesson I have ever learned. The asset that always goes up in value when all other assets go down. Summary. Back to Part IV Introduction and Series Overview This series is meant to be an explanation of how I constructed my own portfolio. More importantly, it I hope to explain how I learned to invest over time, mostly through trial and error, learning from successes and failures. Each individual investor has different needs and a different level of risk tolerance. At 66, my tolerance is pretty low. The purpose of writing this series is to provide others with an example from which each one could, if they so choose, use as a guide to develop their own approach to investing. You may not choose to follow my methods but you may be able to understand how I developed mine and proceed from there. The first article in this series is worth the time to read based upon some of the many comments made by readers, as it provides what many would consider an overview of a unique approach to investing. Part II introduced readers to the questions that should be answered before determining assets to buy. I spent a good deal of that article explaining investing horizons, including an explanation of my own, to hopefully provoke readers to consider how they would answer those same questions. Once an individual or couple has determined the future needs for which they want to provide, he/she can quantify their goals. If the goals seem unreachable, then either the retirement age needs to be pushed further into the future or the goals need to become attainable. I then explained my approach to allocating between difference asset classes and summarized by listing my approximate percentage allocations as they currently stand in Parts III and III a. Part IV was an explanation of why I shy away from using ETFs and something akin to an anatomy of a flash crash. In this article I will explain one of the most difficult concepts for most investors to grasp. It certainly was for me. Why? Because we keep reading (or at least I do) that to do the opposite it is the best thing we can do. I will explain my education process as we go along in the article. The hardest lesson I have ever learned Growing up as a teenager in the 1960s I had to listen my Dad complain about inflation… a lot. Everything was getting more expensive and he owned his own business. Raising the prices he charged his customers was difficult for him but he had to do it because the cost of everything he used in his business, a small resort on the Canadian border waters of Minnesota, was rising. He kept telling me that the value of a dollar was going down. That lesson stuck with me. As I got a little older I went off to college after spending two glorious, all-expense paid year-long vacations in Southeast Asia, courtesy of my Uncle Sam. Yes sir, I got to spend time hiking trails and communing with nature with plenty of activities to keep my adrenaline flowing. What a rush! While in college I took a full load of classes and worked full time to pay my own way, helped once again by my good old Uncle who sent me 36 monthly checks to help with the cost of college. Every time I noticed that my savings had burgeoned to over two thousand dollars (I do not know why that number trigger an urge, but it did), I had to buy something. Otherwise, inflation would just eat away at that money as it became worth a little less each year. Thanks, Dad! Actually, I should not blame him because he did teach me how to save. He just stopped with that lesson and the one about inflation. The spending thing I came up with on my own. Then came my first professional job with a company car, liberal expense account, great pay, stock bonus and profit sharing. It was a nice start right out of college. This time I was so busy that my savings piled up faster than I could spend it. This was back in the late 1970s and interest rates were rising. At that point I knew nothing about stocks and very little about real estate. I had no interest in bonds, something that now I really wish I had understood well back then. By 1980 I had saved $25,000. That does not sound like much today, but in 1980 it seemed like a small fortune to me. If I had understood how bonds worked then I would have used all of it to buy 30-year U.S. Treasuries. I must admit right now that I did nothing very good with all that savings. I could explain but none of it would be very instructive nor beneficial to understand. To summarize, I did not have the same level of income but I did not adjust how I lived. While this is not the lesson of the article, it was a good one to learn early in life. Eventually, the money began to run low and I was forced to change some spending habits. Life would have been better had I had the foresight to make adjustments earlier. Live and learn. Looking back something that did not sink in at the time but has since become clear is that when interest rates are extremely high and housing values fall it is a great time to buy real estate. Interest rates will eventually drop providing an opportunity to refinance resulting in lower mortgage payments. Falling interest rates also tends to help boost real estate values at a higher rate than average. But that is not the lesson of the article either. The lesson that was so hard to learn was to unlearn what I learned from my Dad and from many other sources: holding cash without receiving any interest or income is a sure way for your savings to lose value because of inflation. I learned that not earning more than inflation on my money would cause me to permanently lose buying power. That is what I had learned all of my life. The hard part was to learn that what I had learned was wrong! Am I losing you? Stick with me a little longer and you will understand that what I am saying is true. It is not what any financial institution wants you to understand. Having money sitting in an account that may not keep up with inflation seems ridiculous, does it not? That is what we keep hearing. But that way of thinking just gets people to invest when they should be on the sidelines waiting for a better opportunity. Wall Street cannot make a profit on your money if you let it just sit there. They need transactions! The asset that always goes up in value when all other assets go down Cash is the one asset class that goes up in value when all other assets go down. Think about it for a few moments. If you have $10,000 in cash that you could invest in a the stock of a great company at $50 with a dividend of $1.25 now, would you do better than holding the cash until the share price went down to $40 two years later with a dividend of $1.40? The answer should be obvious. But rather than looking at a hypothetical situation I want to offer two real examples from my own portfolio. I decided back around the beginning of 1997 that I wanted to own shares of PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP ). My reason for liking PEP so much was that I was drinking several cans of the stuff every day at work. Most people drank coffee for the caffeine, I drank soda and my favorite was Pepsi. I know that is not a great reason, but I was just starting out. Besides, I knew I was not the only one who liked Pepsi products. After studying the stock I had some regret for not having bought it earlier and decided that I would only buy it if the price dropped back to $33 per share again. All of 1997 went by and the price did little other than rise. It was little different over most of 1998. I almost threw in the towel and bought the stock in March of 1998 at around $40. But at that price the dividend yield was under one percent. I decided to wait. Finally, sometime in late summer I learned about good-until-canceled buy orders. So, I placed an order to buy some shares at $33 per share, good-until-canceled and stopped worrying about it. In early October the shares traded down below $30 and I go my fill. I ended up buying the shares at $33. I could have done better, but I reminded myself that I was doing better than if I had bought at $40. It helped. I have since made another purchase of PEP and will go through that example in a minute. Now I want to show you how I did and the difference in results between my actual purchase and what would have happened had I pulled the trigger earlier at $40. To keep the math simple I will assume in both this and the next example that I had $10,000 to invest each time. If I had invested in PEP at $40 per share in March 1998, I would have gotten 250 shares. I would have collected a couple more dividend payments but the total of dividends I would have collected from then to now would be $5,814. My total gain would be $13,617. My original $10,000 investment would now be worth $29,431 and my dividend (as indicated) this year would be $680 for a 6.8 percent yield on my original investment. That all sounds pretty good. Here are the results of what the type of return I got by waiting for the price I wanted compared to the above example in table form. Date Price Shares Total Dividend Gain Original Value Current Value Comp Anl Rtn 2015 Dividend Yld 03/98 $40 250 $5,814 $13,617 $10,000 $29,431 11.4% $680 6.8% 10/98 $33 303 $6,967 $18,625 $10,000 $35,592 13.5% $814 8.1% The column for Compound Annual Return (Comp Anl Rtn) does not include reinvested dividends. The column labeled Yld represents the annual yield now earned on the original investment. Next I want to take a look at what I did later in life, after I had learned a little more about how the value of cash increases when other assets go down. But first, a little rant. I get tired of hearing that it does not matter if an investor buys shares in a company at the peak of a bull market or at the bottom of a bear market as long as they hold those shares long enough. The difference will become less over time, we are always told, and eventually become inconsequential. The problem with the examples they use to explain the difference is that they usually assume that the investor buys the same number of shares in both instances. Such examples do not consider the reality that an investor will be able to buy more shares at a lower price with the same amount of cash. Those additional shares result in more gain and a higher dividend yield and the difference increases over time. If I had followed the conventional wisdom that says it does not matter when you buy and invested $10,000 in PEP shares two months before the stock hit its high in 2007 I would have bought 142 shares at about $69.96, the average price on September 1, 2007. The stock traded as high as $77.41 in November 2007, so I am not taking the top of the market. I actually made a purchase on June 1, 2009, almost two years later. I missed all the dividend income that would have been collected for those two years, but I am glad I did. Check out the results in the chart below. Date Price Shares Total Dividends Total Gains Original Value Current Value Comp Anl Rtn 2015 Dividend Yld 9/1/2007 $69.96 142 $2,358 $3,480 $10,000 $15,772 5.9% $386 3.9% 6/1/2009 $52.82 189 $2,467 $7,872 $10,000 $20,339 9.3% $514 5.1% The results are obvious. Waiting for a better buying opportunity allowed me to buy more shares, collect more dividends, lock in a much higher yield and created a superior compound annual return. Again the returns do not include reinvested dividends or any income on the cash accumulated from collecting those dividends; doing so would only make the comparison more lopsided. Each time we go through another cycle I try to get better at identifying when an asset such as equities no longer offer me a bargain. At that point I stop buying and just begin to accumulate until the next time we experience a significant economic recession. I provided the two examples of my purchases of PEP shares for a reason. The first example, in 1998, represented a modest bear market swoon. The second example, 2007-2009, was a much more sever recessionary period. The point of the two examples was that it can be beneficial to wait whether the bear market is deep or relatively small. Summary The main point that I hope I have made clear is that when stocks, or any other asset, fall significantly in value the amount of that asset an investor can purchase with the same amount of cash increases. Stated differently, when the value of other assets falls, the value of cash increases. We need to stop thinking in terms of inflation eating away at the value of our cash and begin thinking in terms of how much more of an asset the same cash today will buy when the value of that asset drops. Cash has value, not only in terms of the everyday items that we buy. As an investment we need to think of cash as increasing or decreasing in value relative to other assets. This does not mean that we should only buy at the bottom after an asset class has crashed. What it does mean is that buying assets that are deeply undervalued will provide better returns than buying when those assets are fairly valued or above. After a crash like we experienced in 2008-09 real estate and equities remained deeply undervalued for several years. There were bargains everywhere I looked. I didn’t have enough cash to take advantage of all the opportunities. But I had more than most. And I benefited from my patience. Do not expect to be perfect. Just try to do better through each cycle. At our current point in time I believe that cash is king, but that does not mean I plan on selling any of my long-held holdings. I like my positions in most of my portfolio and I also like the dividends that help me accumulate more cash. In the next article of this series I plan to explain how I do trim some of my holdings systematically and why. After that I want to address the topic of tax efficiency in the following article. That is an area where some very simple planning can help a lot over a long holding period. I do not plan to cover the entire universe of tax planning because most of us do not need to understand it all. What I will cover are the simple things that we can all do if we just understand a little more about how to invest to avoid or defer taxes better. After that I would like to delve deeper into how to develop a plan for saving and investing, especially for those starting out, but also for those mid-stream of their accumulation and investing phase of life. One can always make adjustments and improve a little here and there. As always I welcome comments and questions and will do my best to provide details and answers. This is one of the best aspects of the SA community. We can learn from each other and share our perspectives so that other readers can benefit from the comprehensive knowledge and experience represented here.

Duplicating The All-Weather Fund Using Low-Cost ETFs

Summary Tony Robbins’ newest book reveals the asset allocation of Ray Dalio’s All-Weather Fund. The allocation is designed to balance the percentage of risk rather than the percentage of money to each asset. This strategy can be replicated using low-cost ETFs, but the biggest challenge is in sticking with the allocation as the years go by and each asset performs differently. Everyone in the business knows Ray Dalio is the manager of the world’s largest hedge fund, but his portfolio strategy has not always been very accessible by the public. Dalio has not added any clients in ten years, and even then, the only way to get access to the fund was with a net worth of at least four billion dollars and a minimum investment of 100 million dollars. Luckily, when Tony Robbins sat down with Dalio to interview him for his latest book , Ray shared the specifics of how he allocates the All-Weather fund. So this article will look at how to replicate that portfolio using a series of low-cost ETFs. Keep in mind that the fund does use leverage to increase the returns, and this allocation does not include any of the hedging activities. The large percentage allocated to bonds is a surprise to most, but the reasoning behind it is based on balancing the percentage of risk rather than the percentage of money put into each asset. Stocks are three times more volatile than bonds, so putting a higher percentage into bonds balances the risk in a way that putting 50/50 stocks and bonds wouldn’t. So the 15% in gold and commodities works the same way, as these are more volatile than both stocks and bonds. This approach is not all that different from Harry Browne’s permanent portfolio concept, which is a little more simple with 25% stocks, 25% bonds, 25% cash, and 25% gold. Swiss investor Marc Faber also recommends a similar allocation , 25% stocks, 25% bonds/fixed income, 25% real estate, and 25% gold. Dr. Faber’s portfolio is more suited towards very wealthy individuals, and it is closer to the “one third, one third, one third” concept that Jim Rickards talks about in regards to how wealthy families keep their wealth intact over many generations. The allocation is one third in land, one third in gold, and one third in fine art. This particular strategy takes a VERY long-term point of view and looks to protect and preserve wealth against any and all crises from depressions, wars, to hyperinflation. Dalio’s All-Weather fund is not centered around hedging against inflation/hyperinflation as much as the portfolios mentioned above, but the 15% in gold and commodities shows that he does have some concerns about inflation even though he might not think severe inflation is inevitable and imminent. In fact, it was the historic event in 1971 of President Nixon taking the US off the gold standard for good that greatly shaped Ray’s “all weather” strategy and realization that no one can really predict which investments will do best in the future. So here are the best choices of ETFs for replicating the All-Weather portfolio: 40% Long-Term Bonds Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: BLV ) With assets totaling 1.2 billion dollars, this fund invests in both government and investment-grade corporate long-term bonds. The mix of corporate bonds helps to give the yield a boost that one would not get by going only with government bonds. Of course, when you go with any Vanguard ETF, you are usually getting the lowest expense ratio in the industry, and with this particular ETF, the ER is only .10%. The yield is 4.05%. 15% Intermediate-Term Bonds Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: BIV ) This popular fund is even bigger with total assets of 5.95 billion dollars. There are not too many differences between this fund and BLV, except that this fund of course holds only shorter-term bonds. The yield is 2.73%, and the expense ratio is also a very low .10%. For this 15% portion, you could also split it into two, with BIV on one side and a TIPS ETF on the other. 30% Stocks Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: VOO ) Only 30% in stocks seems very low compared to conventional wisdom. Again though, Dalio’s strategy puts the assets with the most volatility as a lower percentage of the portfolio. VOO is a large fund with 34.41 billion in assets . The expense ratio is .05%, which is very important for the long-term investor and the highlight of this ETF. The yield for VOO is 2.01%. In some of my recent articles, I have been highlighting ETFs that can provide income that would be cushioned from a major crash in the US, which I anticipate, although I won’t put a time on it. So, in that vein, I would add to this by splitting the equities portion of this strategy into two parts; one, domestic equities, and the other, international equities. For the international exposure, I think the Vanguard FTSE All-World Ex-US ETF (NYSEARCA: VEU ) is the best choice within this strategy. This ETF has 14.82 billion in assets , an expense ratio of .14%, and the yield is 2.81%. 7.5% Gold and 7.5% Commodities iShares Gold Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: IAU ) and PowerShares DB Commodity Index Tracking ETF (NYSEARCA: DBC ) This allocation to gold and commodities again goes against conventional wisdom. Considering the most recent downturn in gold, it would be even more difficult for most people to consider gold and commodities in their portfolio. It is easily the most hated commodity in world today, or at least it is the most hated in the financial mainstream media. Gold and the whole natural resource sector have been in a deflation since 2011, but that does not change the fact that since the late 90s, gold has outperformed the Dow, the S&P 500, as well as Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.A ) (NYSE: BRK.B ). (click to enlarge) So, for this portion of the portfolio, IAU works best for the gold portion, because it has the lowest expense ratio of any gold ETF at .25%, as well as plenty of liquidity. For the commodities, DBC is a good choice. It tracks the DBIQ Optimum Yield Diversified Commodity Index Excess Return™ which has exposure to 14 of the most heavily traded commodities. While the expense ratio is higher than I would like at .85%, the fund offers exposure to the futures market without going through the actual trading process yourself. SA contributor Dan Bortolotti points out that this allocation did not provide mind-blowing returns over the past three decades (9.7% annualized returns) and that most people could not stomach any one asset going through turmoil while another asset is rising. The problem lies in the emotions of individual investors though, not in the actual portfolio. However you slice it up, it is going to be very difficult for most people to sit by while any part of their portfolio is not performing very well. The natural instinct is to sell the portion that is underperforming and be overweight the portion that is doing good. How many of the people who were 90% stocks and 10% bonds stuck with that strategy in 2008 when the crisis was going on? What about putting all your eggs in one basket, would that not cause tremendous pain when that one asset inevitably goes through a bear market? All that most people will need is basic asset allocation of their assets and the ability to stick with the allocation over a period of decades. Even for the person who is not a financial expert, the better option is to keep a core portfolio of low-cost and commission-free ETFs instead of letting a mutual fund do the same thing but with extra fees attached. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.