Tag Archives: author

New Jersey Resources’ (NJR) CEO Larry Downes on Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Transcript

New Jersey Resources Corporation (NYSE: NJR ) Q1 2015 Earnings Conference Call February 04, 2015 10:00 AM ET Executives Dennis Puma – IR Larry Downes – Chairman and CEO Tom Massaro – Head of Marketing and Energy Efficiency Analysts Mark Barnett – Morningstar Michael Weinstein – UBS Operator Good day and welcome to the New Jersey Resources Corporation First Quarter 2015 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] After today’s presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions. [Operator Instructions] Please also note that today’s event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference call over to Mr. Dennis Puma with Investor Relations, please go ahead, sir. Dennis Puma Thank you, Dan, and good morning everybody. Welcome to our fiscal 2015 first quarter conference call and webcast. I’m joined today by Larry Downes, our Chairman and CEO; Glenn Lockwood, our Chief Financial Officer, as well as other members of the senior management team. As you know, certain statements in our news release and in today’s call contain estimates and other forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We wish to caution readers of our news release and listeners to this call that the assumptions forming the basis for forward-looking statements include many factors that are beyond NJR’s ability to control or estimate precisely which could cause results to materially differ from the Company’s expectations. A list of these items can be found, but is not limited to items in the forward-looking statements section of today’s news release filed on Form 8-K, and on our Form 10-K to be filed later today. Both of these items can be found at sec.gov. NJR does not, by including this statement, assume any obligation to review or revise any particular forward-looking statement referenced herein in light of future events. I’d also like to point out that there are slides accompanying today’s discussions which are available on our website and were also filed on our Form 8-K this morning. With that said, I’d like to turn the call over to our Chairman and CEO, Larry Downes. Larry? Larry Downes Thanks, Dennis. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today. For those of you who follow our company or have seen this morning’s press release, you know that fiscal 2015 is off to a strong start for New Jersey Resources. During my presentation this morning, I will be discussing our future and I’ll be making forward-looking statements. Our actual results will be affected by many factors including those that are listed on slide one. The complete list is included in our 10-K and I would ask you to please review them carefully. And also as noted on Slide 2, I’ll be referring to certain non-GAAP measures such as net financial earnings or NFE, as I am discussing our results. We believe that NFE provides a more complete understanding of our financial performance. However, NFE is not intended to be a substitute for GAAP. Our non-GAAP measures are disclosed more fully in Item 7 of our 10-K and I’d ask you to take the time to review those disclosures carefully. Then moving to Slide 3, this morning we announced net financial earnings of $55.1 million or $1.30 per share for the fiscal first quarter of 2015 and that compared with $39.9 million or $0.95 per share last year. Looking at our results, you can see that all of our primary business units performed well. Our excellent first fiscal quarter NFE performance was driven by strong net financial earnings from NJR Energy Services which is off to another good start in fiscal 2015, steady growth from our two regulated businesses, New Jersey Natural Gas and NJR Midstream, and a solid contribution from NJR Clean Energy ventures. On Slides 4 and 5, I’ll review the individual performances of our subsidiaries; results in New Jersey Natural Gas reflect the continued customer growth as well as increases in our BGSS Incentives and regulatory initiatives which include our accelerated infrastructure programs. NJR results were driven by periods of cold weather across the country during the first fiscal quarter that created short term increases in demand for natural gas as well as price volatility and those factors in turn generated higher net financial earnings. Turning to Slide 5, you can see the Clean Energy ventures had net financial earnings of $9 million versus $3.6 million last year. We can active one new grid-connected project in 145 residential systems those were placed into service. We also saw increased Solar Renewable Energy Certificates as SREC as we called them sales and prices. NJR Midstream and NFE of $2.1 million versus $1.4 million in the first quarter of last year. We saw higher revenues associated with firm sales at Steckman Ridge and Iroquois Pipeline. Turning to Slide 6, this morning we also affirmed our fiscal 2015 NFE guidance of a range of $2.90 to $3.10 per share as you can see, we currently expect our regulated businesses which include New Jersey Natural Gas and NJR Midstream to contribute between 65% and 80% of our fiscal 2015 net financial earnings. We also currently expect that NJR Energy Services will contribute to between 5% and 15% of our net financial earnings. This is a range that is generally consistent with their results in recent years prior to the outstanding performance that they had in fiscal 2014. Now, I want to spend just a few minutes summarizing on our strategy for fiscal 2015 and beyond. I think first and foremost New Jersey Natural gas will remain the primary driver of our strategy and our performance. It will continue to comprise the majority of our earnings, assets, people and capital investments. Our existing Midstream investments will also contribute to our regulated earnings. Through Clean Energy ventures, we will continue to provide our customers with cost efficient renewable electricity from our wind and solar investments. We are now focused on diversifying CEV’s earnings mainly through wind investments and through improving SREC fundamentals. And finally NJR Energy Services will continue to provide physical and producer natural gas services. As I previously noted NJNG will represent the majority of our future capital investments which is illustrated on slide 7. We expect to make significant investments in our utility infrastructure through fiscal 2017 and beyond. Our normal infrastructure investments including customer growth and system maintenance represent about $350 million or about 44% of NJNG’s total capital spending. We’re also focused on enhancing the safety, reliability and resiliency of our system; some of these programs such as SAFE which allows you to accelerate the replacement of our cast iron and bare steel are already contributing to earnings. Through our recently approved NJ RISE program we will invest over a $100 million for storm hardening and mitigation projects in the most storm prone areas of our service territory. Including SAVEGREEN we plan to invest over $250 million in initiatives through 2017 that will receive an immediate return. Our Southern Reliability Link will add a second inter-state pipeline connection to our service territory in Ocean County. The SRL is a part of our program to support safety, reliability and resiliency of our system. And our Liquefaction project in [indiscernible] New Jersey will give us the ability to liquefy pipeline gas for our peak day needs and create benefits for both our customers and our shareowners. The equipment manufacturing process for this facility is currently underway. And as you look at our planned capital spending for Clean Energy Ventures through 2017 you can see that that supports our portfolio diversification strategy. Moving to slide 8, New Jersey Natural Gas added 2,581 new customers in the first quarter of 2015, that represented an increase of 21% over last year, approximately 55% or 1,420 customers converted from other fuels primarily fuel oil. Our conversion market continues to be very warm as evidenced by 24% increase in the first quarter. In addition 1,161 of these new customers related to new construction that compared with 980 in the same period last year and represented a 19% increase. Taken together these new and conversion customers are expected to contribute about $4.2 million annually to New Jersey Natural Gas’ growth margin. And going forward we expect to add between 15,000 and 17,000 new customers over the next two years that would represent a new customer growth rate annually of about 1.6%. Now turning to slide 9, you can see our future customer growth potential which begins with our service areas population growth. As you can see on the graph on the upper left our service territory remains among the fastest growing in the state particularly in Ocean County which represents about half of our customer base. And as we look to the future we expect continued growth in Ocean County to be driven by favorable demographics. In fact in the 2013 20% of all new building permits issued in New Jersey were in Monmouth, Ocean and Morris County’s which represent the majority of our service territory. At the same time the price of natural gas remains very competitive compared with other energy sources and that is also supporting our efforts in the conversion market. So when we look at all of these factors we see excellent potential for both new construction and conversion market growth and over the long-term we see the potential for over 88,000 new construction customers and more than a 113,000 conversions. Moving to slide 10, you can see that working collaboratively with our regulators remains an essential element of our strategy. On this slide we’ve highlighted several of our key initiatives, our Basic Gas Supply Service or BGSS incentive programs are off to a solid start this fiscal year getting gross margin of $4.2 million in the quarter compared with $2.5 million last year. These programs I think as everyone knows also benefit our customers they have been in place now for more than 20 years and have saved customers more than $733 million since their inception back in 1992. Our conservation incentive program protects our — protects New Jersey Natural Gas company’s gross margin from declining usage and weather while encouraging customer conservation. Since its inception back in 2006 our customers saved nearly $322 million while reducing their usage. Our accelerated infrastructure programs have improved the safety, reliability and resiliency of our system, supported economic development and benefited both our customers and shareowners. And SAVEGREEN, our energy efficiency program provides grants and incentives to customers to install high efficiency equipment. We submitted a filing with the BPU in late December seeking extension of SAVEGREEN through June of 2018 and when we look at SAVEGREEN it has clearly supported both New Jersey’s energy efficiency and economic development goals and again has benefited both our customers and our shareowners. Turning to slide 11, you can see the positive impact of our customer growth and regulatory initiatives are currently expected to have on New Jersey Natural Gas Company’s gross margin over the next three years. Customer growth will remain the largest contributor to utility gross margin. We will also receive important contributions from SAVEGREEN and our BGSS incentive programs. Also at the end of the quarter we began serving the Red Oak generating station in Sayreville, New Jersey which is expected to contribute more than $2 million in additional utility gross margin annually; it will also provide an opportunity to generate additional BGSS incentive margin and customer credits. Moving to slide 12, as you can see from the chart, NJR Energy Services had a very strong quarter. Our team continues to do an excellent job meeting our customer needs during periods of extreme weather and has developed a portfolio of competitively priced storage and transportation assets. We remain positioned to take advantage of any market upside as we saw in fiscal 2014 and as I previously noted, we currently forecast NJRES contribution to net financial earnings will return to a range of 5% to 15% in fiscal 2015 to 2017 with possible upside depending upon the weather. Moving to Slide 13, we announced our latest Midstream investment last August, that’s the PennEast pipeline, which is designed to provide Marcellus supply to Northeast markets including New Jersey. Total capital expenditures are currently estimated at $1 billion and I think as everyone knows we have a 20% interest in PennEast. We pre-filed with the FERC last October. FERC staff has scheduled public meetings in New Jersey and Pennsylvania as part of their projects scoping process. FERC staff will then prepare an environmental impact statement and although we were early in the process we remain on track for commencement of commercial operations in late calendar 2017. Turning to Clean Energy ventures on Slide 14, we continue to build out our inventory of solar projects while placing more wind assets in service and as I said earlier, our strategy remains focused on the diversification of our investment portfolio. We have built a strong portfolio in our New Jersey based solar programs including both net-metered projects in commercial and residential markets as well as large scale wholesale solar grid projects. During the quarter, we completed a 10 megawatt ground-mounted grid-connected system in Howell, New Jersey. And as of the end of the quarter, we had three other projects on the construction all of which should be completed in fiscal 2015. On the residential side, we are now the third largest solar provider in New Jersey through our very successful Sunlight Advantage program. Over the last year we’ve made steady progress on our portfolio diversification with onshore wind with projects located in Montana, Iowa and Kansas. By the end of 2015, we expect to have approximately 40% of our distributed power portfolio invested in wind projects. Wind assets now (converse) [ph] portfolio as Carroll Area our second wind project came online last week and we currently expect to have almost 80 megawatts of installed wind capacity by the end of 2015. On Slide 15, you can see the positive impact at declining solar capacity additions as well as the annual increase in New Jersey’s renewal portfolio standards are having on our SREC prices. Recently SREC prices have moved over $200 and we expect the favorable SREC market fundamentals should continue to support higher prices. As we look to fiscal 2017, we currently expect that the majority of CEV’s earnings will come from a higher number of SRECs being generated from our solar portfolio, higher SREC prices and returns on our wind investments. We continue to expect between 10% and 20% of our total NFE to come from Clean Energy ventures. So on Slide 16, I would like to conclude with the slide that we introduced at our Investor Conference last October and as you can see it summarizes our key initiatives through fiscal 2018. These initiatives are expected to drive our objectives of delivering 5% to 9% net financial earnings growth and 6% to 8% dividend growth annually. So to summarize, our growth plan through fiscal 2018 is based upon strong customer growth, infrastructure investments and regulatory initiatives that will benefit both our customers and our shareowners at New Jersey Natural Gas. We will be taking advantage of expected natural gas demand and price volatility in NJRES while providing producer and asset management service, we’ll diversify CEV’s distributed power portfolio combined with improving SREC market fundamentals which should provide more steady income streams and we plan on expanding our mid-stream strategy including PennEast. So I think as you can see from all these fundamentals, our outlook remain strong and provides the opportunity for future growth. But as I close this morning as always, I want to thank our more than 950 employees for their continued dedication and hard work, what everything that they do every single day we would not have achieved the excellent results that we reported to you this morning. They remain a foundation of our company and I am grateful for what they do every single day. And with that, now we would be happy to take your questions and comments. Thanks. Question-and-Answer Session Operator We will now begin the question-and-answer session. [Operator Instructions] And our first question comes from Mark Barnett of Morningstar. Please go ahead. Mark Barnett Just a couple of quick questions on my end, first the (Redo) [ph] project; you’re referring to the supply agreement that was approved at the end of 2013 where there was a gas plant, yes? Larry Downes Yes. Mark Barnett Okay so this margin is just the gas supply margin and there was some sort of a margin sharing agreement on that as well? Larry Downes If there are additional BGSS credits they would be subject to that margin sharing agreement. Mark Barnett Okay and then when do you expect to hear about expanding SAVEGREEN and can you me remind if you asked to upsize the program or we’re just looking at kind of a similar track? Larry Downes Tom Massaro who heads up our Marketing and Energy Efficiency Area will answer that question. Tom? Tom Massaro We expect to hear a resolution to that, a settlement of that by the end of June, so we’re looking for a continuation of the current programs, so we file for an extension of pretty much what we have in place with very minor modifications but the spending levels would remain the same for the three year period that we petitioned for. Operator Our next question comes from Michael Weinstein of UBS. Please go ahead. Michael Weinstein Great first quarter, just wondering if you could talk a little bit about the possibilities and things that you have seen about opportunities that might be present for monetizing the SREC portfolio or perhaps even securitizing at some point. I know that it’s a pretty thin market for bar transactions but just wondering if you could just talk about that for a minute. Larry Downes Sure, Mike. We currently as you point out it’s still fairly (to work) [ph] with market (if anything) [ph] really long-term as far as hedging or that type of financial strategy. We currently as you can talk them out I think the fundamentals should provide continued strength in that price. And our current strategy is to generate and build our portfolio and part of the growth and the whole strategy of diversifying from their reliance clients on ITC is counting on much higher SREC sales from our portfolio down the road both because of volume and price. Operator Our next question comes from [indiscernible] Asset Management. Please go ahead. Unidentified Analyst Good morning and congratulations on a great quarter. Given the strength we saw this quarter in the energy services business do we expect that we can perhaps be on the upper end of the guidance range or the 5% to 15%? Larry Downes If our philosophy tweak at a whole winter is (upon us) [ph] before we officially update guidance but obviously we’re off to a good start. Unidentified Analyst And can you just provide some clarity on the low natural gas price and is this positive for the business, are you guys seeing additional opportunities from the volatility? Unidentified Company Representative Well it’s good for our utility and helps keep prices low for customers obviously that helps the whole strategy and working with regulators on additional initiatives. And in the energy services environment, again we don’t take price directional risk if you will in our strategy we hedge any commodity that we own. But when there are pockets of cold weather that we’ve seen this winter we have seen some nice spikes in short-term prices that our team can take advantage of. Unidentified Company Representative The only thing that I would add is that the low gas price certainly encourages demand and as our supply grows in the U.S that demand should grow as well, so it should provide for more opportunities in the energy services business [technical difficulty] services. Operator [Operator Instructions]. At this time I see no further questions. I would like to turn the conference back over to Dennis Puma for any closing remarks. Dennis Puma Okay. Thank you, Dan. I want to thank everybody for joining us today. As a reminder a recording of this call’s available for replay on our website. Again, we appreciate your interest and investment in New Jersey Resources enjoy rest of your day. Thanks. Good Bye. Operator The conference is now concluded. Thank you for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect. Copyright policy: All transcripts on this site are the copyright of Seeking Alpha. However, we view them as an important resource for bloggers and journalists, and are excited to contribute to the democratization of financial information on the Internet. (Until now investors have had to pay thousands of dollars in subscription fees for transcripts.) So our reproduction policy is as follows: You may quote up to 400 words of any transcript on the condition that you attribute the transcript to Seeking Alpha and either link to the original transcript or to www.SeekingAlpha.com. All other use is prohibited. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE IS A TEXTUAL REPRESENTATION OF THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S CONFERENCE CALL, CONFERENCE PRESENTATION OR OTHER AUDIO PRESENTATION, AND WHILE EFFORTS ARE MADE TO PROVIDE AN ACCURATE TRANSCRIPTION, THERE MAY BE MATERIAL ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE REPORTING OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE AUDIO PRESENTATIONS. IN NO WAY DOES SEEKING ALPHA ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS MADE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEB SITE OR IN ANY TRANSCRIPT. USERS ARE ADVISED TO REVIEW THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S AUDIO PRESENTATION ITSELF AND THE APPLICABLE COMPANY’S SEC FILINGS BEFORE MAKING ANY INVESTMENT OR OTHER DECISIONS. If you have any additional questions about our online transcripts, please contact us at: transcripts@seekingalpha.com . Thank you!

New Jersey Resources (NJR) Q1 2015 Results – Earnings Call Webcast

The following audio is from a conference call that will begin on February 04, 2015 at 10:00 AM ET. The audio will stream live while the call is active, and can be replayed upon its completion. If you would like to view a transcript of this call, please click here. Are you Bullish or Bearish on ? Bullish Bearish Neutral Results for ( ) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Submit & View Results Skip to results » Share this article with a colleague

Can Quarterly Asset Allocations Predict Future Stock Performance? If So, What Action Should Many Investors Take Now?

Summary Most investors try to formulate appropriate allocations to stocks vs. bonds and cash. But do these allocations predict future returns? And if so, how far ahead? Ten years of quarterly allocation data were analyzed. High allocations to stocks were associated with significantly higher returns over the following three years and vice versa. Since research based allocation judgments currently suggest lower stock allocations, to avoid low returns, investors may want to have a lower than normal allocation now. Most investors try to formulate appropriate allocations to stocks vs. bonds and cash, even if the latter are close to zero. Some try to keep that allocation fixed, such as for example, 60%/40%, stocks to bonds. Others, however, might regularly alter the mix depending on a variety of factors, such as for example, rising vs. falling interest rates, strength of economic growth, etc. The question to be addressed in this article is, assuming the use of a changing quarterly asset allocation, coupled with a relatively long-term approach to determining these allocations, is it possible to enhance a portfolio’s returns by assuming that relatively high allocations to stocks suggest better returns several years down the road? Of course, high allocations should mean an expectation of better stock market returns ahead, and vice versa, otherwise, why would you invest a high percentage in stocks at all. But I would assume that most investors who make changes to their allocations as frequently as once every quarter or so, would not really expect these changes to be predictive of overall stock returns for periods as great as three years. So if they were predictive, investors could have some degree of confidence that their long-term future portfolio performance would likely be more successful when current allocations were high, and vice versa. For many years now (actually going back to 2000), I have been making such quarterly allocations as part of a set of Model Portfolios that I publish on my website . One of my main interests, then, has been addressing if these changing allocations prove to correspond to reality. More specifically, suppose I tell my readers who have a moderate risk profile that 65% of their investments should be in stocks and say 30% in bonds, and 5% in cash, will those who follow that suggestion be rewarded with higher subsequent returns than those who chose to invest only 50% in stocks? Of course, choosing a relatively low allocation to stocks may not just be about achieving the highest returns. One might stick with a lower allocation in order to reduce their level of risk. But assuming that most “moderate risk” level investors truly want to achieve the highest level of returns while keeping their risk level moderate, a recommendation for a higher level of stock allocation should be interpreted as a favorable sign that assumes the same level of risk as before the recommendation. As is typical, the stock market has exhibited highly variable returns over the last decade with many events occurring that could have potentially influenced relatively short-term results. But if one is a long-term investor, one can see that it should pay to try to overlook events that might only influence one’s returns relatively briefly and focus instead on possible long-term influences. With this in mind, let’s look at my quarterly allocations to stocks beginning in Jan. 2005 and compare them to subsequent three year annualized returns for the S&P 500 index. To better visualize the effect of a high vs. a lower level of allocation to stocks, we present the results in two tables. The first table shows all quarters going back to 1-05 in which we, on the date shown, recommended a relatively high allocation to stocks. This was arbitrarily defined as 55% or higher for Moderate Risk Investors. The second table shows all quarters since 2005 in which we, on the date shown, recommended a relatively low allocation to stocks, which we defined as 52.5% or below. Here are the results, followed by further analysis. Note that since we chose 3 years after an allocation was made to analyze results, the latest quarter to be included was 1-12; for 4-12 and beyond, 3 years has not elapsed yet. Table 1: Annualized Returns for the S&P 500 Index 3 Yrs. After “High” Stock Allocation Recommendations Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return 1-12 62.5% 20.4% 4-10 60 12.7 10-11 60 23.0 1-10 57.5 10.9 7-11 62.5 16.6 10-07 55 -7.2 4-11 65 14.7 7-07 55 -9.8 1-11 65 16.2 4-05 55 5.8 10-10 62.5 16.3 1-05 55 8.6 7-10 60 18.5 Note: The average yearly return for these high allocation recommendations was 11.3% As can be seen, three years after relatively high allocation recommendations were made, most of the annualized returns on the S&P 500 index turned out to be excellent, ranging from over 20% to a little less than 9% per year. These recommended allocations, therefore, were highly successful in suggesting good future performance. In numerical terms. the success rate of the high allocation recommendations in Table 1 was 77% . or 10 out of 13 comparisons. Table 2: Annualized Returns for the S&P 500 Index 3 Yrs. After “Low” Stock Allocation Recommendations Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Annualized Return 10-09 50 13.2 4-07 52.5 -4.2 7-09 50 16.5 1-07 52.5 -5.6 4-09 45 23.4 10-06 52.5 -5.4 1-09 37.5 14.2 7-06 50 -8.2 10-08 42.5 1.2 4-06 52.5 -13.0 7-08 45 3.3 1-06 52.5 -8.4 4-08 47.5 2.4 10-05 52.5 0.2 1-08 52.5 -2.9 7-05 52.5 4.4 Note: The average yearly return for these low allocation recommendations was 1.9% In this table, you can see that three years after relatively low allocation recommendations were made, the majority of the annualized returns on the S&P 500 index turned out to be poor, ranging from -13% to a meager +3.3% per year. In some quarters, a low stock allocation did not produce a low three year annualized return. In fact, these quarters subsequent performance showed just the opposite, a high 3 year annualized return. In numerical terms, the success rate of the low allocation recommendations in Table 2 was 75% , or 12 out of 16 comparisons. When I applied the same kind of analysis on my high vs. low allocation to bonds, I got the same kind of results favoring the high allocations to the lower ones by a significant amount. (These results are reported at this link .) Further Analysis of These Results These observations will help to put this data in perspective: -We recommended relatively high allocations to stocks early in 2005, in the latter half of 2007, and in the years following the end of the 2007-2009 bear market. Of course, as we began raising our allocations considerably beginning in 2010, no one could know that a continued multi-year bull market lay ahead. But the factors that we regarded as important suggested higher allocations would enhance returns. -We recommended relatively low allocations to stocks in the years leading up to the 2007 bear market and for its duration. As above, no one knew in those years that a bear market was coming and when it came, when it would end. -The average degree of difference between the subsequent returns of our higher and lower allocation quarters was substantial – nearly a 9.5% better annualized return in favor of the former (11.3 vs. 1.9%). -However, we tended to make the wrong allocation judgment ahead of “turning points”: When the market was about to go from bull to bear (2007), we were too positive; when it was about to go back into bull mode (early 2009) and a little beyond, we were too negative. -Absolute percent level of allocation to stocks was not the key; what was key was a relatively high allocation vs. a relatively low allocation, as defined above. In other words, when we had a strong sense that stocks would do well, as compared to at other times, they usually did; when we had a weak sense that stocks would do well, as compared to at other times, they usually didn’t. What This Data Suggests for Future Returns Of course, in investing, past data can never ensure or guarantee that future results will be similar. But what I have demonstrated above is that you should not assume that pre-selecting a fixed asset allocation that seems appropriate for your risk tolerance and keeping your allocations at or near this allocation is a rock solid, guiding principle for managing your investments. Yet such a prescription typically appears to form the basis of how very many investors indeed manage their investments from year to year. A cursory look at the above tables shows the obvious – that investment returns, particularly for stocks, vary greatly from quarter to quarter and from year to year. Most of us have been told, though, by investment experts that it is extremely hard, if not impossible, to accurately forecast in advance what these changes will be. But the above tables seem to demonstrate that even two or three years in advance, it is possible to use well-chosen information to get a good sense of what kinds of returns, generally at or above par, or below par, might be expected from stocks and bonds. The problem most people run into, at least in my opinion, is that they mainly focus on trying to predict how stocks or bonds will do for much shorter periods. It is mainly such predictions that have a much reduced chance of success. Unfortunately, as you might have anticipated, I can’t provide an all-in-one formula for attempting to make accurate predictions for two or three years down the road. But let me just reiterate that it is possible to successfully make such predictions, especially if one gives up on a) looking too much at short-term events that likely won’t matter much in a year or two and focusing instead of matters that likely will matter; and b) expecting the predictions to always be right; if you are unwilling to proceed without near 100% certainly, you will miss out on many likely outcomes that will happen the majority of the time, but not 100% of the time. In our most recent Model Portfolios, I have dropped back our allocations to both stocks and bonds, but especially stocks, from where they were several years ago. Take a look at the most recent allocations for moderate risk investors: Recent Overall Quarterly Asset Allocations for Stocks and Bonds Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Allocation to Bonds Quarter Beginning Allocation to Stocks Allocation to Bonds 4-12 67.5 25 10-13 55 25 7-12 67.5 27.5 1-14 52.5 25 10-12 67.5 27.5 4-14 50 27.5 1-13 67.5 27.5 7-14 50 25 4-13 67.5 27.5 10-14 50 25 7-13 65 25 1-15 50 25 These stock allocations suggest that if the predictive patterns of our earlier allocations hold true, upcoming 3 year returns for stocks may soon start to fall back considerably for periods beginning 1-14. And if the results turn out matching pretty closely those reported in Table 2, it is possible that within the next few years, stock returns between 2014 and 2017 may wind up averaging in the low single digits when annualized over three years. This means that since 2014 was a pretty good year for stocks, especially the S&P 500, either 2015 and 2016 or both, will likely show considerably smaller, or even a year (or possibly two) of negative, returns. Two year average returns for bonds have already dropped off considerably since early 2011, and our recent below average allocations suggest that the same will likely continue for the next few years. How should moderate risk investors position their investment portfolios over the next several years? In light of the above findings, it is suggested that investors who want to avoid potentially subpar returns from the main stock benchmarks, mirrored by investments such as Vanguard 500 Index ETF (NYSEARCA: VOO ), should consider deviating away from the relatively high allocations that have been successful since the start of the 2009 stock bull market. Such returns, according to data suggested by this research, could be coming for stocks for at least the next several years. Disclosure: The author has no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it. The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.