Tag Archives: income

Is YieldCo Bubble In Trouble? ETF In Focus

When the idea of an “YieldCo” was first introduced in 2012 as an adapted version of a REIT, it looked very impressive and was expected to be a boon for the renewable energy sector (mainly solar and wind). The first YieldCo was Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners LP (NYSE: BEP ), formed by Brookfield Asset Management (NYSE: BAM ). The motive behind launching YieldCos was to help energy companies raise cheaper capital for their renewable energy projects while benefiting investors through higher distributions and yield. These projects are sold by energy companies through “drop down” transactions to publicly traded YieldCos, which develop them and generate stable cash flow by selling electricity under power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) with utilities. YieldCos distribute most of their income or cash flow (about 80%) as dividends to its shareholders, making them an attractive buy. However, the survival of this interesting vehicle of investment has come into question lately owing to a number of adverse developments. Notably, the Indxx Global YieldCo Index plunged 26.6% (as of October 12, 2015) from its mid-April high while many YieldCo stocks are trading in the red. As a result, energy companies like SunEdison, Inc. (NYSE: SUNE ) and NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NRG ) have decided to either hold off selling their projects to YieldCos or pursue a limited strategy with them. Slumping crude oil prices is the primary factor for the underperformance of the renewable energy sector and consequently the YieldCos. Low oil prices reduce the demand for renewable energy. Secondly, China is the leader in the global renewable energy industry. Due to its economic slowdown, the sector outlook looks grim at this moment. Thirdly, the prospect of a near-term interest rate hike by the Fed is having a double whammy effect on YieldCos. Higher interest rates make high-yielding stocks such as YieldCos less attractive. Further, they raise the cost of financing the expansion projects for YieldCos. Lastly, YieldCos need to issue new shares (generally at higher prices than their IPOs) from time to time to raise capital for new investments as most of their cash flow gets wiped out by paying dividends. However, they are facing difficulties on this front due to depressed renewable energy stocks and an oversupply of YieldCos in the market, making investors reluctant to pay higher prices. Keeping in mind the challenging environment, we turn our attention to the recently launched ETF focused on this niche market. Global X YieldCo ETF (NASDAQ: YLCO ) Launched in May this year by Global X, the fund intends to diversify the risk of owning YieldCo stocks by tracking the Indxx Global YieldCo index. The ETF holds 20 securities with Brookfield Renewable Energy Partners, TerraForm Power Inc. (NASDAQ: TERP ) – formerly a SunEdison YieldCo – and NextEra Energy Partners, LP (NYSE: NEP ) – a NextEra Energy, Inc. (NYSE: NEE ) YieldCo – taking up the first, second and third spots with 11.75%, 8.79% and 7.62% share, respectively. The fund is highly concentrated in its top 10 holdings, which account for 68.22% of total assets. It has a global footprint with the U.S. occupying the top spot at 41%, followed by Canada (29%), U.K. (18%) and Spain (12%). YLCO has gathered a meager $3.3 million in assets and trades in a paltry volume of 4,200 shares. It charges 65 bps in annual fees from investors and has a dividend yield of 1.22%. The product was down significantly by 27.4% since its inception (as of October 15, 2015). Although the idea of investing in YieldCos looks tempting at first given its high income nature, lots of public funds pouring into the renewable energy sector and environmentalists pushing for greener energy, investors should exercise caution before hopping onto this ETF, which is thinly traded and focused on the niche market that is not yet developed and presently facing turbulence. Original Post

How I Created My Own Portfolio Over A Lifetime – Part IX

Summary Introduction and series overview. Creating my son’s first plan. Future income streams. Summary. Back to Part VIII 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 Part V I explained the hardest lesson about investing that I have had to learn: why holding cash is not a bad thing at certain times. Part VI was an explanation of why and how I sell long-held positions. Part VII was about tax efficiency to give readers some sense of what I put in which account and why. Part VIII was about building a plan for saving and investing, identifying reasonable goals and setting milestones to track progress. In this article I will do my best to explain how my son’s original plan was developed and then how we adjusted it to accommodate a change in his career plans. It is easier said (or written) than done, but it is a worthwhile task for anyone do undertake, especially for those early in their investing experience or even for those in the thick of it yet struggling for clarity of purpose. Creating my son’s first plan We started off talking about his horizon which is a difficult concept to grasp right out of college. For now, since he is single and focused on getting started off on the right foot, we stuck to what is important to him. He would like to retire by the time he is 60 and knows that if he does not start planning and saving now his chances could be less than desirable. He is also aware of how inflation will require him to need more nominal income in retirement and that he will, because of advances in medical technology, live considerably longer and need sustainable income streams that will keep him ahead of inflation after retirement. He believes that having the equivalent of $60,000 in annual income (in today’s dollars) will be sufficient to retire on. He is also keen on a career in the Air Force as an intelligence officer. So, that is where we started. First, we looked up the officer pay schedule on airforce.com which lists the starting pay and in-grade increases for years of service. He would start at $33,941 in his first year as a second lieutenant. His cousin is a major after serving ten years and a couple of my friends retired after twenty and thirty years of service, respectfully at the ranks of lieutenant colonel and colonel, each having spent more than five years in grade at the time of retirement. With that information and a reasonable assessment of my son’s intelligence, attitude, and work habits, we made some assumptions about how his career would progress. Obviously, this is more predictable than most careers are likely to be but it is a good way to start the process. It seems apparent from both experience of people we know and the pay schedule that the Air Force does not expect an officer to remain below the grade of captain for more than five years. It also appears that a promotion to major should happen within the first twelve years. If the officer is hard working, learns fast and evolves into a valuable asset (which is what my son intended) one could expect to be a lieutenant colonel by year 15 and a full colonel sometime before year 22. After that point we assumed he would probably not make it to general, so the expected salary at the time of his retirement would be $126,688 before inflation. His income would increase from $33,941 to $126,688 (before inflation) over 30 years. Formula = ((33941/126688)^(1/30))-1 But we know that the pay schedule gets updated regularly to account for inflation, so we assumed an average two percent annual adjustment. That would create a six percent annual compound rate of growth in income and we end up with a final annual pay of about $183,906 per year 30 years from now. That probably sounds a lot better than it will feel. We assumed that he would make the maximum contribution (ten percent) to his 401K plan (Thrift Savings Plan) right from the start and that the Air Force would make a five percent matching contribution. We also assumed that the maximum contribution threshold would be indexed to allow him to not exceed the maximum amount allowable by law. In the end, assuming a relatively cautious, but flexible allocation that should result in a six percent compound annual rate of return, he would end up with $593,952 at the end of his 30 year career. At that point, he would retire from the Air Force and seek a better paying position in a private firm for the next ten years. He changed his mind on retiring at the age of 60 once I explained that he may need to work in the private sector for ten years (to record 40 quarters of paying in) in order to be eligible for social security. With that in mind we made the first adjustment, extending his expected working career by two years. He will make the determination when he is approaching retirement as to whether social security benefits will be worth the additional effort. Extending his retirement savings in to the new 401K plan, making the maximum contribution allowed by the employer and assuming a continued five percent matching contribution while, at the same time allowing the Air Force plan to continue to grow until he retires completely, we estimated that his total savings in the two plans would aggregate to a total of $1,587,338 by the time he reaches age 62. Notice what happened over the last ten years; without changing the rate of growth and by merely continuing to contribute the same percentage of a gradually rising income, the total increased by 167 percent from just under $600,000 to almost $1.6 million! That is the power of compound interest (growth) over time. Next we assumed that he would begin putting the maximum allowed contribution into an IRA at the end of his first year in the Air Force, or $5,500. We assumed a slightly more aggressive allocation to achieve an annual compound rate of return of eight percent. We did not make any assumptions about inflation or future increases to the maximum allowable contributions. Thus, this should be a conservative estimate. If he is consistent in contributing the maximum amount each year until age 62 when he plans to retire, we estimate that his IRA(s) should have a total of $1,494,117 accumulated. As I pointed out in the precious installment, he plans to contribution initially to a Roth IRA while his income tax rate is still below 30 percent. At the point at which his incremental tax rate (combined for federal and state) hits 30 percent he will switch his contributions to a traditional IRA to save on taxes if he feels he needs the relief to accommodate his lifestyle. But, we also discussed that his income will probably be high enough in retirement that his income tax rate may be more than 30 percent. One never knows what will happen to income tax rates in the future so having as much tax-free income as possible is a good thing to plan on. The thing to remember is that we are trying to create multiple streams of future income. So far we have developed two future sources of income from savings. But wait! There’s more! Yes, as I mentioned in the previous segment of the series, we assumed that he would not be able to save much in a taxable account during the first 17 years. Why? Well, he will need transportation, entertainment, and who knows but that he might even get married and have children. Then there’s the house, another car (or a van), saving for the kids’ college expenses, and all the extra expenses that accrue to a family with children. He will be saving in a taxable account, but I explained to him that he would probably not be able to hold onto much of it for quite a few years. There will be a down payment for car(s) and car payments, a down payment for a house and the additional maintenance expenses, and family vacations can be expensive (four people usually costs nearly four times as much as one). It will be hard, but eventually his income (and that of his wife if she works) will grow enough to allow for additional savings that can targeted for retirement. One other item that we discussed is that he needs to build a savings account as a buffer for emergencies. If he gets laid off or his wife does and there is a need to meet expenses while searching for employment, he will need to have an emergency fund to draw from. My wife and I have tried to keep the equivalent of six months living expenses in our emergency savings account. We have needed it several times for things like moving, a new HVAC system for the house, a new roof, a new appliance, etc. It gets drawn down and then we build it back up again. After talking it through my son understood the need for an emergency savings account. We decided, after some negotiation, that he might be able to begin saving for retirement in a taxable account in about 18 years. He, of course, is hoping to get there sooner but we agreed to 18 years for the plan. So, he will be saving in that taxable account for 22 years before retirement and we assumed an annual compound rate of growth of seven percent to allow for paying taxes on the dividends, interest and gains when necessary. His plan calls for him to save $5,000 in the first year and then increase the savings by $1,000 each year ($6,000 in year two, etc.) until he reaches $10,000 per year. He plans on continuing to save $10,000 per year until retirement. We estimate that he should accumulate $506,565 by age 62 in his taxable account. His total savings from all three sources (401K, IRAs and taxable savings) should be $3,448, 769. Future income streams After concluding his savings plans we moved onto identifying all future streams of income for retirement. The Air Force has a generous retirement plan. I am not certain but believe it pays two percent per year of service time the average of the high three years of salary. We estimated that the average of his last three years of income from the Air Force would be about $180,000. Thus, two percent times 30 years of service is 60 percent of that amount to calculate his annual pension. That results in a first year pension of about $108,000 that he could begin to draw at age 52. We assumed an annual average of two percent cost of living adjustment until his death. If I am wrong and the Air Force has adjusted the pension to be one percent of the high three years average, then his pension would be half as much. Still, it is just one stream of future income. There are more. The second potential stream of income would be social security. This one is tough to estimate because we assume that there will need to be adjustments made to the plan and benefits (probably later age requirement and reduced benefit). So, we tried to be conservative and estimated that he would be eligible for approximately $18,000 of annual benefits in today’s dollars and that he would not be able to begin receiving benefits until he reaches 65 years of age. We also assumed that over that time the cost of living adjustment would average two percent. At age 65 he would be able to collect $41,350 (adjusted for inflation) and that amount would increase to $55,652 by age 80. That makes two income streams so far. Now we need to look at the retirement accounts for additional income for when it is needed. The first one we will look at is the taxable account since it does not continue to accumulate on a tax-deferred basis like the IRAs. My son will probably roll over his 401K savings from the Air Force into a traditional IRA account. Whether he rolls his private employer 401K over into a traditional or Roth IRA account will depend on the options he has when he begins his employment. If they offer a Roth 401K, he may go that route. Whatever is the case, he will likely roll over each account to an IRA of similar tax treatment. Likewise, which account he decides to draw from will depend on what his marginal tax rate is during retirement each year. The Roth IRA income will be tax-free. It went in after tax and as it comes out there are no taxes owed (unless Congress decided to change the rules). The withdrawals from the traditional IRAs will be fully taxed as earned income. The taxes were only deferred. None of the savings in the traditional IRAs will have had any taxes paid until the withdrawals begin. We decided, for simplicity, to combine the 401K and IRA accounts into one stream and labeled it retirement savings income. He will take what he needs from whichever account makes the most sense to him at the time of withdrawal. Of course, there is a required minimum withdrawal that he will need to make from the traditional account(s) once he turns 70 1/2, so the IRS will have its say in at least part of the decision. We assumed that he would have at least a two percent annual return from those accounts including dividends and interest, and that income would likely increase each year. We also assumed that there would be some appreciation, but that he would be investing very conservatively (read: mostly fixed income), so we also assumed that he could take out three percent each year and that he could increase his withdrawal by two percent per year. Our reasoning is that at such a low rate he should not need to draw down principal, making his savings last indefinitely. He has no idea how long he will live! If he begins withdrawals at age 62 he could add a third retirement income stream of $90,278 per year. Adding the incomes together, we get a total of $224,572 per year. If we adjust for and average rate of inflation of three percent that would equal about $70,909 in today’s dollars, more than his goal. That is good because it is always more realistic to aim a little high and hope you come close. If he wanted, he could simply use only $158,351 in his first year of retirement. That is how much $50,000 would equal at a three percent average annual rate of inflation. Now, if I was wrong about the Air Force pension plan and his income would be calculated at the one percent rate instead of two percent, then his income in his first year of retirement would be $157,425 in year one. Funny how that is less than six tenths of one percent from what his original goal. Summary The point of this exercise and the series is that a well-defined plan, consistent execution and reasonable goals can work for most people resulting in financial security. Obviously, there are setbacks and no plan will work perfectly but as shown here, even if he fell well short of his goals and got behind his milestone targets, my son would still end up in relative good shape. If he had no plan and started later in life, as most people do, he would probably not come close to achieving the wherewithal to retire as comfortably. Everyone will have different long-term objectives and goals. Thus, everyone needs to create a plan that is personalized and can help them achieve those goals. A person who has lesser ambition and expectations will, nonetheless, need a plan to be able to retire at their own level of comfort. It will not be any easier just because someone needs less to make them happy. No plan, haphazard savings or swinging for the fence with every investment are all sure fire ways to end up with less than one needs. I had hoped to include how we adjusted my son’s plan to accommodate his change in career paths, but the article is getting too long. I will cover that in the next installment and then I will cover how I determine with relative confidence when the market is likely to have changed trend directions. Readership of the series continues to fall off with each new installment. Thus, I will probably wrap up the series with eleven parts. I had wanted to include a few installments that pertain to how my version of buy-and-hold investing has worked over the years by highlighting the performance of some of my holdings, but I believe those might do better in separate articles with titles unrelated to this series. I will add link to those articles in the instablog I created for the series, though. The instablog for the series can be found by clicking on the following title, ” How I Created My Own Portfolio Over A Lifetime .” 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. That works out to a compound annual increase of four percent over 30 years.

A Bond-Free Portfolio: Why Cash Should Replace Bonds To Reduce Risk And Improve Returns

Summary Most conservative investors think that bonds should hold the largest position in their investment portfolio. Cash or “near cash” has become a major investment medium that is included in the majority of individuals’ portfolios. Can replacing bonds with the current near cash alternatives provide better long-term results and reduce overall portfolio risk? In a recent interview, Howard Marks, the great investor and co-chairman of Oaktree Capital, quoted the original Dr. Doom, Henry Kaufman, who once said “There are two kinds of people who lose money: those who know nothing and those who know everything.” Those of us who are selling investment services, whether portfolio management or investment products, have a tremendous ability to locate or create research that rationalizes our approach to building and maintaining a portfolio. Because we spend so much time and effort in this process we can become one of “those” who think they know everything, and as a result, disregard our primary purpose, which is to help people preserve and grow their wealth. This month, I want to share with you some thoughts on asset allocation. These views are contrary to the conventional approach that has been used quite successfully for decades; the basic stock, bond, and cash mix. The question we will try to answer is why cash is held in lesser amounts and only used to meet current needs or as an opportunistic buying reserve for stocks and bonds. Welcome New Members Before we begin, I want to take a moment to welcome all the new and returning members into the largest investment club in the world, the “Buy High, Sell Low Club.” Given the horrendous market returns beginning in August and running wild through the end of September, the club’s membership has grown so much that it can only hold meetings in cyberspace, as there is no location in the world that could accommodate all of the members. In my early years, I was a card carrying member of the club. I first joined in the seventies and rejoined again early in the eighties. I am happy to say that since I have again let my membership expire, I have been able to resist the urge to renew. I am just as happy to say that you have also been able to resist this club’s temptations. And if you haven’t noticed, since the end of September the markets have been recovering quite nicely. Some of you may think that resisting the club’s pull is easy. However, regret and the ever-present destructive forces of “should’ve, would’ve, could’ve” can be more agonizing than watching your portfolio value decline. For me, even though I have been rewarded with a very attractive long-term return on my capital, during those times when markets acted badly, I did not know when or if my portfolio would recover its value. I had to rely on my training, experience, and yes, faith that the businesses we own would find a way to grow their profits and dividends. If you feel at any time that the sirens’ call of the club is hard to resist, please let us know. We will do all we can to help, and together we will work towards finding a solution that we hope will be best for you. Asset Allocation I would venture to say that the majority of financial professionals believe asset allocation, not security selection, is the primary driver of portfolio returns. There are also just as many who think stocks are risky, bonds are safe, and cash has little use in a portfolio. Because of this, the majority of conservative investors think that bonds should hold the largest position in their investment portfolio. This belief is reinforced through the use of target date funds, which are held by so many individual investors in their 401K plans. Most target date fund investors take the time to read the literature, which says the fund will be less risky as they get closer to their retirement date. This is accomplished by holding less stocks and more bonds. This belief is also reinforced by Jack Bogle, the well-known founder of the Vanguard Funds, who has over the years told individuals that their basic allocation to bonds should be equal to their age. If you are 50 years old, your portfolio should be invested 50% in stocks and 50% in bonds. At age 70, it should be 30% in stocks and 70% in bonds. At age 25, you should have 75% of your money in common stocks and just 25% in bonds. This belief has also been reinforced by academics whose financial research influences the asset allocation of large pension plans, endowments, foundations and trusts. For a majority of institutional investors, a portfolio with 60% in common stocks and 40% in bonds is the norm. Variations from this norm are not taken lightly, and most are done only under the guidance of professional advisors who place bets on multiple alternative investments in hopes of earning superior returns. The greatest reinforcement of all has been bonds themselves. For the past 35 years, they have performed admirably, producing results that reassure investors they are safe. They have not lost money, and depending on when they were purchased could have increased capital, all while providing a respectable rate of return as readily spendable interest payments. With all of the good things bonds have done for investors, how could I have the audacity to suggest that a bond-free portfolio for individuals is appropriate, and that cash should replace bonds to reduce portfolio risk and increase returns? My thoughts on asset allocation were highly influenced by two individuals. The first I have written about many times, the great Benjamin Graham. Through his work I learned that the safety of capital is directly related to the price paid relative to the intrinsic value of both stocks and bonds. The second was Peter L. Bernstein, whose writings gave me some basic training in understanding the nature of risk and the primary place it holds in asset allocation. Benjamin Graham and Portfolio Policy Prior to reading Benjamin Graham’s Intelligent Investor , I thought very little about asset allocation, as I was far more concerned with the problem of feeding my family. This conflict caused me to do what many in our industry continue to do today: “sell what you can.” Armed with little training and having faith in the wisdom of the firm, I sold whatever product they happened to recommend at the time. I think all of you will agree that this is not the most intellectual approach to financial advice. In Chapter 4 of The Intelligent Investor , titled “General Portfolio Policy: The Defensive Investor” Graham writes this: We have already outlined in briefest form the portfolio policy of the defensive investor. He should divide his funds between high-grade bonds and high-grade common stocks. We have suggested as a fundamental guiding rule that the investor should never have less than 25% or more than 75% of his funds in common stocks, with a consequent inverse range of between 75% and 25% in bonds. There is an implication here that the standard division should be an equal one, or 50-50, between the two major investment mediums. According to tradition the sound reason for increasing the percentage in common stocks would be the appearance of the “bargain price” levels created in a protracted bear market. Conversely, sound procedure would call for reducing the common-stock component below 50% when in the judgment of the investor the market level has become dangerously high. At the time of Graham’s writing, the options for the average investor were almost limited to individual common stocks, with only a few opportunities in high-quality bonds. Of course the world has changed, and the explosion of new product introductions from the financial engineers on Wall Street allow almost everyone, even those with limited savings, to participate in hundreds of other assets beyond stocks and bonds. However, the majority of individuals today still use the basic stock/bond portfolio. And with the popularity of target date funds, I believe this will continue far into the future. The greatest change since Graham is the ability to earn a competitive interest rate on cash. Beginning with FDIC Insured deposits, including certificates and money market mutual funds, cash or “near cash” has become a major investment medium that is included in the majority of individuals’ portfolios. Peter L. Bernstein, Risk, and Diversification On just a few occasions I have shared the wisdom of Peter L. Bernstein with you. Even though I have some ideas contrary to his thoughts, there is no question of his influence on my understanding of risk, which shows in how we manage your portfolio. He is best known for his book, Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, which sold over 500,000 copies worldwide and is still widely available. It should be required reading for all investment professionals. Bernstein was an investment manager, teacher, author, economist, and financial historian. In addition to 10 books, he authored countless articles in professional journals. One of these, titled How True Are the Tried Principles? , appeared in the March/April 1989 edition of Investment Management Review. This short article had a significant influence on my investment approach to building and maintaining balanced portfolios for conservative investors. I want to highlight a few portions of this article. Mr. Bernstein states, without reservations, that “bonds should trade places with cash as the “residual stepchild” of asset allocation to reduce portfolio risk and improve returns.” This is controversial, as there is almost universal belief that bonds are “safer” than stocks and by default will reduce risk. Risk as defined by most academics is not a permanent loss of capital, but the volatility of the market value of a portfolio. To minimize risk, we therefore just have to reduce the volatility of the portfolio’s market value. The preferred approach to accomplish this is through diversification. Mr. Bernstein’s words about diversification: Let us consider for a moment how diversification actually works. Although diversification helps us avoid the chance that all of our assets will go down together, it also means that we will avoid the chance that all assets will go up together. Seen from this standpoint, diversification is a mixed blessing. In order to keep the mixture of the blessings of diversification as favorable as possible, effective diversification has two necessary conditions: (1) The covariance in returns among the assets must be negative; if it is positive, we will still run the risk that all assets will go down together; and (2) The expected returns in all the assets should be high; no one wants to hold assets with significant probabilities of loss. Here’s a little reminder about covariance and your portfolio. If the market value of your stocks and bonds go up or down at the same time, then the stocks and bonds’ covariance is positive. If the value of your stocks goes down and the value of your bonds goes up at the same time, then the covariance is negative. To limit the volatility in your portfolio, you would want your bonds to produce positive returns when the market value of your stocks goes down. Mr. Bernstein’s words about covariance: Consider covariance first. We know that the correlation between bond and stock returns is variable, but we also know that it is positive most of the time…Stock returns correlate even more weakly with cash, but such as it is, the correlation between stocks and cash is negative. Bonds and cash also correlate weakly, but the correlation here tends to be positive. Monthly and quarterly bond and stock returns are simultaneously positive over 70% of the time. This ratio increases as we lengthen the holding period, as all assets have a higher probability of positive results over the long run. The meaning is clear: most of the time that bonds are going up, the stock market is also going up. Unless bonds tend to provide higher returns on those occasions, they will be making a reliable contribution to the overall performance of the portfolio only during the relatively infrequent time periods when the bond market is going up and the stock market is going down. Even though many of us believe when stocks go down, bonds go up, and vice versa, this has not been the case. Given that bonds fail as a diversifier to reduce risk, why do so many people hold bonds? The only reasons are that bonds, in most occasions, pay a higher current income than both stocks and cash, and historically have been less volatile than common stocks. Today is one of those few occasions when dividend yields on common stocks exceed those of bonds. The current dividend yield of the S&P 500 is 2.12%. Compare that to the yields on US Treasury Obligations: 1-Year Maturity 2-Year Maturity 3-Year Maturity 5-Year Maturity 10-Year Maturity 0.23% 0.61% 0.91% 1.36% 2.04% Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury as of 10-16-2015 If bonds provide less income than common stocks, and the benefits from diversification are limited to only a few occasions that happen infrequently, can replacing bonds with the current near cash alternatives provide better long-term results and reduce overall portfolio risk? Mr. Bernstein’s words about cash: Although cash tends to have a lower expected return than bonds, we have seen that cash can hold its own against bonds 30% of the time or more when bond returns are positive. Cash will always win out over bonds when bond returns are negative. The logical step, therefore, is to try a portfolio mix that offsets the lower expected return on cash by increasing the share devoted to equities. As cash has no negative returns, the volatility might not be any higher than it would be in a portfolio that includes bonds. …The results of a portfolio consisting of 60% stocks, 40% bonds, and no cash (are compared) with a portfolio of 75% stocks, no bonds, and 25% cash….The results are clearly in favor of the bond-free portfolio, which provides higher returns with almost identical levels of risk. As each of you are aware, we have let our bond holdings mature without reinvesting the proceeds, deferring to allocate our fixed income holdings in short-term bank deposits, CDs and, if available, stable value funds. The rationale has far more to do with our expected rates of returns of common stocks relative to bonds, and the increased risk of bonds in a period of low interest rates. Given the current rates paid, bonds are very vulnerable to negative returns. If interest rates are higher in the near future, then the market value of the bond principal could easily fall well beyond the amount of interest income received. Cash, on the other hand, will not suffer at all. In fact if rates increase, cash will add positive returns to your portfolio. As for common stocks, the income received in dividends is likely to be much higher over the next ten years than it is today. If dividends do increase, as we expect, the market value of common stocks should produce positive returns at least equal to that growth in dividends. Bonds, however, will be limited to the interest rates paid today with no increase in income at all. _______________________________________________________ Anderson Griggs & Company, Inc., doing business as Anderson Griggs Investments, is a registered investment adviser. Anderson Griggs only conducts business in states and locations where it is properly registered or meets state requirement for advisors. This commentary is for informational purposes only and is not an offer of investment advice. We will only render advice after we deliver our Form ADV Part 2 to a client in an authorized jurisdiction and receive a properly executed Investment Supervisory Services Agreement. Any reference to performance is historical in nature and no assumption about future performance should be made based on the past performance of any Anderson Griggs’ Investment Objectives, individual account, individual security or index. Upon request, Anderson Griggs Investments will provide to you a list of all trade recommendations made by us for the immediately preceding 12 months. The authors of publications are expressing general opinions and commentary. They are not attempting to provide legal, accounting, or specific advice to any individual concerning their personal situation. Anderson Griggs Investments’ office is located at 113 E. Main St., Suite 310, Rock Hill, SC 29730. The local phone number is 803-324-5044 and nationally can be reached via its toll-free number 800-254-0874.