Tag Archives: seeking

Take Valuations Seriously And You Will Discover Things That You Were Not Initially Even Seeking To Discover

By Rob Bennett I learned about Sabermetrics (the empirical analysis of baseball) by reading Bill James’ Baseball Abstract many years ago. In those days, it was a curiosity. James would argue that a hitter who hits .260 and walks in 10 percent of his at-bats is better than one who hits .290 and walks in 2 percent of his at-bats and the “experts” would dismiss his work as so much foolishness. Today, of course, Sabermetrics has revolutionized the sport. Valuation-Informed Indexing is the Sabermetrics of investing analysis. Once upon a time, we all knew that the stock market is efficient, that price changes are caused by economic developments, that investing risk is stable, the timing never works and that stock returns cannot be effectively predicted. Then this crazy Shiller fellow came along and stood everything we once thought we knew about stock investing on its head. Well, that’s in fact not quite true as of today. But we are getting there, slowly but surely. We are in the early years of a “revolution” (Shiller’s word) in our understanding of how stock investing works. Valuation-Informed Indexing (the model for understanding how stock investing works rooted in Robert Shiller’s “revolutionary” [Shiller’s word] finding that valuations affect long-term returns and that stock investing risk is thus variable rather than constant) is the first true research-based investing strategy. Buy-and-Holders claim that Buy-and-Hold is a research-based investing strategy. But if the valuation level that applies when you make a stock purchase is 80 percent of the story, as the last 34 years of peer-reviewed research shows, it’s not possible to develop effective strategies without taking valuations into account and it’s the first rule of Buy-and-Hold that valuations may never be taken into account (timing doesn’t work, remember?). I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal (” Bill James and Billy Beane Discuss Big Data in Baseball “) that reminded me of one of the most exciting aspects of these revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of a field of human endeavor: Revolutions change everything, not just the stuff that we were seeking to change when we began the investigations that led to the revolutions. James started out making the case for on-base-percentage as a better metric for assessing hitters’ skills and arguing that the relief pitchers who close games are not as important as most of us once thought they were and that the best hitter should generally be placed higher up in the line-up. Today insights developed by Sabermetricians are used to inform decisions regarding all sorts of matters that were not on the minds of the pioneers. Most teams use fielding shifts today; that change was brought on through the use of Sabermetrics. Sabermetrics is being used today to prevent injuries to players. Sabermetrics can be used to assess when is the right time to move a player up from the minor leagues. And on and on. So it is has been with my 13-year study of Valuation-Informed Indexing. In 2002, I was posting at a Retire Early discussion board and we all wanted to know when we had saved enough money to hand in our resignations to high-paying corporate jobs. We turned to the safe withdrawal rate studies that were responsible for the infamous “4 percent rule.” I noted one day that those studies do not contain an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins. Oopsies! Thirteen years later, the 4 percent rule is universally reviled and most of us are still too ashamed of the mistake to acknowledge that we have sent millions on their way to experiencing failed retirements by our reluctance to correct the mistake we made promptly and openly. But that was really just the first wave of knowledge generated by our decision to start taking valuations seriously. I remember the day when one of my critics demanded that I say what the safe withdrawal rate was when calculated accurately. I didn’t know. It’s easy to say that a study that fails to consider valuations cannot possibly get the numbers right. But I am no numbers guy. I knew that the correct number had to be something significantly less than 4 percent. I guessed that it was perhaps 3 percent when valuations are high, being sure to tell people that I was speculating. There was enough interest in the question that some people offered to work with me to come to develop more precise responses to the question “What is the correct safe withdrawal rate today?” I learned that the safe withdrawal rate can drop to a lot lower than 3 percent. Try 1.6 percent (the number that applied at the top of the bubble). If I had been asked in the early days how high the safe withdrawal rate can rise, I would have probably said that it could rise to something in the neighborhood of 5 percent. Not close! The correct answer is – 9 percent! That’s the safe withdrawal rate that applied in 1982, when valuations were at one-half of fair value. It took me a long time to let that one in. 9 percent! That means that someone with a $1 million portfolio can take out $90,000 per year to live on with virtually no risk of seeing his retirement money run out before he dies. Who’d a thunk it? And that’s still not all. We’ve learned that stocks are not as risky as bonds (for those willing to take valuations into consideration when setting their stock allocations). We learned that economic crises are caused by bull markets. We learned that one form of market timing (long-term timing) ALWAYS works and in fact is required for those seeking a realistic chance of achieving long-term investing success. We learned that stock prices do not play out in the pattern of a random walk AT ALL in the long term, that we always see about 20 years of steadily rising prices (with lots of short-term price drops mixed in, to be sure) followed by 15 or 20 years of steadily dropping prices (with lots of short-term price rises mixed in). Once a revolution gets started, you never know where it is going to take you.

Recession-Testing Your Portfolio

This article originally appeared in the October issue of REP. Magazine and online at Wealthmanagement.com There is correlation between economic phases and sector performance. Which funds will best ride the wave ? If you subscribe to common wisdom, the late-summer market selloff must have you thinking about the potential for a true recessionary slide. After all, the stock market looked like it had topped out after a stunning six-year run. Many investors and pundits subscribe to the notion that the stock market is a leading indicator of the economy’s direction. True believers assume that certain market sectors will price in improvements some six to nine months before their fundamentals actually perk up. They use these signals to overweight favored industries while paring exposure to those segments most likely to falter. The trick to this rotation business is, of course, correctly identifying the market’s current state. How do you, after all, spot ascendant sectors? And which ones fare best-or worst-at different points in the economic cycle? The second question’s pretty easy to answer. The first not so much, but we’ll get to that in a minute. Research has shown pretty strong correlations between sector performance and economic phases. Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ Equity Research, famously mapped the relationship when he authored “The S&P Guide to Sector Investing” in 1995 (see chart). If Stovall et al are to be believed, we could confirm a market top if we found bullish signals in the sectors that outperform during contractions, i.e., consumer staples (non-cyclicals), health care, utilities, financials and consumer discretionary (cyclicals). So let’s get back to that first question. Just how do we spot sectors poised for liftoff? Fundamental analysis won’t avail us for a timing decision like this. Here, technical indicators and trend analysis work better. But what indicator? And what trend? It’s best to look at a mix of near-term and longer-term signals rather than relying upon a single marker. After all, sector performance is time-dependent: some industries will do better in the early phase of a recession, others in the midphase. You can then weight each indicator according to your confidence in its predictive power. There’s a wide range of indicators you can employ, but a half dozen or so seems ideal and nondilutive. Try these as examples: Point & Figure Price Objective: A point and figure chart, by its nature, filters out a lot of market noise, making longer-term price objectives easier to see. On the basis of its predictive strength, we’ll assign it a 25 percent weight. Seasonality: Sector performance does, to a certain extent, depend on the calendar. Looking back over the past five years, we can rank final-quarter performance for each sector and ascribe a 20 percent weight. Relative Performance: Plotting each sector’s 200-day performance against the broad market, represented by the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ), measures changes in the degree of investor interest. Let’s make this a 15-percent factor. 20-Day Volatility: Here, we’re rating low volatility more favorably because gains are more likely to be retained in a stable price trajectory. We gauge changes in 20-day volatility over a 12 month period. This, like all the subsequent metrics, earns a 10 percent weight. Relative Strength: Each sector ETF’s price strength is measured against the entire universe of ETFs over the past 12 months. Momentum: This indicator measures each sector ETF’s 6-month price trend versus its 12-month trend. A higher rank is assigned when the longer-term trend exceeds the shorter-term. Percentage Price Oscillator: Another momentum indicator, PPO often signals trend changes before price tops and bottoms are formed. To create a model sector array, we can employ the wildly popular universe of State Street SPDR Select Sector ETFs as proxies. We’ll weight the ETFs’ indicators, ranking each ‘1’ through ‘9,’ with ‘1’ representing the highest rank and ‘9’ the lowest. (click to enlarge) Four Sectors Likely to Outperform the Market Putting the indicators together, the four sectors now likely to outperform the overall market are consumer staples, financials, consumer discretionary, and utilities-all signposts on the recessionary trail. With a case made for recession, we have to wonder if the SPDR Select Sector products are the best vehicles to use in a portfolio overweight. Maybe they are, but it’s worth looking around to see if there are better alternatives. There are a half-dozen ETFs focused on the large-cap consumer staples sector, including the Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLP ). From a reward-to-risk standpoint (i.e., the Sharpe ratio), the category leader is the Guggenheim S&P Equal Weight Consumer Staples ETF (NYSEARCA: RHS ). RHS holds the same number of consumer staples stocks as the S&P 500 but, by equally weighting them, gives more heft to the smaller issues. That tilt’s given RHS a performance edge over the rest of the field while keeping a lid on volatility. The iShares U.S. Consumer Goods ETF (NYSEARCA: IYK ), sporting the category’s highest beta coefficient, lags the other five funds. There’s less dispersion in the returns of financial sector ETFs, but a clear standout is the First Trust Financials AlphaDEX ETF (NYSEARCA: FXO ). FXO is the only product that earned a better-than-breakeven Sharpe ratio over the past five years. It’s also the ETF most highly correlated with the S&P 500 proxy portfolio. Among volatile financial ETFs, high correlation is a good thing, a fact confirmed by the low r-squared coefficient and high beta of the bottom-scraping RevenueShares Financials Sector ETF (NYSEARCA: RWW ). RWW earns the distinction because its portfolio is revenue-weighted, tilting it toward larger-cap financial institutions. The iShares U.S. Consumer Services ETF (NYSEARCA: IYC ) earned the best risk-adjusted return in its category, owing largely to its low beta. The high-beta product, the First Trust Consumer Discretionary AlphaDEX ETF (NYSEARCA: FXD ), is the worst performer. FXD’s multifactor index methodology and tiered equal-weighting scheme yield a risky tilt to the portfolio which hasn’t paid off in outsized gains. Among utility sector ETFs, the Guggenheim S&P Equal Weight Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: RYU ) earns the only 1+ Sharpe ratio. RYU owes its high return-to-risk tilt to its telecom allocation, which also accounts for the fund’s exceptionally high dividend yield. In the cellar is the PowerShares DWA Utilities Momentum Portfolio ETF (NYSEARCA: PUI ), a fund that weights its portfolio on the basis of its components’ price momentum. Over the past five years, momentum added volatility without a commensurate enhancement to returns. If you’re going to gird your portfolio for a recessionary turn using sector rotation, it’ll pay for you to consider lower-beta ETFs. State Street’s (NYSE: STT ) ETFs may be category-killers in terms of size, but they’re a fairly volatile lot. As a class, better risk-adjusted returns are earned by the Guggenheim set of equal-weighted portfolios. No one’s obliged to use a single purveyor, of course, but commission-free ETF trading offered by some brokerages acts as a sort of loyalty program. Staying loyal to portfolio performance may require some careful picking and choosing.

What If Everyone Indexed?

People generally think that more indexing will make the markets function less efficiently. I don’t think this is true at all. The fact that most index funds and ETFs are more tax- and fee-efficient than mutual funds does not mean they are necessarily less “active”. Most passive investing means there will be greater demand for active managers in the form of market makers and arbitrageurs. If everyone indexed, then that much more active market making would be required. I see this question more and more as indexing grows in popularity. People generally think that more indexing will make the markets function less efficiently. I don’t think this is true at all. Unfortunately, the question and its answers are usually shrouded in misunderstandings about how assets are priced and myths about what it means to invest “passively”. So, let’s think about this from an operational perspective. An index fund is not really an “index”. They are portfolios managed every day trying to track an index. These funds are managed actively, and involve hundreds, if not thousands, of decisions every year. The simplest example is the modern-day ETF, which is essentially a real-time version of what most people think of as an index fund. When you buy shares in an ETF, there is someone who is actively managing the allocation of funds (the same is true for an index mutual fund, though it’s less apparent in real-time, since the fund is not traded on an exchange). For instance, if the market price of an ETF were to deviate from the intraday indicative value, then the market makers would either buy/sell the ETF or buy/sell the underlying securities. So, while there doesn’t appear to be much activity on the surface, the very act of buying an index fund could actually force some active management in the underlying securities markets. In other words, your “passive” investment is the other side of the active management of the market maker or fund administrator.¹ It’s not a coincidence that high-frequency trading firms and big banks are making huge gobs of money during the rise of passive indexing. After all, passive indexing means that there is a greater need for those alternative forms of what is nothing more than “active” management. Unfortunately, the studies blasting active management usually include mutual fund managers and not the most active managers of them all – market makers and HFT firms. And make no mistake – these “active” operations are hugely profitable because they are essentially making “passive” portfolios available.² The kicker here is that index funds really aren’t passive at all. When you look at the underlying components of how the funds are actually managed, you realize that there’s a lot of activity in all of this. The fact that most index funds and ETFs are more tax- and fee-efficient than mutual funds does not mean they are necessarily less “active”, though. People misuse the term “passive indexing” on a near-daily basis now. And it’s the result of this desire to create a black-and-white view of the world, which is usually nothing more than a marketing pitch (something along the lines of – “We’re passive, so invest with us, because the misleading academic studies show that ‘active’ managers are dopes.”). The reality, however, is that there is really only active management and its varying degrees. Literally no one replicates a pre-fee and pre-tax index. Not a single investor. And your purchase and maintenance of a “passive” strategy will require a good deal of active upkeep. The bottom line is, most passive investing means there will be greater demand for active managers in the form of market makers and arbitrageurs. The ease of passive investing is made possible thanks to these active underlying elements. And that’s great, because it’s a win-win. Indexers get a low-fee and easy way to access markets. But they also bear the cost of their laziness (in numerous unseen ways), which is why making markets in index funds is hugely profitable. So, if everyone indexed, then that much more active market making would be required. End of story. ¹ – Read this fun paper on how ETFs work. ² – E.g., ever wonder how a big bank like Bank of America (NYSE: BAC ) can be profitable on 100% of its trading days in a quarter ? It’s thanks, in part, to passive indexers like me! “During the three months ended March 31, 2013, positive trading-related revenue was recorded for 100 percent, or 60 trading days, of which 97 percent (58 days) were daily trading gains of over $25 million.” (click to enlarge) Related: The Myth of Passive Investing