Tag Archives: S&P 500

Is My Portfolio at the Right Risk Level?

This is the fifth installment in our series on how individual investors can assess their financial health.

RiskAt every stage of investing, you should periodically ask yourself how much risk you can realistically tolerate. The primary way to measure the risk level of your portfolio is to look at its allocation of stocks vs. bonds.  Although some stock and bond ETFs  are riskier than others, your first decision has to be how much of your investments to put in stocks and how much in bonds.

One standard rule of thumb that’s a good place to start is the “age in bonds” axiom. According to this guideline, you invest a percentage of assets equal to your age in a broad bond index, and the balance of your portfolio in a diversified stock portfolio.  The idea here is that your portfolio should become more conservative as you get older. This makes sense for two reasons:

  1. You tend to get wealthier as you age, so any given percentage loss from your portfolio represents an increasingly larger dollar value.
  2. You are gradually converting your human capital (your ability to work and earn money) into financial capital (investments) as you age. And as you get older, your financial assets represent a larger and larger fraction of your lifetime wealth potential.

For these reasons, it makes sense  to manage this pool of assets more conservatively as time goes by.

Beyond “Age in Bonds” – Choosing Your Allocation of Stocks and Bonds

The past decade provides a powerful example of the tradeoffs between risk and return.  The table below shows the year-by-year returns for portfolios comprising different mixes of an S&P 500 ETF (IVV) and a broad bond ETF (AGG).  The returns include the expense ratios of the ETFs, but no adjustment is made for brokerage fees.

2004-2013 Allocation Performance

Source: Author’s calculations and Morningstar

Over the 10-year period from 2004 through 2013, a portfolio that is entirely allocated to the S&P 500 ETF has an average annual return of 9.2%.  In its worst year over this period, 2008, this portfolio lost almost 37% of its value.  As the percentage of the portfolio allocated to stocks declines, the average return goes down. But the worst 12-month loss also becomes markedly less severe.

We cannot say, with any certainty, that these statistics for the past ten years are representative of what we can expect in the future, but they do provide a reasonable basis for thinking about how much risk might be appropriate.

Ask yourself: If these figures are what you could expect, what allocation of stocks vs. bonds would you choose?  Would you be willing to lose 37% in a really bad year to make an average of 9.2% per year?  Or would you prefer to sacrifice 1.5% per year to reduce the potential worst-case loss by one third?  If so, the 70% stock / 30% bond portfolio provides this tradeoff.

Planning around Improbable Events

One might object that 2008 was an extreme case, and that such a bad year is unlikely to recur with any meaningful probability.  One way to correct for this potential bias towards extreme events is to assume that returns from stocks and bonds follow a bell curve distribution, a common way to estimate investment risk.  Using the data over the last ten years to estimate the properties of the bell curve (also known as the “normal” or Gaussian distribution), I have estimated the probabilities of various levels of loss over a 12-month period.

9-30-2014b

Estimated 12-month loss percentiles for a ‘normal’ distribution (Source: author’s calculations)

When you look at the figures for the 5th percentile loss, you can see what might be expected in the worst 5% of 12-month periods for each of the five portfolio types. For example, the 100% stock portfolio has a 1-in-20 chance of returning -21% or worse over the next twelve months. Note that a loss of 35% for stocks, similar to 2008, is estimated to have a probability of 1-in-100.

It’s important to point out that the ability to calculate the probability of very rare events is very poor.  Perhaps 2008 really was a 1-in-100 probability event, but we don’t know that with any certainty.  The most catastrophic events (what Nassim Taleb has famously dubbed “Black Swans”) are so severe and outside our normal range of experience that they tend to catch us totally off guard.

Moshe Milevsky, a well-known retirement planning expert, suggests that rather than thinking in terms of probabilities, it’s sensible to set your portfolio’s risk to a level that ensures that the worst case outcomes are survivable. Based on that, it’s prudent to choose a portfolio risk level that won’t ruin you if there’s another year like 2008. If you can survive a 12-month loss of 23% (the average of the worst loss for this allocation over the past ten years and the estimated worst-case 1st percentile return), for example, you can afford to hold a 70% equity portfolio.

Final Thoughts

If your investments in stocks don’t approximate the S&P 500, the stock portion of your portfolio may be considerably riskier than the table above implies.  Allocations to emerging markets, small companies, and technology stocks can be very volatile. The examples shown here provide a starting point in determining risk.  Combining a wider range of asset classes can provide important diversification benefits beyond their individual risk levels, but this topic is beyond my scope here.

The past ten years have provided examples of very high returns and very low returns from stocks. This period gives us a useful basis for testing our tolerance for volatility.  Many readers, I imagine, will find that their risk tolerance—self-diagnosed from looking at the tables above—corresponds reasonably well to the “age in bonds” rule. If your choice of risk levels is too far from these levels, a closer look is needed—and perhaps a talk with an investment advisor.

Related Links:

logo-folioinvesting

The brokerage with a better way. Securities products and services offered through FOLIOfn Investments, Inc. Member FINRA/SIPC.

Goldman Sachs Predicts 4.5% 10-year Treasury Yields

Treasury BondGoldman Sachs just came out with a prediction that 10-year Treasury bond yields will rise to 4.5% by 2018 and the S&P 500 will provide 6% annualized returns over that same period.  The driver for this prediction is simply that the Fed is expected to raise the federal funds rate.

Because rising yields correspond to falling prices for bonds, Goldman’s forecast is that equities will substantially outperform bonds over the next several years.  If you are holding a bond yielding 2.5% (the current 10-year Treasury yield) and the Fed raises rates, investors will sell off their holdings of lower-yielding bonds in order to purchase newly-issued higher-yielding bonds.  If Goldman’s forecast plays out, bondholders will suffer over the next several years, while equity investors will enjoy modest gains.

Historical Perspective

This very long-term history of bond yield vs. the dividend yield on the S&P 500 is worth considering in parsing Goldman’s predictions.

Bond Yield vs. Dividend Yield

Source: The Big Picture blog

Prior to the mid 1950’s, the conventional wisdom (according to market guru Peter Bernstein) was that equities should have a dividend yield higher than the yield from bonds because equities were riskier.  From 1958 to 2008, however, the 10-year bond yield was higher than the S&P 500 dividend yield by an average of 3.7%.

Then in 2008, the 10-year Treasury bond yield fell below the S&P 500 dividend yield for the first time in 50 years.  Today, the yield from the S&P 500 is 1.8% and the 10-year Treasury bond yields 2.5%, so we have returned to the conditions that have prevailed for the last half a century. But the spread between bond yield and dividend yields remains very low by historical standards.  If the 10-year Treasury yield increases to 4.5% (as Goldman predicts), we will have a spread that is more consistent with recent decades.

Investors are likely to compare bond yields and dividend yields, with the understanding that bond prices are extremely negatively impacted by inflation (with the result that yields rise with inflation because yield increases as bond prices fall), while dividends can increase with inflation.  During the 1970’s, Treasury bond yields shot up in response to inflation. Companies can increase the prices that they charge for their products in response to inflation, which allows the dividends to increase in response to higher prices across the economy.  The huge spread between dividend yield and bond yield in the late 70’s and early 80’s reflects investors’ rational preference for dividends in a high-inflation environment.

What Has to Happen for Goldman’s Outlook to Play Out?

To end up with a 4.5% 10-year Treasury yield with something like a 2% S&P 500 dividend yield, the U.S. will need to see a sustained economic recovery and evidence of higher prices (inflation) driven by higher employment and wage growth.  In such an environment, investors will be willing to accept the lower dividend yield from equities because dividends grow over time and tend to rise with inflation.  This has been the prevailing state of the U.S. economy over the last fifty years.  Most recently, we had 10-year Treasury yields in the 4%-5% range in the mid 2000’s.  If, however, we continue to see low inflation and stagnant wages in the U.S. economy, bond yields are likely to remain low for longer.

Related Links:

logo-folioinvesting

The brokerage with a better way. Securities products and services offered through FOLIOfn Investments, Inc. Member FINRA/SIPC.

Low Beta Market Sectors

With U.S. equity markets near their record highs and a bull market run that is starting its sixth year, the potential for a correction is a growing concern.  In addition, U.S. equity prices look fairly high when viewed in terms of the PE10 ratio.  Another factor that concerns some market watchers is that volatility (as measured by VIX) is at very low levels, reminiscent of 2007.  This type of complacency has historically been followed by increasing volatility, as levels return to their historical average, accompanied by a sell-off in higher-risk assets as investors adjust their portfolios to mitigate the effects of higher volatility.

Investors seeking to remain invested in equities at a target level but who want to reduce their exposure to market swings and to mitigate the impact of a rise in market volatility have historically been well-served by increasing their allocations to low-beta market sectors.  In this article, I will review the defensive value of low-beta allocations as well as examining the consistency of beta over time.

Beta measures the degree to which a security or a portfolio responds to a move in a benchmark index such as the S&P500.  A portfolio with beta equal to 80% (also written as 0.8) tends to go up 0.8% when the market rises 1.0% and vice versa.  Beta may be thought of as showing whether a security amplifies the moves in the benchmark (beta greater than 100%) or damps the moves in the benchmark (beta less than 100%).

How Beta Varies by Sector

The SPDR Select Sector ETFs provide a convenient way to break out the sectors of the U.S. equity markets by dividing the S&P500 into nine sectors.  These sectors illustrate how much beta varies.

Low Beta Market Sectors - 1

Betas and 10-year average annual returns for major sectors and indexes

The S&P500 has a beta of 100%, by definition.  Some readers may be surprised that emerging market stocks have beta of almost 140%, which means that emerging market equities tend to go up (down) 1.4% for every 1% gain (drop) in the S&P500.  Even before the market crash of 2008, emerging market stocks were high beta—this is not a new phenomenon.

There are three U.S. equity sectors with betas well below 100%: consumer staples (XLP), healthcare (XLV), and utilities (XLU).  It is often believed that low-beta equities have very low average returns.  In fact, a well-known but now widely-discounted model of equity returns (the Capital Asset Pricing Model, CAPM) assumes that beta of an equity or asset class corresponds directly to expected return.  High-beta asset classes have high expected return and vice versa.  Low-beta equities have historically substantially out-performed what would be expected on the basis of CAPM, however, and the past ten years is no exception.  These three sectors have all out-performed the S&P500 over the past ten years.  The return numbers shown here are the arithmetic averages, including reinvested dividends.

Low Beta Asset Classes in 2007-2008

The first question that is worth asking about beta is the degree to which beta corresponds to losses in really bad market conditions.  In the table below, I have tabulated beta calculated using three years of data through 2007 for each of the funds above, as well as the returns for each of these in 2008.

Low Beta Market Sectors - 2

Beta calculated through 2007 vs. 2008 returns

The three sectors with the lowest betas going into 2008 (consumer staples, healthcare, and utilities) had an average return of -22.3% in 2008, as compared to -36.8% for the S&P500.  An equity tilt towards these lower beta sectors could have reduced losses in that year.

Consistency of Beta through Time

The astute reader may notice that the betas calculated using ten years of data through May of 2014 (shown in the first table) are, in some cases, quite different from the betas calculated using three years of data through December of 2007 (shown in the second table).  Beta varies through time.  The betas calculated using three years of data through May 2014 provide an interesting contrast to the three-year betas through the end of 2007.

Low Beta Market Sectors - 3

Comparing betas for two 3-year periods

We are looking at two distinct 3-year periods, separated by almost six and a half years and, in general, low-beta sectors at the end of 2007 remain low-beta today and high-beta sectors back then are still high-beta.  The two most notable exceptions are international equities (EFA) and the technology sectors (XLK).  These changes notwithstanding, the three sectors with the lower betas in 2007 also have the lowest betas in 2014.

There are a number of factors that will determine whether any sector will weather a broad market decline better than others.  Beta is one important factor, but there are others.  In 2008, the financial sector suffered disproportionately large losses—well beyond what would have been expected on the basis of beta alone.  The underlying drivers of the 2008 market crash were most severe in the financial sector.  Small-cap stocks, by contrast, fell considerably less than the beta value of this sector would have suggested.

Low-Beta and Asset Allocation

Low-beta asset classes have historically provided some protection from market declines and increasing volatility.  There are a range of other considerations that potential investors should consider, however when creating a portfolio.  The selection of individual asset classes should be made with consideration of the characteristics of the total portfolio, including desired risk level, interest rate exposure, and income generation.  The target for total portfolio beta is primarily determined by an investor’s total risk tolerance.  A target beta level can be achieved both by choosing how to allocate the equity portion of a portfolio among sectors and by varying the balance between equity (stocks) and fixed income (bonds) investments.  Fixed income asset classes tend to have very low—even negative—values of beta.  In my next blog entry, I will explore these two approaches to managing beta at the portfolio level.

History suggests that low-beta sectors can provide some protection from market downturns.  The length of the current equity rally, and the substantial increases in equity valuations in recent years, are motivating some investors to consider their best defensive alternatives to protect against the inevitable reversal.  The question for investors to ask themselves is whether they are best-served by reducing portfolio beta by reducing their exposure to equities, by shifting some portion of assets from high-beta to low-beta sector, or both.

Related Links:

logo-folioinvesting

The brokerage with a better way. Securities products and services offered through FOLIOfn Investments, Inc. Member FINRA/SIPC.

REITs and the Rally of 2014

There have been a number of surprises for investors in 2014.  Bonds have markedly out-performed stocks for the year-to-date.  The S&P500 is up 2.4% since the start of 2014, as compared to the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index, which is up by 3.5%.  Even more striking, the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) is up by 12.5% YTD and the Vanguard Long-Term Bond fund (VBLTX) is up by 11.4% YTD.  Interestingly, REITs have been also experienced a substantial run-up in 2014 so far.  The Vanguard REIT Index fund (VGSIX) is up 16.1% YTD and the iShares U.S. Real Estate ETF (IYR) is up by 14.4% YTD.

To understand the rally in REITs, it is useful to start with an overview of this asset class.  REITs are neither stock (equity) nor bond (fixed income).  A REIT uses investor money, combined with borrowed money, to acquire real estate.  The properties that they acquire can be office buildings (BXP, SLG), apartment buildings (EQR, UDR), healthcare facilities (HCP, HCN), or even digital data centers (DLR).  The returns vary between the specific types of property owned.  REITs make money from renting their facilities out.  Please note that I am discussing only equity REITs (those which own property).  There is a secondary form of REITs that buy baskets of mortgages.  These are called mortgage REITS (mREITs).

REITs are classified as ‘pass-through’ or ‘flow-through’ entities and pass at least 90% of their taxable income to their shareholders each year.  For this reason, REITs are often favored by income-oriented investors.

REITs have their own unique measures of value and drivers of performance.  Rather than price-to-earnings ratio, a measure of the valuation of stocks, the preferred measure of valuation for REITs is price-to-funds from operations (FFO).  A notable feature of REITs is their exposure to interest rates.  In general, stocks go up when interest rates rise, while bonds fall.  When interest rates decline, the reverse tend to be true: stocks decline and bonds rise in value.  REITs tend to have a fairly neutral response to changes in interest rates, although this varies.  To the extent to which REITs need to borrow in the future due to rolling credit or new financing, their costs rise when interest rates rise.  REITs often also have the ability to raise rents, however, so that their revenue can also rise when the costs of residential or commercial real estate rise with inflation.  In addition, because REITs own a physical asset (property), the value of the assets owned by the REIT tend to go up with inflation.

An examination of the performance statistics of REIT funds illustrates their properties quite clearly.

Chart 1

REIT funds vs. major asset classes (10 years through April 2014)—Source: Author’s calculations

The returns above are the arithmetic average of returns over the past ten years, including reinvested dividends.  Beta measures the degree to which an asset tends to amplify or mute swings in the S&P500.  The betas for VGSIX and IYR show that these funds tend to rise 1.3% for every 1% rise in the S&P500 (and vice versa).  These broad REIT funds tend to do well in rising stock markets and will also tend to perform worse than the S&P500 when the market crashes.  The S&P500 fell 36.8% in 2008, for example, and IYR fell 39.9%, for example.  The high beta is only one factor that determines the returns from these REIT index funds, however.  Despite a massive decline in real estate in 2008, the average annual return for these two REIT funds has been very high over the past ten years.  The volatility levels exhibited by these REIT funds is, however, very close to that of emerging market stocks, as shown above.

The best way to understand the unique features of REITs is to look at the correlations in the returns between asset classes, bond yields, and the returns from a traditional 60/40 portfolio (60% stocks, 40% bonds).

Chart 2

Correlations between monthly returns over the past ten years (through April 2014) for major asset classes, 10-year Treasury bond yield, and the returns from a 60/40 portfolio—Source: Author’s calculations

Equity indexes tend to have positive correlations to Treasury bond yields (because yield goes up when bond prices go down, and vice versa).  This effect is evident in the table above.  S&P500 stocks (represented by SPY) have a +30% correlation to the 10-year Treasury yield.  The same relationships hold for the other major equity classes in the table above (EFA, EEM, QQQ, and IWM), with correlations to the 10-year Treasury yield ranging from 20% (EFA) to 36% (IWM).  In 2013, Treasury bond yields rose and stock indexes gained substantially.  By contrast, the returns of bond funds (AGG, TLT) are negatively correlated to the 10-year Treasury bond yield.  The returns from these funds tend to be positive when Treasury yields are falling and vice versa.

Treasury bond yields follow interest rates and inflation.  When rates or inflation rise, bond yields rise because investors sell Treasury bonds to avoid getting caught with relatively low-yield bonds in a higher rate environment.  The selling continues until the yield on the bonds is in line with new rates.  This is why returns on the two bond funds are so negative correlated to Treasury yield.  When yields go up, bond prices fall and vice versa.

VGSIX and IYR have 6% and 7% correlations to the 10-year Treasury yield—which means that these REIT funds are not highly sensitive to movements in bond yields.  While investors were betting on rising yield in 2013, opinion seems to have shifted in 2014.  If you are looking for asset classes that don’t require a bet on whether interest rates will go up or down, REITs look pretty attractive.

The correlations between the returns from each asset class and the returns from a 60% stock / 40% bond portfolio show the degree to which adding these asset classes to a simple stock-bond mix is likely to provide diversification benefits.  The higher the correlation, the less diversification benefit you can expect.  The key idea in diversifying a portfolio is to combine assets with low correlations so that when one is losing money, others are likely to be doing something different (hopefully rising in value).  As compared to the major equity asset classes, the REIT funds have a lower correlation to the 60/40 portfolio.  This, in turn, suggests that REITs can provide more diversification benefit than equities to a portfolio that currently holds stocks and bonds.

In summary, the basic narrative to explain the rally in REITs goes something like this.  REITs provide substantial income compared to bonds and equities, as well as being essentially interest rate neutral.  While REITs are a volatile asset class, the relatively low correlation between REITs and equities provides diversification benefit to a portfolio of domestic stocks and bonds, as well as providing some modest protection from rising interest rates.  REITs appear have come back into favor after being sold off during and after the so-called taper tantrum of 2013, with yield-hungry investors leading the charge.  In a slow-growth environment, with the Fed indicating that they foresee an extended period of low rates, REITs look quite attractive.  The caveat to the positive view on maintaining an allocation in REITs is that there are substantial differences between the yield, risk, and interest rate exposure and that REITs have historically been a volatile asset class.  Unless you firmly believe that you can outsmart the broader market, REITs should be thought of as a long-term income producer and diversifier.  For those investors who have maintained a strategic allocation to REITs, the gains in 2014 YTD have helped to bolster portfolio returns as equities have provided very little to investors beyond their dividends.  The downside to this positive narrative, however, is that increased prices for REITs translate to lower yields for today’s buyers.

Related Links:

logo-folioinvesting

The brokerage with a better way. Securities products and services offered through FOLIOfn Investments, Inc. Member FINRA/SIPC.

 

The Meaning of the New Highs in the S&P500

The S&P500 has recently been hitting new all-time highs, which would seem to suggest that the economy is recovering and that the U.S. economy is back on track.  The story does not look quite so rosy when you account for inflation, as Mark Hulbert has recently noted.  The current level of the S&P500 is, in fact, still about 24% below its high in 2000 once inflation is considered.  Economists and finance people would say that, measured in real terms, the S&P500 is 24% lower than it was at its 2000 peak.  What this means is that the proceeds from the sale of a share of an S&P500 index fund purchases considerably less in real goods today than it did thirteen years ago.  Continue reading

Sector Watch: Spotlight Telecommunications Stocks

The telecommunications industry is evolving quickly.  Recent data suggests, for example, that half of all adults in the United States have a tablet or smartphone.  There are many countries that have an average of more than one cell phone line per person.  In the developing economies, cell phones have allowed much broader access to voice and data services than would have been possible if the traditional fixed-line infrastructure needed to be built.  Ten years ago, Nigeria had only 100,000 phone lines.  Today, Nigeria has 100 Million cell phone accounts.  The ways that people use telecommunications are also expanding.  For people with little or no access to banking, mobile money services can provide the essential roles of banking.  The continued convergence of banking with telecommunications has substantial implications for both. Continue reading

Saving and Investing for Retirement: Part Three

Realities of Investing: Part Three of Our Special Five Part Series

In the various calculations that project retirement portfolio accumulations through time (such as the two discussed in the previous article), there are assumptions about how investors will allocate their savings and how those investments will perform.  In the case of the Fidelity study, no specific asset allocation is provided that would achieve the assumed risk-free 5.5% annual return.  In the Ibbotson study, the authors assume that investors hold a combination of a stock index fund and a bond index fund that progressively allocates less to stocks and more to bonds as investors get older.  The Ibbotson study also assumes that the stock index (the S&P 500) will have an average annual return of 10.96% per year and that the bond index will have an average return of 4.6% per year.  The Ibbotson study ignores expenses associated with investing. Continue reading