Tag Archives: performance

Farmland, agriculture commodities may outrun stocks or bonds

It’s no surprise that in a world racing past seven billion people, farmland and food crops have drawn attention as an investment theme.

According to a research paper from Absolute Return Partners titled The Protein Bomb, in 2011 farmland prices in the U.S. midwest increased by 22% on average. With much of the world — especially the emerging middle class in developing nations — shifting to a higher protein diet, increased need for grain to feed chicken, beef and pork requires increased crop output. When demand rises, farmland prices follow.

As the paper indicates, “Arable land is a finite resource and so is water. Demand on existing resources will be immense over the next few decades as living standards increase around the world.”

The paper goes on to evaluate why, when such a clear trend is developing, so few people have exposure to agriculture in their investment portfolios. Many institutional investors (pension funds, foundations, etc.) do allocate funds in this area but very few individual investors do. Part of the problem is the cyclical nature of agriculture commodities and the complexity of trading futures contracts based on assumed crop and livestock trends.

“However,” the paper continues. “if you can stomach the cyclical nature of this asset class, I find it hard to envisage an environment where the returns do not comfortably outpace returns on bonds and equities when looked upon over the next 5-10 years.”

If commodities investments and futures contracts leave you hesitant to add exposure to this theme, it’s still possible to participate through traditional stock holdings. You can stick to investments in machinery or fertilizer manufacturers and capture movement of the general theme without having to pick the right crop at the right time.

The perceived benefit of the farmland and agriculture theme is that investment returns in this area are driven by factors other than company earnings or interest rates. It’s largely a matter of supply and demand. This should effectively cause these investments to move in different patterns than stocks or bonds. There may be stock-like fluctuation in returns from one period to the next but adding diverse return drivers to your portfolio is a proven way to reduce risk of the overall investment mix.

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

The premium for taking stock risk is shrinking

Following up on Gary’s Tacoma News Tribune column on February 2, here’s another way to look at expected investment returns.

Portfolio construction principles start with what is perceived to be the “risk-free return.”

In order to take a step up the risk ladder, investors need to be rewarded with more return than the risk-free asset. This return above the risk-free asset is called the equity risk premium. The historical equity risk premium for broad stock markets has generally been considered to be 4.5-6.0% per year. It used to be that the 10-year Treasury bond paid 4%. If you start at 4% and added 4.5-6.0% of equity risk premium, you could reasonably expect 8.5-10% returns on stocks, in line with historical averages.

Today, the return expectation has been squeezed from both ends. Currently, 10-year Treasuries pay approximately 2%. A recent survey by the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) Institute of prominent money managers suggested that the equity risk premium is now in the 3.5-4.0% range. So you add the two together and now you’ve got expected returns of the broad stock market at 5.5-6.0% per year. Oddly, at a time when risk seems more prominent, and therefore should command an even greater premium to take on the risk, prudent expectations for returns have declined considerably.

You could conclude that if stocks aren’t expected to reward you at the historical rate, why bother to take the risk? Instead, you could just focus on bonds. The problem is that bonds, especially in the U.S. seem less attractive than stocks on a risk-adjusted basis.

For many years, a common assumption of investors has been that with a broadly diversified mix of stocks and bonds, you should be able to double your money every 10 years. This rule of thumb requires an average annual return of 7.2%, assuming no withdrawals. Therefore, if returns are reduced, the double-your-money formula takes longer. At 6% returns, it takes 12 years to double. At 5% returns – assuming that some bonds have lessened the overall return expectation for a balanced portfolio – it’s closer to 14.5 years to double.

For someone who is still working and saving, there is opportunity to save more or work longer to overcome these lower expected returns. The big problem confronts current retirees who are withdrawing money to supplement their income. Lower returns on their remaining invested capital mean that even the “safe” withdrawal rate of 4% could be too high to guard against exceptional longevity or unexpectedly high expenses.

Ideally, over time, global debt and economic challenges will improve and expected returns will revert to more normal levels. But investment performance can be fleeting. That’s why it’s important to have an understanding of “what if?” as part of your retirement income plan.

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

What we look for when picking a mutual fund

In theory, picking a good mutual fund should be easy. Just find a fund with an experienced portfolio manager who has consistently outperformed the fund’s relevant benchmark and buy some shares. Then repeat in each portion of the market so that you have a well-diversified investment mix.

In reality, while it’s possible to evaluate past performance and choose from funds that have peer-beating records, the more difficult job is to identify funds that have a high probability of continuing that performance. Performance is fleeting. Even funds that have performance among the best in their category may have built good returns on a small number of incredibly well-timed investments. Alternatively, some very good funds could have excellent long-term performance and good future positioning skewed by the impact of one or two investments that didn’t work in their favor.

Identifying funds with a repeatable process to add value beyond just buying the whole market is an ongoing and involved task.

A lot of things can change about a manager or a fund from year to year. We work to learn as much as we can about the manager or fund, so we are comfortable with its stability and understand how it will fit into our clients’ portfolios.

Important questions that we ask include:

  • How much of rising market returns does the manager earn and how much does the fund participate in declining markets? (Ideally, actively managed mutual funds capture most of – if not more than – a climbing market’s return and are able to avoid the full extent of downturns.)
  • How much flexibility does the manager have? (When we choose mutual funds, we generally prefer managers who are not constrained to invest only in a specific portion of the market regardless of whether it is in or out of favor at the time. We use exchange-traded index funds to get this inexpensive broad diversification instead.)
  • Have there been any changes to the manager or management team recently?  If so, how have those changes influenced the fund’s investment outlook or process?
  • How are decisions made to buy and sell a stock or bond?
  • Does the fund invest only in long-only positions in stocks or bonds or does it use derivative products to emphasize or de-emphasize certain exposures in the fund? (We’re not against fund managers who use of derivatives to some extent as long as the process and purpose are very transparent.)
  • Has the manager’s investment philosophy changed recently?
  • How much new money has been invested in the fund lately and has that affected either the number or the quality of holdings in the fund?
  • What have been the recent trends of the manager for underperforming or outperforming the fund’s relevant benchmark?  Why has this underperformance or outperformance occurred?
  • Have there been any changes to the basic characteristics of the fund?  Expense ratio, portfolio turnover, number of holdings, risk measures, etc.?
  • Does the fund have an institutional share class available so that we don’t have to pay the higher retail share class management fees? Or, can we aggregate client accounts to get into funds that otherwise would have an unapproachable minimum investment?
  • How will this fund fit in with the other funds in a client’s portfolio?  Are there other funds that could do a better job?
  • Is there a low-cost passively managed investment like an exchange traded fund that could be used in place of this fund which would provide similar investment returns?

How do we get this information?  Mostly through conference calls with the manager, reading annual and semi-annual reports for the fund, reviewing analyst’s reports and other third-party reviews.

This process doesn’t guarantee selection of the best future performance. In fact, we guarantee that in hindsight you will find better performers in every category over various time periods. But if the fund advances through our decision tree and we have high conviction in its expected returns compared to its known risks, then it makes the cut.

The worst thing we could do would be to constantly turn over our list of preferred funds in pursuit of the absolute best performance. It would create unnecessary reach for fractionally better results and drive up transaction costs.

That is not to say that we are not searching for new funds that offer attractive expected returns with better risk management. We certainly make changes. We just are not inclined to do it on a whim because a certain fund’s holdings were more in favor last quarter or last year.

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

Even weak economy can produce good investment returns

Emerging market countries have earned a lot of attention from investors because of their  29.05% average annual return from 2003-2010 (MSCI Emerging Markets Index). Going forward, much of the assumption that emerging markets will continue to lead has to do with an expectation for stronger economic growth than in the U.S. or other developed market countries.

The theory goes that government balance sheets are in much better shape with less stimulus needed after the great recession. The emerging economies should also be aided by generally younger populations that don’t present demographic problems for government entitlement programs. And emerging middle class consumers with increasing income are expected to support big economic gains.

But economic strength — demonstrated by strong growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — hasn’t historically translated into better investment market returns. Take a look at this chart from Financial Planning magazine using research from Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA).

slow GDP growth, high returnsIt may be counterintuitive, but even shrinking economies can maintain market gains. It’s important to remember that future expectations are priced into the cost of investments. In many cases, results don’t turn out as well as expected and prices decline upon reality. On the flip side, when expectations are low (often due to economic struggle), it’s easier for surprises to occur, creating better returns than expected.

While we think it’s important to include a healthy weight to international stocks and bonds in your overall investment mix, it’s definitely not the time to give up on the U.S. and its sluggish economy.

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones — Partners in Wealth Management — Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

The Bond Market Conundrum of 2011 — Part II

Portfolio Management Preferences to Reduce Risk

LOOK BEYOND TREASURIES

U.S. investors have easy and relatively inexpensive access to a broader selection of bonds than they had in 1994.

  • Non-U.S. bonds provide U.S. investors access to different economic cycles, interest rates and currency values which can help reduce overall portfolio risk.
  • Floating rate bank loans are another portion of the bond market that actually do better in rising interest rate environments. These loans are very short term, resetting every 30-90 days.

High-yield corporate bonds (those below investment grade ratings) have historically performed much better than other bonds during periods of increasing interest rates.

Consider this research reported by Investment News writer Jeff Benjamin:

According to an analysis of the biggest interest rate moves over the 20-year period through June 2006, high-yield bonds are remarkably resilient against interest rate volatility. Between September 1987 and June 2006, there were six separate 12-month periods that saw the yield on the 10-year Treasury climb by between 117 and 222 basis points. The average total return of high-yield bonds for those same 12-month periods was 5.5%, with just one negative-return period.

THE TOUGHEST DECISION

If your investment mix currently includes a significant overweight to stocks, should you leave it that way or diversify to include bonds at a point when bond returns are not expected to be nearly as good as they have been over the past few decades?

While the potential to see the value of your bond holdings drop is discouraging, watching them decline perhaps a few percent should be much more palatable than watching a stock investment decline significantly more.

If global economic conditions receive any more shocks, it’s conceivable that U.S. and international stocks could return to a bear market, declining 20% or more. In this case, having some bond exposure creates downside protection in a broadly diversified investment mix. It may be a hollow victory for bonds if all they do is lose less, but their ability to steady a portfolio amid periods of stock volatility can be valuable.

Let’s not forget that since March 9, 2009, the U.S. stock market has been on an exceptional run. The S&P 500 Index gained 85.5% as of December 22. Small companies, as measured by the Russell 2000 Index gained 130.3%. A correction would not be surprising.

WHAT ABOUT MUNICIPAL BONDS?

The biggest fear in the municipal bond market isn’t so much interest rates as it is pure default by the municipality. Clearly, government entities at all levels are faced with significant deficits. Historically, municipal bond default rates have been very low, essentially not a concern expect in a few high profile cases (Orange County, CA, the WPPSS nuclear project here in Washington). Holding a diversified mix of many different types of municipal bonds can minimize default risk.

Many people assume that if cities or other municipal entities fail, the Federal Reserve will bail them out, saving value for bond holders. This could be the case but may serve to further bog down the economy.

Even if we see 50-100 imminent municipal defaults as Meredith Whitney forecast on 60 Minutes December 19, that is a small percentage of the overall municipal bond market. If your municipal bond exposure is in an actively managed mutual fund with an experienced analyst monitoring credit ratings, the default impact may not be all that significant.

IS CASH A BETTER BET?

Shifting the fixed income portion of your investment mix to cash comes with an opportunity cost. What if interest rates don’t move quickly and bonds continue to produce attractive total returns? What if U.S. interest rates increase slowly and bond returns decline moderately?

If your current bond holdings are in a portion of your portfolio that can’t take even a minor loss in the next two years, we think that this investment should be in cash. If you can afford to take a limited amount of risk, we think that concerns about bond declines may be overstated from a longer-term perspective. More importantly, cash holdings do not rally.

EXPECTATIONS ARE BUILT INTO MARKET PRICES

All investment markets are driven by future expectations. These expectations are already priced into stocks and bonds. Bond investors don’t generally expect the same tailwind that has filled their sails for most of the past generation. A less friendly headwind may already be evident in the price of bond funds.

WHY WE PREFER BOND MUTUAL FUNDS OVER INDIVIDUAL ISSUES

We feel more comfortable letting professional bond managers navigate the opportunity and pitfalls the market presents.  Bond fund managers spend their days building portfolios that are liquid, sensitive to the outlook for interest rates, and focused on managing the risks and returns for their investors.  Unless you are certain as an individual investor that you will hold individual bonds until they mature, receiving a payout of the bond’s face value, and that you have enough individual bonds to diversify away as many of the risks as possible, it is unlikely you will be able to outperform these professional  managers on an ongoing basis.

Considering the open issues and historical precedent, investors definitely need to ratchet down expectations for U.S. bond returns. But we don’t think you need to run away from U.S. bonds altogether. And your portfolio may be optimized by expanding to include international bonds.

Part I What Happens When Interest Rates Rise

~ Gary Brooks, CFP®, Allyn Hughes, CFP®, and Nancy Jones, CFP®, — Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

The Bond Market Conundrum of 2011 — Part I

What Happens When Interest Rates Rise

Given historically low U.S. interest rates, government stimulus efforts that seem likely to spark inflation and a massive flow of cash chasing returns, many investors think that it is not an ideal time to invest in U.S. bonds.

But does that mean that investors should move away from existing U.S. bonds holdings or avoid investing any new money in bonds?

U.S. bonds are not a compelling investment currently for a few reasons:

  • A very long bull market for bonds is running out of support from fundamental market factors that drive value
  • Massive cash inflow has flooded bond markets with buyers, driving prices up
  • Interest rates have nowhere to go but up, hurting bond prices

The interest rate concern seems to be the biggest, especially for investors who remember 1994 when many U.S. bond mutual funds lost money even after considering the income their bonds paid out.

Compounding the lack of clarity is the uncertainty of actual increases in interest rates. Bill Gross, manager of the PIMCO Total Return Fund, the largest bond mutual fund in the world, believes that the Federal Reserve will not be faced with a need to raise interest rates for at least another year, potentially well in to 2012. He is not alone in this assumption.

There’s also no telling how fast rates will rise once the economy seems healthy on its own unstimulated merits. Gross is far more worried about the economy and its impact on the U.S. stock and bond markets than he is on interest rate changes. Unemployment will have to come down and inflation will have to be more obvious before there is pressure to raise rates. If the recovery continues to be a jobless one, we could continue in our low interest rate environment for a long time.

It’s possible that short-term interest rates and long-term rates could take different paths. The Federal Reserve manipulates the economy and markets to influence short-term interest rates but the market itself has more influence on long-term interest rates.

Past bond market performance gives us an indication of what returns we may expect when interest rates rise (causing the value of many types of bonds to fall). The trouble is that previous cycles of climbing interest rates weren’t also paired with unemployment, deficits, an economy boosted by artificial stimulus, and political combativeness, all at the same time.

A REMINDER THAT BONDS CAN LOSE VALUE

In 1994, many investors thought that bonds would protect them from loss. This is true if you own individual bonds and hold them to maturity, collecting coupon payments along the way and retrieving the principal of the bond at maturity. But if you have to sell your bonds or the bond mutual fund you own sells bonds, they could be sold for less than their purchase price.

In February 1994, U.S. interest rates began a relatively swift climb. They increased from 3.0% to 6.0% in one year. In that time, the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund had a total return of -1.51%. Declines in the price of the fund outweighed income paid out by the fund for a full year.

We don’t think that it is likely that once interest rates do begin to climb, that they will increase 3% in a year, but it is still a possible scenario.

A MORE LIKELY INCREASING RATES SCENARIO

It was just a few years ago that interest rates reached their most recent peak. In July 2004, interest rates climbed from 1.0% to 1.25%. They continued to climb until September 2007 when they peaked at 5.25%.

Bond mutual funds fared much better in this period than during 1994:

Fund Cumulative Total Return (income + price appreciation) from July 1, 2004 – Sept. 4, 2007
Barclays Aggregate Bond Index ETF 13.5%
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund 14.19
Vanguard Long-Term Bond Market Index Fund 18.80
Vanguard Short-Term Bond Market Index Fund 11.69
iShares 1-3 year Treasury Bond ETF 11.03
PIMCO Total Return 16.44
Fidelity Strategic Income 25.99
Templeton Global Bond 39.36
Vanguard Total U.S. Stock Market Index Fund 42.41

This was not a period of exceptional bond returns. If you divide the cumulative total returns by three you get a rough annualized return. There were some reasonably good returns, particularly for non-Treasury bonds. Foreign bonds and corporate bonds in general that were not punished by the increasing interest rate environment.

Let’s take a closer look at the experience of the PIMCO Total Return Fund, managed by Gross. From July 1, 2004 through September 4, 2007, the fund had a price return of -2.24% but a total return of 16.44%.

If you invested $10,000 in this Fund, just as interest rates began to climb in July 2004 and reinvested dividends over the three years, the fund paid out $1,831.52. The negative price impact left the investment’s value at $11,605.72 on Sept. 4, 2007. While the total return is not significant, it did continue to outpace inflation. Reinvesting dividends also added 174 shares to the holding over the period, increasing future growth.

Certainly there are differences between our economic situation today and the previous two climbing-interest rate environments. We are coming out of a deeper recession and the market will have to deal with the impact of massive cash stimulus (quantitative easing) that was not a consideration in 1994 or 2004-07.

If we rewind the calendar for a full generation, back to 1973, we can see how the U.S. bond market performed in a wide variety of economic conditions, market expectations, and political changes.

In the 37 years since then, the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index has had a negative return over a calendar year three times (-2.91% in 1974, -2.92% in 1994 and -0.82% in 1999). The 37-year average annual return was 8.22%.

Part II Portfolio Management Preferences to Reduce Risk

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

~ Gary Brooks, CFP®, Allyn Hughes, CFP®, and Nancy Jones, CFP®, — Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management, Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

Earnings reports indicate market has some catching up to do

Dr. Bob Froehlich, senior managing director at Hartford Mutual Funds, regularly communicates his view of market expectations. Despite uninspiring economic results he remains bullish on stocks.

Here is some compelling support for his thinking from his September 29 commentary.

On September 30, 2007—before the market meltdown began—the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (S&P 500) was at 1,526, with quarterly earnings of $20.87. When the market hit its quarterly bottom on March 31, 2009, the S&P 500 was trading at 797, with quarterly earnings at $10.11. In other words, the market went exactly where earnings took it—namely, down. Over that time frame, earnings were down 51.56 percent and, almost in lockstep, the overall market was down close to the same amount, falling 47.74 percent.

Now let’s fast-forward to the most recent quarterly numbers, as of June 30, 2010. Earnings have recovered from their March 31, 2009 low of $10.11, and as of June 30, 2010, stood at $20.90. So earnings are back above the September 30, 2007 peak of $20.87. What about the market? The S&P 500 as of June 30, 2010 stood at 1,030. So even though quarterly earnings now exceed the September 30, 2007 highs, the overall market is still down 32.5 percent for that same period. If you believe, as I do, that the market goes wherever earnings take it, then our market has a little catching up to do.

Looked at another way, since the lows of March 31, 2009, quarterly earnings for the S&P 500 as of June 30, 2010 are up 106.73 percent. For that same time frame, the overall market is up only 29.18 percent. Remember what’s important: earnings, earnings, and then earnings.

This evidence may be partly responsible for the strong September rally, the best month of September for U.S. stock markets since 1939. We don’t expect the market to continue to rally as sharply, but clearly there is a disconnect that could lead to growth if company earnings continue to meet expectations.

It’s these expectations of future earnings that influence the mood of the market.

Further evidence from Morningstar demonstrates that it’s the largest “blue chip” stocks that are most undervalued. In reviewing performance of companies within the S&P 500, Morningstar shows that returns of the largest companies are significantly behind smaller companies in the index.

Consider this chart that breaks the S&P 500 into deciles by size  (market value) and lists year-to-date performance through September 16, 2010.

S&P 500 performance by market cap decile

Do you think there remains a buying opportunity with suitable upside for stocks?

What would make you comfortable that stocks are undervalued?

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management — Gary Brooks, CFP®, Allyn Hughes, CFP®, CLU, ChFC, Nancy Jones, CFP® — Tacoma, WA

If you liked this post, please share it

U.S. Stocks, Municipal Bonds Generate the Best Real Returns

Thornburg Investment Management recently released an annual report analyzing real returns. It is always interesting reading. Thornburg reviews returns for several types of investments and then subtracts expenses, taxes and inflation to determine which investments allow investors to keep the most return.

For example, if you invested $100 in the S&P 500 Index on December 31, 1979 and held it over 30 years to Dec. 31, 2009, the nominal return would have been 11.24% per year.  This increased your  $100 investment to $2,440. However, after subtracting taxes paid on dividends and capital gains and adjusting for inflation, the real return was 5.21% per year, turning $100 into $459.

So, how does this compare to other investment options? Over the 30-year period, the S&P 500 (representing large U.S. companies) provided the highest real return. The runner-up was U.S. small companies (4.81% average annual real return) and international stocks (4.55% real return). Municipal bonds, which are in most cases not taxed, outpaced other fixed income assets over this 30-year period.

Some other interesting points:

  • Over the 5, 10, 15 and 20-year periods ending Dec. 31, 2009, municipal bonds were the real return leader.
  • The 10-year real return of the large-cap S&P 500 Index was -4.21%, the worst of any asset category measured over 10 years.
  • Single-family homes are not a good investment. Over 30 years, their real return averaged 0.36%. Over the five years ending Dec. 31, 2009, they had a -4.19% real return.
  • Commodities have become a popular addition to globally balanced portfolios. There is expectation that commodities of all types including energy, agricultural and livestock will grow in demand as the world population grows. But historically, commodities have not added anything to wealth creation. The 30-year real return was -3.50 – 20 years (-1.84%), 15 years (-0.82%), 10 years (0.51%) and 5 years (-3.85%). The benefit of commodities comes in risk reduction. Since their returns do not typically move in the same direction as stocks and bonds, they can help reduce overall fluctuation in the balance of a diversified portfolio.
  • U.S. Treasury bills, often the preferred “risk-free” investment, are actually plenty risky. They exhibited negative real returns in each time period measured.

For a copy of the full report, including how these return patterns impact the sustainability of portfolios and income in retirement, please contact us at info@bhjadvisors.com or 253-534-8888.

~ Brooks, Hughes & Jones, Partners in Wealth Management — Gary Brooks, CFP®, Allyn Hughes, CFP®, CLU, ChFC, Nancy Jones, CFP®

If you liked this post, please share it