Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
- Location: Italy
Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
By reading this forum I have always felt like most users here think CAPE and other stocks valuations are useless.
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Well I have just seen this video where Jack Bogle himself says he sold his stocks in year 2000 because valuations did not make any sense to him in those years.
https://youtu.be/k6ra5POdsYg
Minute 2:57
"I said, you know... with bonds yielding around 7% today, stocks yielding around 1%... stock market being at that point closer to 40 times earnings than 30, I think it's impossible that in next decade stocks will outperform bonds"
Minute 3:46
"I was in the process of reducing my equity position, that's normal abot 70/75%... to about 30/25%, and I did that"
Cheers :
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Well I have just seen this video where Jack Bogle himself says he sold his stocks in year 2000 because valuations did not make any sense to him in those years.
https://youtu.be/k6ra5POdsYg
Minute 2:57
"I said, you know... with bonds yielding around 7% today, stocks yielding around 1%... stock market being at that point closer to 40 times earnings than 30, I think it's impossible that in next decade stocks will outperform bonds"
Minute 3:46
"I was in the process of reducing my equity position, that's normal abot 70/75%... to about 30/25%, and I did that"
Cheers :
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my English and investing mistakes.
- DanMahowny
- Posts: 994
- Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 8:25 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Yep. That's what I do, and I do it well.
Not too hard to tell if equities are expensive, or cheap.
It's common sense, not market timing.
Not too hard to tell if equities are expensive, or cheap.
It's common sense, not market timing.
Funding secured
-
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 1:35 pm
-
- Posts: 227
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:14 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
In all fairness to Bogle, he was also motivated to de-risk his portfolio at that time because his health was failing him. He wanted to make sure his estate was safe.
-
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:53 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I hope this doesn't sound too cynical but lots of folks came up with the same conclusion and sold when Nasdaq hit 3000 the year before. They had to watch it go past 5000 in March 2000 before it cracked. I do wonder if Bogle really sold at the very top of the market.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Sure... he might get better sleep at night. Still we can't run away from the fact that a 70/30 portfolio buy & hold would perform much better than a 30/70 portfolio buy & hold, or a "market timing" portfolio. Don't believe me? Go to portfoliovisualizer and test it yourself.
The loss of return won't affect Bogle's wealth. But for folks that don't save enough and bank on >5% return, this market timing strategy is risky. You can make more money and choose a more conservative AA. Problem solved.
The message here is that: determine your risk averse and choose your asset allocation and stick with it.
The loss of return won't affect Bogle's wealth. But for folks that don't save enough and bank on >5% return, this market timing strategy is risky. You can make more money and choose a more conservative AA. Problem solved.
The message here is that: determine your risk averse and choose your asset allocation and stick with it.
Time is the ultimate currency.
-
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 8:20 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
So what are you doing nowDanMahowny wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:04 pm Yep. That's what I do, and I do it well.
Not too hard to tell if equities are expensive, or cheap.
It's common sense, not market timing.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
If I were following that logic I would have probably sold at DOW 18,000. . .and that’s only if I didn’t sell at DOW 16,000. . .
Instead of messing with my asset allocation I am choosing to take “extra” money and put it towards paying down our 4% mortgage - which is giving me similar result to if I were able to put money in a 5%+ interest rate CD. . .so I am diversifying where my savings goes!
I’ll just have to live long enough to find out if that was a good strategy or not - stay tuned!
Instead of messing with my asset allocation I am choosing to take “extra” money and put it towards paying down our 4% mortgage - which is giving me similar result to if I were able to put money in a 5%+ interest rate CD. . .so I am diversifying where my savings goes!
I’ll just have to live long enough to find out if that was a good strategy or not - stay tuned!
"I would rather die with money, than live without it...." - Bogleheads member Ron |
|
A time to EVALUATE your jitters https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
That’s not cynical, but rather an important counterexample.TheAncientOne wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:14 pm I hope this doesn't sound too cynical but lots of folks came up with the same conclusion and sold when Nasdaq hit 3000 the year before. They had to watch it go past 5000 in March 2000 before it cracked. I do wonder if Bogle really sold at the very top of the market.
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
True!All Seasons wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:07 pm In all fairness to Bogle, he was also motivated to de-risk his portfolio at that time because his health was failing him. He wanted to make sure his estate was safe.
But he still says "if for whatever sound reason, and not emotional reason, and market looks substantially overvalued (don't worry about if it's 20/25% overvalued), but if it seems to get out of line by a substantial amount, take that 65 to 50." - Minute 0:39
I agree, it's hard to see the Joneses driving a new Ferrari, while we wait for the bubble to burst.TheAncientOne wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:14 pm I hope this doesn't sound too cynical but lots of folks came up with the same conclusion and sold when Nasdaq hit 3000 the year before. They had to watch it go past 5000 in March 2000 before it cracked. I do wonder if Bogle really sold at the very top of the market.
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my English and investing mistakes.
-
- Posts: 2776
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:29 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Please read The Twelve Pillars of Wisdom Lessons We Should Have Learned before the Bear Market Arrived, but are Only Learning Now remarks that Bogle made in 2001 at a time much closer to what he did. Those remarks includeInvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm Well I have just seen this video where Jack Bogle himself says he sold his stocks in year 2000 because valuations did not make any sense to him in those years.
https://youtu.be/k6ra5POdsYg
Minute 2:57
"I said, you know... with bonds yielding around 7% today, stocks yielding around 1%... stock market being at that point closer to 40 times earnings than 30, I think it's impossible that in next decade stocks will outperform bonds"
Minute 3:46
"I was in the process of reducing my equity position, that's normal abot 70/75%... to about 30/25%, and I did that"
Reducing his equity personal was a gradual process that was done because of his health and desire to provided for his wife's financial security, not market valuations. He took no action due to the "NASDAQ bubble" or "the outlook for future stock returns".I have been gradually reducing my equity percentage for years, reflecting first my fight for an uncertain survival from congenital heart disease and my desire to assure my wife’s financial security, and, second, reflecting my increasing age and declining earning power. With some 75% of my retirement plan and personal account in equities throughout most of my career, I had gradually reduced the ratio to below 45% by last summer. Still, deeply concerned about the NASDAQ bubble and cautious about the outlook for future stock returns, I even wondered aloud at the Morningstar Conference last June why I held any equities at all. But—'physician heal thyself,' writ large!—I took no further action.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Right. Currently we've got, what, 3% and 2% for 10-year Treasury and S&P 500 dividend yields, respectively?
A useful razor: anyone asking about speculative strategies on Bogleheads.org has no business using them.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
To be fair Jack is not a market timer in any real sense. He made a significant reduction in equities due to "extreme" valuations and said that would be rare.
But the OP is right that there is a consistent message on this board that any attempt at looking to take valuation into account is just plain old market timing and basically looks past Jack's action/message. A valid principle, not to market time, shouldn't be unquestioned dogma especially since the thought leader this forum follows not only seems to think tactical changes, on a rare occasion, are warranted but gave what seems to me a stunning example of his own action.
As I have said before I think the real learning point would be a better discussion on what measures of extreme valuation should be considered. It's a given that there are bubbles and that they often last for years. Some investors might want to take the "risk" of getting out early and missing some of the appreciation vs taking a big hit to their nest egg. A retiree that has surpassed his/her "number" for example.
But the OP is right that there is a consistent message on this board that any attempt at looking to take valuation into account is just plain old market timing and basically looks past Jack's action/message. A valid principle, not to market time, shouldn't be unquestioned dogma especially since the thought leader this forum follows not only seems to think tactical changes, on a rare occasion, are warranted but gave what seems to me a stunning example of his own action.
As I have said before I think the real learning point would be a better discussion on what measures of extreme valuation should be considered. It's a given that there are bubbles and that they often last for years. Some investors might want to take the "risk" of getting out early and missing some of the appreciation vs taking a big hit to their nest egg. A retiree that has surpassed his/her "number" for example.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Thank you for this, "The Twelve Pillars of Wisdom." I simply enjoy reading Jack Bogle. He writes so well it is just a pleasure.FactualFran wrote: ↑ Please read The Twelve Pillars of Wisdom Lessons We Should Have Learned before the Bear Market Arrived, but are Only Learning Now remarks that Bogle made in 2001 at a time much closer to what he did.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I do wish that Taylor Larimore would watch this video, he didn't seem to believe me when I referenced this video.InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm By reading this forum I have always felt like most users here think CAPE and other stocks valuations are useless.
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Well I have just seen this video where Jack Bogle himself says he sold his stocks in year 2000 because valuations did not make any sense to him in those years.
https://youtu.be/k6ra5POdsYg
Minute 2:57
"I said, you know... with bonds yielding around 7% today, stocks yielding around 1%... stock market being at that point closer to 40 times earnings than 30, I think it's impossible that in next decade stocks will outperform bonds"
Minute 3:46
"I was in the process of reducing my equity position, that's normal abot 70/75%... to about 30/25%, and I did that"
Cheers :
In other remarks, Bogle seemed to backtrack on this. He indicated that he gradually took his stock allocation down from 70-75% down to 50% and that over two years. So there is some contradictory statements out there and this would be a good thing to ask Mr. Bogle to clear up at the next Bogleheads conference.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I've noted in the past that a lot of the "experts" that we like around here are not actually all that adverse to some limited market timing. Our religious fervor about it does not emanate from Boglehead writers.
The valid reason that folks here are absolutely against this type of market timing is that most people don't follow markets that closely, haven't studied market history etc. As such, market timing moves are as likely to be due to something heard on CNBC or read on Seeking Alpha as opposed to dispassionate and independent analysis. For these people, rigorously rebalancing is sufficient to reduce risk at valuation extremes.
One of my rules is that people potentially have only one or two great market timing calls in them over an investing career. If you make such a call, then it's good to quit while you're ahead.
The valid reason that folks here are absolutely against this type of market timing is that most people don't follow markets that closely, haven't studied market history etc. As such, market timing moves are as likely to be due to something heard on CNBC or read on Seeking Alpha as opposed to dispassionate and independent analysis. For these people, rigorously rebalancing is sufficient to reduce risk at valuation extremes.
One of my rules is that people potentially have only one or two great market timing calls in them over an investing career. If you make such a call, then it's good to quit while you're ahead.
-
- Posts: 1097
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:30 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
One thing that rarely seems to be mentioned with regard to this subject is that often if the market is super expensive you have more money than you planned to have/need. Like for example I have planned for 2-3% real for the next decade given current valuations. If PEs keep expanding and we get say 7-8% real I will have a fair bit more money than I planned to have so it can make sense to trim back. It is market timing in a way but not really.
-
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 11:20 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Agree with the OP.
I was watching a TV show where two guys were discussing the Nifty Fifty crash. One of them said, "If you are looking to buy a car, and I'm looking to sell a car, and after checking my car you decide that you like it and want to buy it, I hope one question you ask me is that how much I'm selling it for!"
I was watching a TV show where two guys were discussing the Nifty Fifty crash. One of them said, "If you are looking to buy a car, and I'm looking to sell a car, and after checking my car you decide that you like it and want to buy it, I hope one question you ask me is that how much I'm selling it for!"
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
nedsaid:I do wish that Taylor Larimore would watch this video, he didn't seem to believe me when I referenced this video.
I have watched this video and I most certainly do believe you.
I have also read both editions of Common Sense on Mutual Funds in which Mr. Bogle writes (bold is his):
Best wishes.Stay the course. No matter what happens, stick to your program. I've said "Stay the course" a thousand times, and I meant it every time. It is the most important single piece of investment wisdom I can give to you.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Yes, health and the need to plan for his wife's financial well-being are reasons he has given for reducing equity. These are among legitimate reasons for anyone to change an allocation. This is neither market timing nor failure to stay the course.FactualFran wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 7:02 pmPlease read The Twelve Pillars of Wisdom Lessons We Should Have Learned before the Bear Market Arrived, but are Only Learning Now remarks that Bogle made in 2001 at a time much closer to what he did. Those remarks includeInvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm Well I have just seen this video where Jack Bogle himself says he sold his stocks in year 2000 because valuations did not make any sense to him in those years.
https://youtu.be/k6ra5POdsYg
Minute 2:57
"I said, you know... with bonds yielding around 7% today, stocks yielding around 1%... stock market being at that point closer to 40 times earnings than 30, I think it's impossible that in next decade stocks will outperform bonds"
Minute 3:46
"I was in the process of reducing my equity position, that's normal abot 70/75%... to about 30/25%, and I did that"Reducing his equity personal was a gradual process that was done because of his health and desire to provided for his wife's financial security, not market valuations. He took no action due to the "NASDAQ bubble" or "the outlook for future stock returns". ...I have been gradually reducing my equity percentage for years, reflecting first my fight for an uncertain survival from congenital heart disease and my desire to assure my wife’s financial security, and, second, reflecting my increasing age and declining earning power. With some 75% of my retirement plan and personal account in equities throughout most of my career, I had gradually reduced the ratio to below 45% by last summer. Still, deeply concerned about the NASDAQ bubble and cautious about the outlook for future stock returns, I even wondered aloud at the Morningstar Conference last June why I held any equities at all. But—'physician heal thyself,' writ large!—I took no further action.
I seem to recall this has come up before on the forum where an OP thought he caught Jack contradicting himself and failing to hold course. It was, as I recall, explained then that health reasons were causing him to lower equities.
"Yes, investing is simple. But it is not easy, for it requires discipline, patience, steadfastness, and that most uncommon of all gifts, common sense." ~Jack Bogle
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Yes, Mr. Bogle has made some tactical changes in his portfolio. At one point in the recent passed he poo-pooed government bonds and the 'Total Bond' index for not having enough in corporate bonds.
He's also cautioned people to be careful about this, even in the video you shared.
Anybody attempting to do this should be careful... "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" ...
In the late 1950's stocks began getting overpriced by most any standard, and remained that way (or even higher priced) by historical standards for 20+ years outperforming bonds and most other investments.
He's also cautioned people to be careful about this, even in the video you shared.
Anybody attempting to do this should be careful... "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" ...
In the late 1950's stocks began getting overpriced by most any standard, and remained that way (or even higher priced) by historical standards for 20+ years outperforming bonds and most other investments.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Yes it's true!JoMoney wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:03 am Yes, Mr. Bogle has made some tactical changes in his portfolio. At one point in the recent passed he poo-pooed government bonds and the 'Total Bond' index for not having enough in corporate bonds.
He's also cautioned people to be careful about this, even in the video you shared.
Anybody attempting to do this should be careful... "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" ...
In the late 1950's stocks began getting overpriced by most any standard, and remained that way (or even higher priced) by historical standards for 20+ years outperforming bonds and most other investments.
Anyway at some point valuations should matter!
I can make an example with bonds.
I live in EU, in my lazy portfolio my 40% of bonds are 5-10Y Euro Sovereign Bonds that yield ZERO or even NEGATIVE.
If I would ignore valuations I should keep a 40% of my money in these bonds that yield less than cash.
It's nonsense!
But if I look at bonds valuations and based on these valuations I decide to move out from bonds into cash, why should I ignore equity valuations if in future they become extremely overvalued?
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my English and investing mistakes.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Taylor, my take is that Mr. Bogle was thinking aloud and floating ideas at the Morningstar Conference. He is no shrinking violet and he will say what is on his mind. It turned out his bark was worse than his bite, that he probably didn't cut back as much on stocks as he earlier said and did it over a longer period of time. This would be something to ask him about. There is inconsistency in his statements about what he actually did.Taylor Larimore wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:57 pmnedsaid:I do wish that Taylor Larimore would watch this video, he didn't seem to believe me when I referenced this video.
I have watched this video and I most certainly do believe you.
I have also read both editions of Common Sense on Mutual Funds in which Mr. Bogle writes (bold is his):
Best wishes.Stay the course. No matter what happens, stick to your program. I've said "Stay the course" a thousand times, and I meant it every time. It is the most important single piece of investment wisdom I can give to you.
Taylor
This brings to mind statements that I made way back that in early 2000 that I cut my stocks back by 30%. I went back through my records and saw that before my portfolio adjustments, my stock mutual funds were about 45% of my retirement portfolio and my individual stocks were another 45%. What I actually did was sell 30% of my stock mutual funds and leave my individual stocks intact. In reality, my sales of stock were about 15% of my portfolio and not 30%. Memories do get a bit foggy over time but I kept excellent records.
Thanks Taylor for watching the video. What Bogle said was very reasonable and it turned out that his projections of stock and bond returns during the 2000's were pretty accurate. US Stocks were essentially flat from 2000-2012. Bogle is a very smart guy and we would do well to listen to him.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Well maybe there were flaws in the valuation measurements and maybe stocks in the late 1950's were not as expensive as they appeared at the time. It reminds me of when Warren Buffett was asked if the stock market was expensive. He replied, "Yes, but not as expensive as it looks." Stocks always look expensive during bull markets. When stocks go up, isn't that what we want?JoMoney wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 12:03 am Yes, Mr. Bogle has made some tactical changes in his portfolio. At one point in the recent passed he poo-pooed government bonds and the 'Total Bond' index for not having enough in corporate bonds.
He's also cautioned people to be careful about this, even in the video you shared.
Anybody attempting to do this should be careful... "Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" ...
In the late 1950's stocks began getting overpriced by most any standard, and remained that way (or even higher priced) by historical standards for 20+ years outperforming bonds and most other investments.
A fool and his money are good for business.
- BrandonBogle
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:19 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I have a slightly different take here, ignoring the desire to de-risk his portfolio due to his health or other reasons (which change the amplitude of the change, not the decision), we should keep in mind that Jack has previously said he doesn't bother rebalancing. So when the market looks substantially overvalued, once could be selling to rebalance their portfolio to their desired asset allocation (stocks to bonds in this case). It just so happened that Jack was also looking to change his risk tolerance and further lower his stock allocation, but I still see this not as market timing, but as checking in after a long period of time and rebalancing to your ideals (vs. rebalancing regularly).InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:49 pmTrue!All Seasons wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:07 pm In all fairness to Bogle, he was also motivated to de-risk his portfolio at that time because his health was failing him. He wanted to make sure his estate was safe.
But he still says "if for whatever sound reason, and not emotional reason, and market looks substantially overvalued (don't worry about if it's 20/25% overvalued), but if it seems to get out of line by a substantial amount, take that 65 to 50." - Minute 0:39
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Jack Bogle characterizes the total bond market index as "deeply flawed and that's coming from an indexer"" and makes the specific suggestion to split fixed income holdings 50% in Total Bond Market and 50% in intermediate term corporate bond index fund to achieve an overall allocation around 1/3 government and 2/3rds corporate bonds.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/your ... lance.html
Its interesting that even the most vocal and dogmatic Jack Bogle adherents, who quote him here on almost a daily basis when it comes to things like ex-US allocation to equities, conveniently forget this particular edict.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/your ... lance.html
Its interesting that even the most vocal and dogmatic Jack Bogle adherents, who quote him here on almost a daily basis when it comes to things like ex-US allocation to equities, conveniently forget this particular edict.
70/30 AA for life, Global market cap equity. Rebalance if fixed income <25% or >35%. Weighted ER< .10%. 5% of annual portfolio balance SWR, Proportional (to AA) withdrawals.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Mr. Bogle, were he to post under a pseudonym, would likely be hooted out of the forum that bears his name. He is not as doctrinaire as we suppose. He has a flexible mind, thinks aloud, floats ideas, and speaks his mind. I will say that over his lifetime that his underlying philosophy has been remarkably consistent. His internal compass always brings him back to center. The more I see of him on videos, the more I like him.MnD wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:50 am Jack Bogle characterizes the total bond market index as "deeply flawed and that's coming from an indexer"" and makes the specific suggestion to split fixed income holdings 50% in Total Bond Market and 50% in intermediate term corporate bond index fund to achieve an overall allocation around 1/3 government and 2/3rds corporate bonds.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/your ... lance.html
Its interesting that even the most vocal and dogmatic Jack Bogle adherents, who quote him here on almost a daily basis when it comes to things like ex-US allocation to equities, conveniently forget this particular edict.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Well, how did that decision play out...75% vs 35% stock allocation from 2000 to 2018? I am guessing, but thinking stay-the-course won.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I invest like I do after thorough research into the subject, not on the advice of any one individual. And I certainly do not justify my conclusions with snippets from experts repeated without context. Even if it is Jack Bogle.
If Jack Bogle ever truly decides to play valuations, it won’t make my conclusion not to any less worthy.
JT
If Jack Bogle ever truly decides to play valuations, it won’t make my conclusion not to any less worthy.
JT
-
- Posts: 3565
- Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:42 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
1+nedsaid wrote;
Mr. Bogle, were he to post under a pseudonym, would likely be hooted out of the forum that bears his name. He is not as doctrinaire as we suppose. He has a flexible mind, thinks aloud, floats ideas, and speaks his mind. I will say that over his lifetime that his underlying philosophy has been remarkably consistent. His internal compass always brings him back to center. The more I see of him on videos, the more I like him.
Bogle saw that the market was grossly overvalued in 1999 and made appropriate portfolio moves based on that analysis. Market timing in general does not work but there are times, often at market extremes in valuation like 1999 (S&P 500 PE 32) and 1982 (S&P 500 PE 7.6) where market timing may work very well. These points in time are typically only defined in retrospect and are very hard to pick out in real time. None the less, Bogle and Buffett, both of whom profess to be buy-and-hold investors, do take advantage of occasional excessive market swings in sentiment and do market timing. I think this is to their credit. Inflexible and thoughtless adherence to a rigid set of investing rules can get you in trouble. Ralph Waldo Emerson put it best: "Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Notice not all consistency, just foolish consistency. These two giants of investing and finance clearly do not have "little minds" and are sometimes able by careful analysis to determine those rare times when consistency is foolish and therefore counterproductive. Bogle in 1999 saw that rigid consistency in buy-and-hold was in fact foolish at that time. He made his move and profited greatly from it. Isn't that something that should be applauded rather than scorned? Some flexibility is appropriate to any investing method IMO although I think most on the Forum disagree with this.
Garland Whizzer
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Well said!nedsaid wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 10:55 am Mr. Bogle, were he to post under a pseudonym, would likely be hooted out of the forum that bears his name. He is not as doctrinaire as we suppose. He has a flexible mind, thinks aloud, floats ideas, and speaks his mind. I will say that over his lifetime that his underlying philosophy has been remarkably consistent. His internal compass always brings him back to center. The more I see of him on videos, the more I like him.
It’s always beneficial to,listen to what Mr. Bogle actually said, rather than listen to the palaver that some of his self appointed “followers” put out whenever some poor soul inquires whether it’s ok to lighten up on equities due to perceived excessive valuations.
-
- Posts: 10843
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:53 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I'd like to know the difference in his portfolio from this move vs. if he had kept it the way it was. As I understand it, he is at 50/50 now. I'm not saying that makes it a mistake as people need to adjust their AA to what makes them comfortable but I am curious what difference it made over 17 years.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
It's just called "buy&hold"; You don't actually just hold your stocks and bonds! What bogleheads do with a "buy&hold" portfolio is rebalance between the bonds and stocks, typically on an annual basis, so from 1980 to 2000, Bogleheads would have been consistently selling stocks and buying more bonds. By the time a "buy&holder" would have gotten to 2000, massive amounts of money would have been banked in bonds by then, all set and ready to start buying more stocks during the following drop.InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm By reading this forum I have always felt like most users here think CAPE and other stocks valuations are useless.
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Hope that helps.
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
That’s nice, but Mr. Bogle doesn’t rebalance. He believes it doesn’t add much return in the long run, particularly for investors who have taxable portfolios (just about anyone with serious money).azanon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 amIt's just called "buy&hold"; You don't actually just hold your stocks and bonds! What bogleheads do with a "buy&hold" portfolio is rebalance between the bonds and stocks, typically on an annual basis, so from 1980 to 2000, Bogleheads would have been consistently selling stocks and buying more bonds. By the time a "buy&holder" would have gotten to 2000, massive amounts of money would have been banked in bonds by then, all set and ready to start buying more stocks during the following drop.InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm By reading this forum I have always felt like most users here think CAPE and other stocks valuations are useless.
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Hope that helps.
- BrandonBogle
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:19 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Hence my post upthread where I view this simply as Jack rebalancing while he was reducing his risk factors anyway. Put another way, even if he wasn't trying to reduce his risk level b/c of his health and simple sold stocks to get to a 50/50 mix (or whatever other ratio), I would simple see this as rebalancing after a long time vs. doing so regularly, such as annually.dkturner wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:20 pmThat’s nice, but Mr. Bogle doesn’t rebalance. He believes it doesn’t add much return in the long run, particularly for investors who have taxable portfolios (just about anyone with serious money).azanon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:04 amIt's just called "buy&hold"; You don't actually just hold your stocks and bonds! What bogleheads do with a "buy&hold" portfolio is rebalance between the bonds and stocks, typically on an annual basis, so from 1980 to 2000, Bogleheads would have been consistently selling stocks and buying more bonds. By the time a "buy&holder" would have gotten to 2000, massive amounts of money would have been banked in bonds by then, all set and ready to start buying more stocks during the following drop.InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm By reading this forum I have always felt like most users here think CAPE and other stocks valuations are useless.
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Hope that helps.
- nisiprius
- Advisory Board
- Posts: 52216
- Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
- Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I haven't hear the phrase "buy and hold at any price goose" before. It this a well-known phrase?
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
- willthrill81
- Posts: 32250
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I think it's a bit unfortunate that the "never time the market" message is taken to extremes by many on this forum, as if any regard to market conditions is going to lead investors to ruin.Dandy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 10:00 pmBut the OP is right that there is a consistent message on this board that any attempt at looking to take valuation into account is just plain old market timing and basically looks past Jack's action/message. A valid principle, not to market time, shouldn't be unquestioned dogma especially since the thought leader this forum follows not only seems to think tactical changes, on a rare occasion, are warranted but gave what seems to me a stunning example of his own action.
I'm a trend follower. Emotions and subjective thoughts have no place in my simple system. I just do what the numbers tell me to do. This is where I see a big departure from what I do and the "market timing" that so many here think of, which seems to be driven by emotions and a cognitive belief that one can outplay the market.
Paul Merriman employs trend following with half of his portfolio, has done so for my entire lifetime, and has been content with the long-term results.
It's clear that even Bogle himself is not so diametrically opposed to making changes to one's portfolio based on market conditions as many here are.
The Sensible Steward
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Minute 9:00InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:01 pm By reading this forum I have always felt like most users here think CAPE and other stocks valuations are useless.
The only motto for many people seems to be: "buy&hold, never mind stocks valuations, just buy&hold!"
Well I have just seen this video where Jack Bogle himself says he sold his stocks in year 2000 because valuations did not make any sense to him in those years.
https://youtu.be/k6ra5POdsYg
Minute 2:57
"I said, you know... with bonds yielding around 7% today, stocks yielding around 1%... stock market being at that point closer to 40 times earnings than 30, I think it's impossible that in next decade stocks will outperform bonds"
Minute 3:46
"I was in the process of reducing my equity position, that's normal abot 70/75%... to about 30/25%, and I did that"
Cheers :
He said that maybe he was a buy&hold at any price goose: "...a buy and hold proposition, don't do something, stand there, no matter, almost no matter what happens, and maybe no matter what happens"
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/7165 ... locat.html
"Ptak: Vanguard at one time had its own dynamic asset allocation strategy; it was the Asset Allocation fund, which was merged into another of your offerings back in 2011. Can you take us through the thought process that informed the decision to merge that strategy away, and maybe any implications that it might have on an investor who was considering a strategy like it for their own use?
Kinniry: I would say we mostly were happy with the performance of the fund. The fund was around for over 20 years and actually had large assets under management. And I think the good thing at Vanguard, what we always do, is we are diligent about making sure that our funds still meet the requirements for investor success. At Vanguard, we actually have a core purpose, and that's to give investors the best chance of success. And we look at some of our funds, even though the performance may be good, and we ask, "Are investors using this to their own benefit?" And after looking at all that, we came to the conclusion that while it was a good offer, it had done well, and had large assets, we decided it would be best just to go into a strategic asset allocation. So we wound that fund into the Balanced Index Fund, as you mentioned."
IMO, dynamic asset allocation is a synonym for market timing. And this fund could switch between US stocks, bonds and money market instruments: it wasn't limited to switching between equity asset classes.
Vanguard had a market timing fund (Asset Allocation fund) from 1988-2011. The fact that it had a market timing fund for 23 years says something. So there's a bit of a mixed message here.
Jack Bogle left Vanguard in the last 1990s. So a market timing fund was set up at Vanguard while he was there, and persisted afterwards. That also says something.
"Ptak: Vanguard at one time had its own dynamic asset allocation strategy; it was the Asset Allocation fund, which was merged into another of your offerings back in 2011. Can you take us through the thought process that informed the decision to merge that strategy away, and maybe any implications that it might have on an investor who was considering a strategy like it for their own use?
Kinniry: I would say we mostly were happy with the performance of the fund. The fund was around for over 20 years and actually had large assets under management. And I think the good thing at Vanguard, what we always do, is we are diligent about making sure that our funds still meet the requirements for investor success. At Vanguard, we actually have a core purpose, and that's to give investors the best chance of success. And we look at some of our funds, even though the performance may be good, and we ask, "Are investors using this to their own benefit?" And after looking at all that, we came to the conclusion that while it was a good offer, it had done well, and had large assets, we decided it would be best just to go into a strategic asset allocation. So we wound that fund into the Balanced Index Fund, as you mentioned."
IMO, dynamic asset allocation is a synonym for market timing. And this fund could switch between US stocks, bonds and money market instruments: it wasn't limited to switching between equity asset classes.
Vanguard had a market timing fund (Asset Allocation fund) from 1988-2011. The fact that it had a market timing fund for 23 years says something. So there's a bit of a mixed message here.
Jack Bogle left Vanguard in the last 1990s. So a market timing fund was set up at Vanguard while he was there, and persisted afterwards. That also says something.
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:10 pmPretty well, actually.
The 75/25 portfolio finally pulled ahead in 2017.
Let's put "Pretty well" in perspective.
In order to get a 0.5% more CAGR, the investor with 75% equity had to go through a -39% MaxDD and huge pains for 20 years (Stdev of 10.88), whilst Dr. Bogle with its 25% stocks portfolio had to go through a puny -10% MaxDD and almost no pain (Stdev 4.2).
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my English and investing mistakes.
-
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:35 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Jack was 71 in 2000, so if we use age = bond % then Jack should have been in a high bond % much sooner anyway. 25% in bonds is not recommended for a 71 year old by standard Boglehead dogma. The Target Retirement Income fund is closer to the basic recommendation for someone of that age:InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:06 am:|Beensabu wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:10 pmPretty well, actually.
The 75/25 portfolio finally pulled ahead in 2017.
Let's put "Pretty well" in perspective.
In order to get a 0.5% more CAGR, the investor with 75% equity had to go through a -39% MaxDD and huge pains for 20 years (Stdev of 10.88), whilst Dr. Bogle with its 25% stocks portfolio had to go through a puny -10% MaxDD and almost no pain (Stdev 4.2).
"The fund holds approximately 30% of assets in stocks and 70% in bonds" https://personal.vanguard.com/us/JSP/Fu ... IntExt=INT
If someone was young in 2000 and in the accumulation phase, then the bad drawdowns were less relevant, since most of a young person's earnings are in their future. They would have had almost no money in a portfolio and would hopefully have been adding new money regularly during the bad times, helping juice their returns by buying low. A Target Retirement fund appropriate to their age would then move gradually into bonds as they got closer to retirement.
So Jack did the smart thing eventually, but what if 1997 had been the top instead? Summer of 1997 saw the same CAPE valuations as the summer of 1929 right before the massive crash. Jack would have looked less smart if the top had been 1997 instead. So I'd say he got lucky that the dot-com bubble carried on booming until 2000. Praising him for only doing age = bond % when he was 71 is a bit weird to me.
- Taylor Larimore
- Posts: 32842
- Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
- Location: Miami FL
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
David:Praising him for only doing age = bond % when he was 71 is a bit weird to me.
It is important to understand that Mr. Bogle is not like you and me. He could have any stock/bond allocation he wanted and it would make little difference to his family security.
It is usually a mistake to copy someone else's portfolio. This is the reason The Bogleheads' Three-Fund Portfolio can be tailored to each investors' personal situation.
Best wishes.
Taylor
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
- Ben Mathew
- Posts: 2720
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:41 am
- Location: Seattle
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
I think the "stay the course" maxim is most valuable when people want to do the exact opposite of what Jack Bogle did--buy stocks during runups (when valuations are high) and sell stocks during a market panics (when valuations are low). It is less applicable to someone changing allocations as a response to valuation changes, as Mr. Bogle seems to have done.
Any rational form of investing has to involve looking at valuations and associated expected rate of returns. Otherwise it becomes a faith-based mantra not far removed from cargo cults.
I have remained 100% stocks since we first started saving and investing in earnest (around 2006). So thus far I have stayed the course. But if stock valuations rise a lot and bond valuations drop a lot, then I am open to owning more bonds. If the changes are extreme enough, I imagine I could be 100% bonds. That's unlikely to happen. But if it does, I have no qualms about changing my course.
Any rational form of investing has to involve looking at valuations and associated expected rate of returns. Otherwise it becomes a faith-based mantra not far removed from cargo cults.
I have remained 100% stocks since we first started saving and investing in earnest (around 2006). So thus far I have stayed the course. But if stock valuations rise a lot and bond valuations drop a lot, then I am open to owning more bonds. If the changes are extreme enough, I imagine I could be 100% bonds. That's unlikely to happen. But if it does, I have no qualms about changing my course.
Total Portfolio Allocation and Withdrawal (TPAW)
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:06 amBeensabu wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:10 pmPretty well, actually.
The 75/25 portfolio finally pulled ahead in 2017.
Let's put "Pretty well" in perspective.
In order to get a 0.5% more CAGR, the investor with 75% equity had to go through a -39% MaxDD and huge pains for 20 years (Stdev of 10.88), whilst Dr. Bogle with its 25% stocks portfolio had to go through a puny -10% MaxDD and almost no pain (Stdev 4.2).
I actually agree with you and meant pretty well in favor of 25/75 (way less risk + outperformed 75/25 for 16 years), but the beauty is that it can be taken as "pretty well" from either perspective:
- If needing to draw funds over the 16 years from 2000-2016, it was (in retrospect) an excellent decision to go to 25/75 in 2000.
- If not needing to touch the funds and being disciplined in buying, holding, and rebalancing, no matter what, staying 75/25 worked out okay by this point in time.
Take away: Asset allocation is specific to your situation and investment horizon, and it is prudent to reduce risk when nearing your withdrawal phase.
"The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next." ~Ursula LeGuin
-
- Posts: 771
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 2:51 pm
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
To be quite fair, that was a generational bull market in bonds that can't happen again due to interest rate floors near 0%. Next time bonds get beat down that hard, sure, pick up some. At their current yields it makes zero sense to me to hold any bonds whatsoever.InvestInPasta wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:06 amBeensabu wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:10 pmPretty well, actually.
The 75/25 portfolio finally pulled ahead in 2017.
Let's put "Pretty well" in perspective.
In order to get a 0.5% more CAGR, the investor with 75% equity had to go through a -39% MaxDD and huge pains for 20 years (Stdev of 10.88), whilst Dr. Bogle with its 25% stocks portfolio had to go through a puny -10% MaxDD and almost no pain (Stdev 4.2).
Current portfolio: 60% VTI / 40% VXUS
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:42 pm
- Location: Italy
Re: Jack Bogle is not a "buy&hold at any price goose", he looks at valuations, he sold his stocks in year 2000
Hence you don't buy&hold bonds at any price, you look at bonds valuations.ThrustVectoring wrote: ↑Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:07 pmTo be quite fair, that was a generational bull market in bonds that can't happen again due to interest rate floors near 0%. Next time bonds get beat down that hard, sure, pick up some. At their current yields it makes zero sense to me to hold any bonds whatsoever.
Do you do the same with equity?
Thanks
When I study English I am lazier than my portfolio. Feel free to fix my English and investing mistakes.