Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.vineviz wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:13 pmI often see things like this repeated here, but it's (mostly) not true.
Reducing portfolio volatility is not the purpose of bonds. The purpose of bonds (from the perspective of the investor, at least) is to obtain a predictable stream of income or cash flows.
One effect of including bonds in the portfolio is that it USUALLY reduces portfolio volatility, but this is a byproduct and not generally the actual goal.
My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Yes, if you are rich enough not to care about returns then you don’t need to worry about them.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
Few Bogleheads are in that spot.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
In investments as in life moderation helps. If you have $10 in equities nothing wrong with $6 In fixed income in my opinion. Nothing to do with wealth. Groucho would agree. Good luck.alex_686 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:35 pmYes, if you are rich enough not to care about returns then you don’t need to worry about them.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
Few Bogleheads are in that spot.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
There are more than two choices: bonds and stocks.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I sort of agree with this, but....jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:52 pmIn investments as in life moderation helps. If you have $10 in equities nothing wrong with $6 In fixed income in my opinion. Nothing to do with wealth. Groucho would agree. Good luck.alex_686 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:35 pmYes, if you are rich enough not to care about returns then you don’t need to worry about them.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
Few Bogleheads are in that spot.
Look, most people don't have great wealth. They have to work of a living. There is a choice we get with our income. Current consumption or savings. If we save, a choice between stocks and bonds. I person who invests a healthy slug of their savings into equites rather than bonds only has to save about 1/2 as much.
It does not matter how modest your current savings are, or how modest your future spending is. That is the ratio, and it is a fairly hefty difference.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Groucho lost a lot of money in shares of Anaconda Copper . Later in one of his films he used “Anaconda” as a swear word.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 6:10 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Generally speaking, I think people need a more aggressive portfolio with a higher equity allocation than the past, especially for younger investors. That’s vague and general, but beyond that it really depends on the person and their situation. For example, for someone in their 20s who doesn’t know much about investing or have any interest in it, I like index target date funds. I’m a fan of Vanguard’s and also like Blackrock’s. TDFs aren’t perfect, and I don’t like that Vanguard allocates 10% to bonds until age 45 ( I think 100% equities until 40 or 45 would be better) but I think these are a great option for many people. Others who aren’t saving enough starting young face a more complex situation and might need to be more creative than using a target date fund alone or at all. Others who have a lot of interest in investing might also not like a target date fund.UpperNwGuy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:00 pmWhat is your recommended portfolio for the post-60/40 era?Johnathon Livingston wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 pm I think the era of the 60/40 has passed. Back in the 90s when I started investing, a financial advisor would put a 25 year old or a 55 year old in a 60/40. It was a beautiful thing—60% in the US stock market, 40% in US Bonds. The 60/40 offered good returns during a bull run and would pop back up during a bear market and get you back above water and appreciating again in no time. Simple, elegant, versatile.
Change with the times my friends.
-
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:09 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I am pretty sure that in Groucho's time the interest rates weren't at the pitiful lows of today.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
John Bogle: "It's amazing how difficult it is for a man to understand something if he's paid a small fortune not to understand it."
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
My why is simple, nobody knows the future. Your confidence that bonds are not a good investment right now is just a guess. The drivers and risks factors you speak about could change tomorrow.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Agreed, although 100% equities until 70s are ideal. We don’t know how long we will live. A longer term cash emergency fund (which I don’t count as part of AA) to allow for a longer run up would probably be advised after retirement.Johnathon Livingston wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:25 pmGenerally speaking, I think people need a more aggressive portfolio with a higher equity allocation than the past, especially for younger investors. That’s vague and general, but beyond that it really depends on the person and their situation. For example, for someone in their 20s who doesn’t know much about investing or have any interest in it, I like index target date funds. I’m a fan of Vanguard’s and also like Blackrock’s. TDFs aren’t perfect, and I don’t like that Vanguard allocates 10% to bonds until age 45 ( I think 100% equities until 40 or 45 would be better) but I think these are a great option for many people. Others who aren’t saving enough starting young face a more complex situation and might need to be more creative than using a target date fund alone or at all. Others who have a lot of interest in investing might also not like a target date fund.UpperNwGuy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:00 pmWhat is your recommended portfolio for the post-60/40 era?Johnathon Livingston wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 pm I think the era of the 60/40 has passed. Back in the 90s when I started investing, a financial advisor would put a 25 year old or a 55 year old in a 60/40. It was a beautiful thing—60% in the US stock market, 40% in US Bonds. The 60/40 offered good returns during a bull run and would pop back up during a bear market and get you back above water and appreciating again in no time. Simple, elegant, versatile.
Change with the times my friends.
-TheDDC
Rules to wealth building: 75-80% VTSAX piled high and deep, 20-25% VTIAX, 0% given away to banks.
-
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 6:10 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I like how you think.TheDDC wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:37 pmAgreed, although 100% equities until 70s are ideal. We don’t know how long we will live. A longer term cash emergency fund (which I don’t count as part of AA) to allow for a longer run up would probably be advised after retirement.Johnathon Livingston wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:25 pmGenerally speaking, I think people need a more aggressive portfolio with a higher equity allocation than the past, especially for younger investors. That’s vague and general, but beyond that it really depends on the person and their situation. For example, for someone in their 20s who doesn’t know much about investing or have any interest in it, I like index target date funds. I’m a fan of Vanguard’s and also like Blackrock’s. TDFs aren’t perfect, and I don’t like that Vanguard allocates 10% to bonds until age 45 ( I think 100% equities until 40 or 45 would be better) but I think these are a great option for many people. Others who aren’t saving enough starting young face a more complex situation and might need to be more creative than using a target date fund alone or at all. Others who have a lot of interest in investing might also not like a target date fund.UpperNwGuy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:00 pmWhat is your recommended portfolio for the post-60/40 era?Johnathon Livingston wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:32 pm I think the era of the 60/40 has passed. Back in the 90s when I started investing, a financial advisor would put a 25 year old or a 55 year old in a 60/40. It was a beautiful thing—60% in the US stock market, 40% in US Bonds. The 60/40 offered good returns during a bull run and would pop back up during a bear market and get you back above water and appreciating again in no time. Simple, elegant, versatile.
Change with the times my friends.
-TheDDC
-
- Posts: 4215
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2019 11:23 am
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
"My anaconda don't, my anaconda don'tNicolas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:06 pmGroucho lost a lot of money in shares of Anaconda Copper . Later in one of his films he used “Anaconda” as a swear word.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
My anaconda don't want none unless you got bonds, hun"
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
It was in Horsefeathers (1932)Robot Monster wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 6:59 pm"My anaconda don't, my anaconda don'tNicolas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:06 pmGroucho lost a lot of money in shares of Anaconda Copper . Later in one of his films he used “Anaconda” as a swear word.jdb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm Yes. Reminds me of Groucho Marx. He lost lots of money in 1929 crash. Some years later at height of his fame was touring NYSE. A broker shouted “Groucho what are you invested in? Groucho answered “Only Bonds”. The broker said “they don’t give you good returns”. Groucho answered “Not if you have enough of them”. Groucho would not understand the angst that bonds engender on this site. Neither do I. It is source of predicable returns. Good luck.
My anaconda don't want none unless you got bonds, hun"
Professor Wagstaff's exclamation, "Jumpin' anaconda!"
-
- Posts: 5561
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Certainly true that 60/40 is a classic. Important to realize though, that 60 TSM/40 BND has a bit more than 85% of its risk wrapped up in the equity market factor. From that perspective, much less diversified than most people think.GP813 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:20 pmMy why is simple, nobody knows the future. Your confidence that bonds are not a good investment right now is just a guess. The drivers and risks factors you speak about could change tomorrow.
Dave
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I have to admit that I have been feeling less sure of myself lately. Many of the assumptions that we have held around here for years are now being called into question and I am not sure how to respond to the current market environment. I am concerned about the 4% inflation number reported for April 2021 and the 5% inflation reported for May 2021. I believe that most of this inflation is transitory and the bond market is shrugging off the April and May inflation numbers. But I am not so sure.BogleBuddy12 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:09 pm I just bought Charley Ellis’ 8th Edition of “Winning the Loser’s Game.” It was released in May 2021.
In this 2021 edition, Burton Malkiel writes the foreword where he praises Ellis for revising the book to include concerns about “financial repression” and the low bond interest rates. Ellis discusses his concerns with bonds. It seems they both will no longer recommend a classic portfolio such as 60% stocks / 40% bonds.
My concern is that the book touts “timeless strategies.” 60/40 was thought to be a great, long-term way to invest. Many of the authors who pioneered index funds believed in holding a Total Bond Market fund. I don’t believe many of them wrote that bonds are meant for growth, but rather safety and security.
It seems Ellis has shifted his views on the purpose of bonds, due to the fact that they are currently paying very little if anything. Should the current interest rate environment be changing the “timeless strategies” we have relied on, namely the 60/40 portfolio?
Specifically, what assumptions do I believe are coming into question? First, the environment of disinflation and falling interest rates that we have had since 1982 might be at an end. Sustained higher inflation rates are possible and might be a reality. The belief in almost 40 year trends in inflation and interest rates are so powerful that we might just be in denial. Inflation might really be back and back with a vengeance.
Another thing that has shaken me a bit is the negative real interest rates for most U.S. Treasuries and for most TIPS. Hard to fathom that TIPS are very expensive now and practically guarantee that you will lose purchasing power over time, if inflation continues to heat up then TIPS will fare better than nominal bonds but still won't keep purchasing power intact. So do I go to riskier bonds with higher yields in hopes of beating inflation? Do I keep my portfolio somewhat stock heavy?
I also had hopes for the Alternative Investments: the so-called Liquid Alts, semi-liquid Interval Funds, and other unconventional asset classes. So far these have been a disappointment, giving you bond like returns with stock like volatility. A Market Neutral fund that I invested in is well. . .return neutral, fortunately it is like a science experiment and is an insignificant portion of my portfolio.
Also very reluctant to buy commodities, gold, and precious metals mining funds. These kind of investments I regard as portfolio insurance, most of the time these will cause a performance drag on your portfolio in exchange for hopefully being a good diversifier when you need them the most. My suspicion is that in a crisis, this "insurance" might just crash right along with everything else.
My portfolio has been build for inflation. I own REITs, TIPS, Value Stocks, ExxonMobil, Weyerhauser as inflation fighters. But hard to know if I am just fighting the last war, maybe a portfolio with the 1970's in mind for the 2020's. Perhaps I am trying to fight Guderian's Panzer Divisions with the Maginot Line, World War I tactics for a World War II foe. I used to love REITs but have much less enthusiasm for them now for various reasons.
So not making big changes here, mostly staying the course. But I have to admit that I am not certain about what to do here. Even Bobcat2, aka BobK, seems to be running up the white flag in response to very low interest rates and real negative yields from bonds. Bob was saying that we should increase our allocation to stocks, shoot it was like the Pope saying that Luther had a point 500 years ago. All I can say is that I am not so certain of myself here, not sure what to do, have this feeling that things are shifting under my feet. Hopefully the portfolio that I designed to counter precisely this kind of inflation event will work as I hoped. Keeping my fingers crossed.
The best advice I could give with this uncertain environment is to be globally diversified, that means International Stocks and International Bonds in addition to U.S. investments. Maybe be a bit stock heavy and reach for yields a bit with your bonds. Add some TIPS. That is about it.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I've read other posts of yours and I think you and I are very similar in both our past experiences and our future goals. You are a much better writer. (I'm not a stalker, I promise.)
What to do? As you said, we think the next battle and war will be different than the last one, but in what way? Do we need bitcoin to survive? I sure hope not, because I'm not going down that path. I sure don't have any answers, so I'm gritting my teeth and moving forward with my 60/30/10 portfolio. The 10 is an allocation to CD's, and is my attempt to avoid taking too many causalities in this war. I hope to use it as my mobile reserve once I see where the enemy strikes. Probably a false hope, but it is my concession to the current environment.
"Confusion has its cost" - Crosby, Stills and Nash
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I don’t recall every saying that bonds were not a good investment. Or if I had then that both bonds and equities face a rough future.GP813 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:20 pmMy why is simple, nobody knows the future. Your confidence that bonds are not a good investment right now is just a guess. The drivers and risks factors you speak about could change tomorrow.
But back to the question, which you have dodged. If nobody knows nothing, then why 60/40? Why not 40/60? Why not use a random number generator to determine your allocation?
You must know something to pick 60/40.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Markets are like golf. Sometimes what looks easy is in reality difficult, the sport has humbled many a great athlete. Markets have humbled very smart people.goblue100 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:43 pmI'm glad I'm not the only one. I've read other posts of yours and I think you and I are very similar in both our past experiences and our future goals. You are a much better writer. (I'm not a stalker, I promise.)
What to do? As you said, we think the next battle and war will be different than the last one, but in what way? Do we need bitcoin to survive? I sure hope not, because I'm not going down that path. I sure don't have any answers, so I'm gritting my teeth and moving forward with my 60/30/10 portfolio. The 10 is an allocation to CD's, and is my attempt to avoid taking too many causalities in this war. I hope to use it as my mobile reserve once I see where the enemy strikes. Probably a false hope, but it is my concession to the current environment.
I can spout stock answers and feign self-confidence here. But being gut-level honest, my stock answers don't look so good with 1% to 2% yields on bonds, high stock valuations here in the U.S., and many bonds with negative real yields after inflation. I ordinarily would say to load up on TIPS but most all TIPS now have negative real yields. I also don't know if this inflation spurt is temporary or a sign of sustained higher inflation.
So I am wondering if I really know much at all here. I have built my portfolio for inflation, now I have to hope that it all works. When in doubt, the best choice usually is to do nothing.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I'm not so sure that's Bobcat2's only or even primary advice. Just because bonds aren't pulling their weight as much as they used to doesn't mean we should replace them with more volatile stocks. More likely he'd say do something like save more, spend less, be prepared to work longer/go back to work. Not advice we'd like to hear but it's more likely to help.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:07 pm ...
So not making big changes here, mostly staying the course. But I have to admit that I am not certain about what to do here. Even Bobcat2, aka BobK, seems to be running up the white flag in response to very low interest rates and real negative yields from bonds. Bob was saying that we should increase our allocation to stocks...
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I seem to remember you sighting a recent paper that expanded on this concept but now can't find your link. Any chance you'd be willing to expand on this or point me towards where to read more?
For background, I'm getting close (within a couple years) to lowering my income and feel I should be transitioning from an all-stock to a more balanced portfolio and deciding between adding series I savings bond (highest current yield) series EE savings bonds (highest future cash flows), and LT Treasurys (best overall diversifier for rebalancing).
So the role of bonds in a portfolio is on my mind (even if these are all probably fine options).
Thanks!
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Actually Bob said both.sycamore wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:03 amI'm not so sure that's Bobcat2's only or even primary advice. Just because bonds aren't pulling their weight as much as they used to doesn't mean we should replace them with more volatile stocks. More likely he'd say do something like save more, spend less, be prepared to work longer/go back to work. Not advice we'd like to hear but it's more likely to help.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:07 pm ...
So not making big changes here, mostly staying the course. But I have to admit that I am not certain about what to do here. Even Bobcat2, aka BobK, seems to be running up the white flag in response to very low interest rates and real negative yields from bonds. Bob was saying that we should increase our allocation to stocks...
Notice that Bob said "Edge up the allocation to stocks." So he is talking about a modest increase in your allocation to stocks. Pretty mild advice but I was surprised that he said this. When I first started reading his posts, he warned so much about the volatility of stocks I wondered if he thought a retiree or near retiree should hold them at all. Bob is on record that he likes the DFA Target Date Retirement Funds, which for retirees or near retirees is very heavy on TIPS and relatively lighter on stocks. So not a radical departure from his prior advice but a departure nevertheless. He also acknowledged that TIPS are expensive in this current environment.by bobcat2 » Tue May 25, 2021 8:34 pm
There are some solutions I can suggest for the low real interest rate problem, but for the most part they aren't very exciting.
1) Save more per year.
2) Work more years.
3) Take out a reverse mortgage. A safe retirement product that is enhanced, rather than hurt, by low interest rates.
4) Immediate life annuities are a safe product that are hurt less by low interest rates than bonds.
5) Deferred life annuities, aka longevity insurance, are more attractive than immediate life annuities because they are hurt less by low interest rates than immediate life annuities.
6) Edge up the allocation to stocks, but be sure to diversify broadly & keep expense ratios low. (Hardly need to tell BHs this.)
7) Delay taking Social Security.
8) Check into delaying a DB pension. Sometimes delay of a pension can be about as beneficial as delaying Social Security.
9) A suggestion I heard from Richard Thaler. Let people purchase a little extra Social Security. This would be cheaper than commercial life annuities because there is so little overhead and no profit off the top.
Even taking up on all the above, low real interest rates are still a problem.
BobK
See this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=349648
A fool and his money are good for business.
-
- Posts: 5561
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
When equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:42 amActually Bob said both.sycamore wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:03 amI'm not so sure that's Bobcat2's only or even primary advice. Just because bonds aren't pulling their weight as much as they used to doesn't mean we should replace them with more volatile stocks. More likely he'd say do something like save more, spend less, be prepared to work longer/go back to work. Not advice we'd like to hear but it's more likely to help.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:07 pm ...
So not making big changes here, mostly staying the course. But I have to admit that I am not certain about what to do here. Even Bobcat2, aka BobK, seems to be running up the white flag in response to very low interest rates and real negative yields from bonds. Bob was saying that we should increase our allocation to stocks...
Notice that Bob said "Edge up the allocation to stocks." So he is talking about a modest increase in your allocation to stocks. Pretty mild advice but I was surprised that he said this. When I first started reading his posts, he warned so much about the volatility of stocks I wondered if he thought a retiree or near retiree should hold them at all. Bob is on record that he likes the DFA Target Date Retirement Funds, which for retirees or near retirees is very heavy on TIPS and relatively lighter on stocks. So not a radical departure from his prior advice but a departure nevertheless. He also acknowledged that TIPS are expensive in this current environment.by bobcat2 » Tue May 25, 2021 8:34 pm
There are some solutions I can suggest for the low real interest rate problem, but for the most part they aren't very exciting.
1) Save more per year.
2) Work more years.
3) Take out a reverse mortgage. A safe retirement product that is enhanced, rather than hurt, by low interest rates.
4) Immediate life annuities are a safe product that are hurt less by low interest rates than bonds.
5) Deferred life annuities, aka longevity insurance, are more attractive than immediate life annuities because they are hurt less by low interest rates than immediate life annuities.
6) Edge up the allocation to stocks, but be sure to diversify broadly & keep expense ratios low. (Hardly need to tell BHs this.)
7) Delay taking Social Security.
8) Check into delaying a DB pension. Sometimes delay of a pension can be about as beneficial as delaying Social Security.
9) A suggestion I heard from Richard Thaler. Let people purchase a little extra Social Security. This would be cheaper than commercial life annuities because there is so little overhead and no profit off the top.
Even taking up on all the above, low real interest rates are still a problem.
BobK
See this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=349648
Dave
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
+1Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 am When equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
Great point. One that I constantly need to remind myself of. Lately, I have tending to focus on bond returns, but the truth is the PE ratios of both treasury bonds and stocks are high.
"Owning the stock market over the long term is a winner's game. Attempting to beat the market is a loser's game. ..Don't look for the needle in the haystack. Just buy the haystack." Jack Bogle
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I posed a similar question (Why not 50/50?) a while back:alex_686 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:57 pmI don’t recall every saying that bonds were not a good investment. Or if I had then that both bonds and equities face a rough future.GP813 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:20 pmMy why is simple, nobody knows the future. Your confidence that bonds are not a good investment right now is just a guess. The drivers and risks factors you speak about could change tomorrow.
But back to the question, which you have dodged. If nobody knows nothing, then why 60/40? Why not 40/60? Why not use a random number generator to determine your allocation?
You must know something to pick 60/40.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=338016
Get most of it right and don't make any big mistakes. All else being equal, simpler is better. Simple is as simple does.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
true words of wisdom.
Three-Fund Portfolio: FSPSX - FXAIX - FXNAX (with slight tilt of CASH - Canned Beans - Rice - Bottled Water)
-
- Posts: 15288
- Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
It is not just Malkiel and Ellis, but many if not most well-respected authors who publish books on investing to be sold to individual investors will revise their recommendation every few years, and generally will describe the new recommendation in a chapter that comes after a chapter where they drive home the importance of staying the course with a plan.
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:39 am
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future. Sometimes it is possible to do that cheaply, because you can make a deal with others who have a greater need for current consumption relative to the future than you do, but other times it is more expensive to do that. With the low returns on fixed income investments, and therefor likely on other investments as well, I have just resigned myself to giving up more current consumption to fund my future consumption than I would like. There are a lot of people who relatively value future consumption more than current consumption. Thus, no real alternative but to plan to save more. (Of course, if everyone does that, then the savings glut is even greater!)
Last edited by frugalecon on Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I teased HomerJ pretty hard about this in another thread. He was in the heat of the battle arguing about Tesla and he made this exact point. He said that since the valuations of Tesla were so high, that the expected future returns of the stock would likely result in both higher risk and low returns. I was shocked that "Mr. Valuations don't matter" made this observation. I further said that if this was true for a single stock that by extending this logic it could be true for an industry sector or even for the U.S. Stock Market as a whole. I mused that someone had hacked his account, maybe me or that Swedroe guy, as I couldn't believe that he wrote that. He got a laugh out of that and he got my point.Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 am
When equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
Yes, valuations do matter and even the most die-hard efficient market guys and gals deep in their hearts believe that too. I have challenged the efficient market fanatics to invest their monies in the most speculative stocks imaginable because if the markets are truly efficient that risk adjusted returns should be the same. It shouldn't matter which stocks you select even if they are extremely speculative. Of course no one believes this. Yes, if you increase risk you can boost returns but only up to a certain point. There is a thing called diminishing returns and deep down people realize that. There is a point where increasing risk not only ceases to increase return but at some point might reduce return, perhaps even to zero.
I agree that markets are pretty efficient but sometimes we forget about human emotion which can drive markets to the extremes of excessive optimism or excessive pessimism. Nothing efficient or particularly rational about extreme euphoria or extreme depression. The problem is that even if you know for certain that the market is in an irrational phase, you don't know how long that irrationality will last. One reason market timing is very hard to do.
So while I do tease people about the efficient market hypothesis, I do mostly agree with them. It isn't that there isn't truth to the efficient market hypothesis, it is that there are limits to its explanatory power as there is with most everything else.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I never said 60/40 was my allocation. Everybody picks an allocation that they can live with and matches their investment goals. All I said is the idea that 60/40 is no longer a prudent investment for many is unknowable. And my guess(and it is a guess) is that people with a 60/40 allocation will do just fine in the long run.alex_686 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:57 pmI don’t recall every saying that bonds were not a good investment. Or if I had then that both bonds and equities face a rough future.GP813 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 5:20 pmMy why is simple, nobody knows the future. Your confidence that bonds are not a good investment right now is just a guess. The drivers and risks factors you speak about could change tomorrow.
But back to the question, which you have dodged. If nobody knows nothing, then why 60/40? Why not 40/60? Why not use a random number generator to determine your allocation?
You must know something to pick 60/40.
Last edited by GP813 on Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:47 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I agree with the high level point but wouldn't frame the problem as diminishing returns. I would say that a diversified portfolio of the most speculative stocks would have greater risk and greater return on average.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:35 pm I have challenged the efficient market fanatics to invest their monies in the most speculative stocks imaginable because if the markets are truly efficient that risk adjusted returns should be the same. It shouldn't matter which stocks you select even if they are extremely speculative. Of course no one believes this. Yes, if you increase risk you can boost returns but only up to a certain point. There is a thing called diminishing returns and deep down people realize that.
The main problem with that is "on average" because there is extreme skew and dispersion in returns. The majority of stocks barely return more than the risk free rate if that, and of those that do, a very very small handful make up for the vast majority of market returns. So maybe one or two or five of a hundred different ports of risky assets may have just incredible returns while the other 99 or 98 or 95 will do meh-to-terrible, but the average probably scales about right with the risk. I doubt many with the knowledge to come out swinging in defense of the EMH would take those odds with their life savings.
I also would guess that the most speculative stocks cluster around risks, like sector risks (flying electric vehicles; cannabis; crypto; biotech; whatever fad) that would make it hard to build an actual diversified portfolio, so at some point you just can't load up anymore without taking on uncompensated risk. But maybe I'm wrong about that -- maybe there are leveraged profitless consumer staples and utilities and banks out there just waiting to explode.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
For the record, I would recommend that people make the core of their portfolio the so-called Total indexes: Total Stock Market, Total International Stock Market, Total Bond Market, and Total International Bond Market. Some might want to add something like a REIT Index or a TIPS fund. Any funds beyond that would be to tilt the portfolio one way or another to attempt to capture a factor premium, that is if someone wants to attempt to do this. For most people, a 3-5 fund portfolio would be more than adequate to meet their needs.luckyducky99 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:27 pmI agree with the high level point but wouldn't frame the problem as diminishing returns. I would say that a diversified portfolio of the most speculative stocks would have greater risk and greater return on average.nedsaid wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:35 pm I have challenged the efficient market fanatics to invest their monies in the most speculative stocks imaginable because if the markets are truly efficient that risk adjusted returns should be the same. It shouldn't matter which stocks you select even if they are extremely speculative. Of course no one believes this. Yes, if you increase risk you can boost returns but only up to a certain point. There is a thing called diminishing returns and deep down people realize that.
The main problem with that is "on average" because there is extreme skew and dispersion in returns. The majority of stocks barely return more than the risk free rate if that, and of those that do, a very very small handful make up for the vast majority of market returns. So maybe one or two or five of a hundred different ports of risky assets may have just incredible returns while the other 99 or 98 or 95 will do meh-to-terrible, but the average probably scales about right with the risk. I doubt many with the knowledge to come out swinging in defense of the EMH would take those odds with their life savings.
I also would guess that the most speculative stocks cluster around risks, like sector risks (flying electric vehicles; cannabis; crypto; biotech; whatever fad) that would make it hard to build an actual diversified portfolio, so at some point you just can't load up anymore without taking on uncompensated risk. But maybe I'm wrong about that -- maybe there are leveraged profitless consumer staples and utilities and banks out there just waiting to explode.
I am not an advocate of market timing, I might during times of market extremes perform a mild form of tactical asset allocation, maybe a shift of as much as 20% or so of the portfolio. Even then, it might be more about reducing risk rather than boosting returns. So I might in certain circumstances perform mild market timing but that would be about it.
What I am attempting to say is that while markets are mostly efficient, they are subject to manias driven by emotion. During the time of a mania, I might do a shift of the portfolio in response, but as I noted manias can last longer than one might think.
Also I am saying that beyond a certain point that just increasing risk does not enhance returns. There have been stocks that have gone to zero.
As far as bonds, I don't believe that investors should give up on them. In the era of low interest rates/negative real yields, I am keeping my portfolio a bit more stock heavy than what Vanguard or Fidelity would recommend for somebody my age. So I have 64% stocks compared to the 58% stocks recommended by the Target Date 2025 funds that I follow. I have dipped my toe into the higher yielding parts of the bond market but most of my bonds are still investment grade intermediate term.
A fool and his money are good for business.
-
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:47 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Right. There's different way to construe the word "efficient". In the extremely technical sense, used in EMH, it just means "new information is assimilated into prices efficiently", i.e. so fast that you can't profit with an informational advantage. Prices are short term. In that sense, it doesn't say anything about investors' aggregate emotions, i.e. it doesn't mean that capital is optimally or efficiently allocated for the long term. If you can successfully identify such mania, I agree you should be able to profit from that, but like you said, you (or your heirs, or their heirs) might have a while to wait things out.
This part I don't quite follow. If someone were to offer you uncallable 100x leverage at the risk free rate, you should be able to load up on beta and as long as the equity risk premium exists, you would absolutely get enhanced returns in the long run. Of course that's not possible to do, so maybe the point is more that there's a ceiling to how much risk an individual investor can effectively take on. Sure stocks go to zero (I owned one; oh the shame), but if you're portfolio is so concentrated in that stock for it to matter, then you've loaded up on uncompensated risk, which is not an effective strategy.
I am being more technical/theoretical than practical in all this though. From a practical standpoint I think we're on the same page.
-
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:47 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
This is wonderful. I've never thought of my brokerage account as a time machine used to send money into the future before, but I think you're right, that's what it is.frugalecon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:55 pm When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
It is wonderful. It captures the whole idea in a way that short circuits a huge fraction of the angst about how to save and invest and how to withdraw from investments.luckyducky99 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:15 pmThis is wonderful. I've never thought of my brokerage account as a time machine used to send money into the future before, but I think you're right, that's what it is.frugalecon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:55 pm When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
This is perfect. I wish more people would start their thinking by understanding this. It is one of the basic ideas that is written on page one of an economics textbook. You are perfectly correct that low interest rates mean that savers are punished by having to save more, but that there isn't a choice. Sometimes the bowl is full of cherries and sometimes there are just pits.frugalecon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:55 pm When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future. Sometimes it is possible to do that cheaply, because you can make a deal with others who have a greater need for current consumption relative to the future than you do, but other times it is more expensive to do that. With the low returns on fixed income investments, and therefor likely on other investments as well, I have just resigned myself to giving up more current consumption to fund my future consumption than I would like. There are a lot of people who relatively value future consumption more than current consumption. Thus, no real alternative but to plan to save more. (Of course, if everyone does that, then the savings glut is even greater!)
-
- Posts: 6103
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:51 am
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
So although this is a perfectly fine, albeit conservative, philosophy, I think it is important to note that traditional retirement savings advice, including the advice that lies at the core of standard Boglehead financial planning, isn't consistent with this view.frugalecon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:55 pm When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future. Sometimes it is possible to do that cheaply, because you can make a deal with others who have a greater need for current consumption relative to the future than you do, but other times it is more expensive to do that. With the low returns on fixed income investments, and therefor likely on other investments as well, I have just resigned myself to giving up more current consumption to fund my future consumption than I would like. There are a lot of people who relatively value future consumption more than current consumption. Thus, no real alternative but to plan to save more. (Of course, if everyone does that, then the savings glut is even greater!)
Specifically, the implicit assumption of that traditional advice is that if you are willing to defer spending, you can expect to be rewarded with an increase in total wealth/ability to spend. And if you are willing to defer spending AND accept some risks, you can expect to be rewarded with an even bigger increase in wealth/ability to spending (note I am using "expect" here in the technical sense of a probability-weighted average outcome in the long run).
In fact, I would use this to define the difference between savings and investment. Savings, for my purposes, means what you described--the transfer of the ability to spend now to the ability to spend in the future. Investment, for my purposes, means providing capital in ways expected to increase wealth in the long run.
OK, the assumption all along has been that investment usually works, that taking money you could spend now and instead using it as investment capital--whether in the form of buying ownership shares, providing loans (e.g., buying bonds), or so on--will generate an increase in wealth. This assumption has in effect allowed people to save less than they otherwise would have needed to save in order to be able to expect to meet their future spending goals.
Of course if you already have enough wealth saved, then it doesn't matter. You can get no expected increase in wealth from your savings/investments, indeed you can assume those savings/investments actually lose real value over time, and still be able to meet your future spending goals--as long as you have enough already.
But what if you don't have enough already? If you assume investments will now fail to build wealth, then you are going to need to save more, possibly a lot more, to meet the same future spending goals.
Again, for some families with high enough incomes, this is not such a big deal. Oh well, I guess I need to fly coach instead of business class on vacation, maybe defer getting a new car for a while, that sort of thing. But for families without high enough incomes, this could be a real tradeoff issue: I'm sorry, beloved child, but I can't help you with college like I planned, and in fact I am going to miss that recital, because I needed to take an extra shift . . . .
My point is the assumption that capital investment won't work to build wealth over the upcoming decades may be disappointing but no big deal--if you are already very wealthy and/or have very high incomes to work with.
But many, many Bogleheads (and others) over past decades have done much better, meaning they have been rewarded with good returns on their capital investments. And if that era is in fact over, the overall results for many people are in fact going to be a lot worse in some important ways, even if they do everything reasonable to deal with the situation.
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:39 am
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I think we probably agree more than you realize, except that I don’t think what I wrote is really inconsistent with Boglehead principles. I think BH principles are probably mostly about finding the most efficient way to accomplish the transfer of resources from today to the future. Ordinarily that involves some of what you classify as “investment,” rather than just, e.g., cash “savings.” (My family’s portfolio is close to 80:20, so I hardly shy away from investing!) I just try to come to peace with the fact that I can only work with the returns that are available to me, in this era, when capital seems pretty plentiful and hence cheap.NiceUnparticularMan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:54 amSo although this is a perfectly fine, albeit conservative, philosophy, I think it is important to note that traditional retirement savings advice, including the advice that lies at the core of standard Boglehead financial planning, isn't consistent with this view.frugalecon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:55 pm When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future. Sometimes it is possible to do that cheaply, because you can make a deal with others who have a greater need for current consumption relative to the future than you do, but other times it is more expensive to do that. With the low returns on fixed income investments, and therefor likely on other investments as well, I have just resigned myself to giving up more current consumption to fund my future consumption than I would like. There are a lot of people who relatively value future consumption more than current consumption. Thus, no real alternative but to plan to save more. (Of course, if everyone does that, then the savings glut is even greater!)
Specifically, the implicit assumption of that traditional advice is that if you are willing to defer spending, you can expect to be rewarded with an increase in total wealth/ability to spend. And if you are willing to defer spending AND accept some risks, you can expect to be rewarded with an even bigger increase in wealth/ability to spending (note I am using "expect" here in the technical sense of a probability-weighted average outcome in the long run).
In fact, I would use this to define the difference between savings and investment. Savings, for my purposes, means what you described--the transfer of the ability to spend now to the ability to spend in the future. Investment, for my purposes, means providing capital in ways expected to increase wealth in the long run.
OK, the assumption all along has been that investment usually works, that taking money you could spend now and instead using it as investment capital--whether in the form of buying ownership shares, providing loans (e.g., buying bonds), or so on--will generate an increase in wealth. This assumption has in effect allowed people to save less than they otherwise would have needed to save in order to be able to expect to meet their future spending goals.
Of course if you already have enough wealth saved, then it doesn't matter. You can get no expected increase in wealth from your savings/investments, indeed you can assume those savings/investments actually lose real value over time, and still be able to meet your future spending goals--as long as you have enough already.
But what if you don't have enough already? If you assume investments will now fail to build wealth, then you are going to need to save more, possibly a lot more, to meet the same future spending goals.
Again, for some families with high enough incomes, this is not such a big deal. Oh well, I guess I need to fly coach instead of business class on vacation, maybe defer getting a new car for a while, that sort of thing. But for families without high enough incomes, this could be a real tradeoff issue: I'm sorry, beloved child, but I can't help you with college like I planned, and in fact I am going to miss that recital, because I needed to take an extra shift . . . .
My point is the assumption that capital investment won't work to build wealth over the upcoming decades may be disappointing but no big deal--if you are already very wealthy and/or have very high incomes to work with.
But many, many Bogleheads (and others) over past decades have done much better, meaning they have been rewarded with good returns on their capital investments. And if that era is in fact over, the overall results for many people are in fact going to be a lot worse in some important ways, even if they do everything reasonable to deal with the situation.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Yeah, I've never understood that. Better to wait it out in cash.Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 amWhen equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Retired, my thinking:
Going to be withdrawing from portfolio (or planning to) for thirty years.
Regular withdrawals will give the thirty year valuation average (assuming fairly valued holdings today - overvalued can suffer permanent loss, and irregular withdrawals at high valuation should do better).
Selling during a bear market at a lower valuation not that big a deal: will also sell during bull markets at higher valuations.
Sequence matters, of course, but not greatly if only withdrawing a small fraction of portfolio (especially if can pull back withdrawals a bit during that time).
So thirty year average returns matter more than price volatility.
Means I'll be mostly stocks. Their average return predictable enough.
Means won't buy bonds that offer little/no/negative returns (after inflation) just because price stable. Especially if overvalued today, which can mean permanent loss.
I hold three years cash to live off of if market values drop significantly. Any more than that I think the opportunity cost is too high.
(I no longer hold cash as dry powder, I let Berkshire do that for me.)
So most years I'll simply sell the highest valuation stocks (or if ever overvalued) for income. I'll try to sell less if undervalued, and hope any significant bear market lasts not much longer than three years.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Attempts to time based on equity valuations by waiting in cash are historically bad for individuals and for funds that try and time as I understand it. The thing is, the path that the stock market may take from current valuations is unknown, and the entry point is also not discernable in real time...james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:36 amYeah, I've never understood that. Better to wait it out in cash.Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 amWhen equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
-
- Posts: 6103
- Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 6:51 am
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I think where the practical difference arises is precisely with the assumption there will be a meaningfully large equity risk premium, and indeed a meaningfully large term premium, such that one can expect overall positive real returns over a long period of investment in equities and longer-term bonds. It may not be a very Boglehead thing to state those assumptions explicitly, but I do think they are behind the standard advice given here about how to save/invest for and during retirement.frugalecon wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:34 amI think we probably agree more than you realize, except that I don’t think what I wrote is really inconsistent with Boglehead principles. I think BH principles are probably mostly about finding the most efficient way to accomplish the transfer of resources from today to the future. Ordinarily that involves some of what you classify as “investment,” rather than just, e.g., cash “savings.” (My family’s portfolio is close to 80:20, so I hardly shy away from investing!) I just try to come to peace with the fact that I can only work with the returns that are available to me, in this era, when capital seems pretty plentiful and hence cheap.NiceUnparticularMan wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:54 amSo although this is a perfectly fine, albeit conservative, philosophy, I think it is important to note that traditional retirement savings advice, including the advice that lies at the core of standard Boglehead financial planning, isn't consistent with this view.frugalecon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:55 pm When I think about the purpose of my investment portfolio, it is purely to transfer consumption from the current period to the future. Sometimes it is possible to do that cheaply, because you can make a deal with others who have a greater need for current consumption relative to the future than you do, but other times it is more expensive to do that. With the low returns on fixed income investments, and therefor likely on other investments as well, I have just resigned myself to giving up more current consumption to fund my future consumption than I would like. There are a lot of people who relatively value future consumption more than current consumption. Thus, no real alternative but to plan to save more. (Of course, if everyone does that, then the savings glut is even greater!)
Specifically, the implicit assumption of that traditional advice is that if you are willing to defer spending, you can expect to be rewarded with an increase in total wealth/ability to spend. And if you are willing to defer spending AND accept some risks, you can expect to be rewarded with an even bigger increase in wealth/ability to spending (note I am using "expect" here in the technical sense of a probability-weighted average outcome in the long run).
In fact, I would use this to define the difference between savings and investment. Savings, for my purposes, means what you described--the transfer of the ability to spend now to the ability to spend in the future. Investment, for my purposes, means providing capital in ways expected to increase wealth in the long run.
OK, the assumption all along has been that investment usually works, that taking money you could spend now and instead using it as investment capital--whether in the form of buying ownership shares, providing loans (e.g., buying bonds), or so on--will generate an increase in wealth. This assumption has in effect allowed people to save less than they otherwise would have needed to save in order to be able to expect to meet their future spending goals.
Of course if you already have enough wealth saved, then it doesn't matter. You can get no expected increase in wealth from your savings/investments, indeed you can assume those savings/investments actually lose real value over time, and still be able to meet your future spending goals--as long as you have enough already.
But what if you don't have enough already? If you assume investments will now fail to build wealth, then you are going to need to save more, possibly a lot more, to meet the same future spending goals.
Again, for some families with high enough incomes, this is not such a big deal. Oh well, I guess I need to fly coach instead of business class on vacation, maybe defer getting a new car for a while, that sort of thing. But for families without high enough incomes, this could be a real tradeoff issue: I'm sorry, beloved child, but I can't help you with college like I planned, and in fact I am going to miss that recital, because I needed to take an extra shift . . . .
My point is the assumption that capital investment won't work to build wealth over the upcoming decades may be disappointing but no big deal--if you are already very wealthy and/or have very high incomes to work with.
But many, many Bogleheads (and others) over past decades have done much better, meaning they have been rewarded with good returns on their capital investments. And if that era is in fact over, the overall results for many people are in fact going to be a lot worse in some important ways, even if they do everything reasonable to deal with the situation.
If you assume those premiums have gotten so low that you cannot get positive real returns even over a long period of investment, I don't think Boglehead "principles" can necessarily be improved on. But achieving various specific result may be far harder going forward without those premiums improving long term expected returns.
Accordingly, coming to peace with that outcome might well be the best we can do. But I think that if a lot of people actually start experiencing something like that result, it will not be all that easy for all of them to accept.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Market timing isn't a good option. It just seems the better option.Da5id wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:50 amAttempts to time based on equity valuations by waiting in cash are historically bad for individuals and for funds that try and time as I understand it. The thing is, the path that the stock market may take from current valuations is unknown, and the entry point is also not discernable in real time...james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:36 amYeah, I've never understood that. Better to wait it out in cash.Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 amWhen equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Proof? It hasn't worked historically, but I guess hope springs eternal.james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:12 pmMarket timing isn't a good option. It just seems the better option.Da5id wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:50 amAttempts to time based on equity valuations by waiting in cash are historically bad for individuals and for funds that try and time as I understand it. The thing is, the path that the stock market may take from current valuations is unknown, and the entry point is also not discernable in real time...james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:36 amYeah, I've never understood that. Better to wait it out in cash.Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 amWhen equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Thank you. Let me clarify. Just investing in riskier and riskier stocks does not increase returns. You could be 100% invested in mining stocks on the Vancouver Stock Exchange or NASDAQ Bulletin Board stocks and lose significant amounts of money. There are publicly traded stocks that are just corporate shells, no actual operating business, or businesses that have gone bankrupt and no longer operate; these wouldn't be listed on an exchange but still exist out there in what I call the wild west. My remarks were not about leverage.luckyducky99 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:07 pmRight. There's different way to construe the word "efficient". In the extremely technical sense, used in EMH, it just means "new information is assimilated into prices efficiently", i.e. so fast that you can't profit with an informational advantage. Prices are short term. In that sense, it doesn't say anything about investors' aggregate emotions, i.e. it doesn't mean that capital is optimally or efficiently allocated for the long term. If you can successfully identify such mania, I agree you should be able to profit from that, but like you said, you (or your heirs, or their heirs) might have a while to wait things out.
This part I don't quite follow. If someone were to offer you uncallable 100x leverage at the risk free rate, you should be able to load up on beta and as long as the equity risk premium exists, you would absolutely get enhanced returns in the long run. Of course that's not possible to do, so maybe the point is more that there's a ceiling to how much risk an individual investor can effectively take on. Sure stocks go to zero (I owned one; oh the shame), but if you're portfolio is so concentrated in that stock for it to matter, then you've loaded up on uncompensated risk, which is not an effective strategy.
I am being more technical/theoretical than practical in all this though. From a practical standpoint I think we're on the same page.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
If the "risks" that makes these stocks "riskier" is a systematic risk, having more of it almost certainly does increase expected returns.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
-
- Posts: 2139
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:09 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I tried market timing for 20 years. I am glad I read Bogle and am doing much better using an asset allocation with low fee index funds.Da5id wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:12 pmProof? It hasn't worked historically, but I guess hope springs eternal.james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:12 pmMarket timing isn't a good option. It just seems the better option.Da5id wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:50 amAttempts to time based on equity valuations by waiting in cash are historically bad for individuals and for funds that try and time as I understand it. The thing is, the path that the stock market may take from current valuations is unknown, and the entry point is also not discernable in real time...james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:36 amYeah, I've never understood that. Better to wait it out in cash.Random Walker wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:08 amWhen equity valuations are high, expected returns are lower. Somewhat ironically, some people will need to increase their equity allocations in the face of lower expected returns to meet their goals. Risky to do that when the mean expected return lower AND the whole potential distribution of future returns shifted left.
Dave
Whether you like 90/10 or any percentage up to 10/90 I think you have done better at least since 1980 than most market timers.
John Bogle: "It's amazing how difficult it is for a man to understand something if he's paid a small fortune not to understand it."
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
I will modestly take the other side. Or maybe I am just extending.
This is not true if we look across different time periods. I think we have entered a new secular period. In this economic period my market expectations are for lower market returns and higher risks. Cranking up risk may not get you the same returns in the old period.
Also, cranking up risks means cranking up volatility, which will increase the volatility drag. At some point that means lower returns. This opinion is partly formed by sitting on the margin desk during the dot.com boom and bust, where I saw lots of people take very aggressive positions get wiped out.
Former brokerage operations & mutual fund accountant. I hate risk, which is why I study and embrace it.
-
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 6:47 pm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Yes. It's an interesting distinction though. Instead of borrowing myself, I could go find the most leveraged companies out there and buy them. These things aren't exactly the same, but they're not completely different or unrelated either. It's one way to add risk to the portfolio. Maybe you could even find a nice diverse cross section of the market consisting of highly leveraged businesses.nedsaid wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:24 pm Thank you. Let me clarify. Just investing in riskier and riskier stocks does not increase returns. You could be 100% invested in mining stocks on the Vancouver Stock Exchange or NASDAQ Bulletin Board stocks and lose significant amounts of money. There are publicly traded stocks that are just corporate shells, no actual operating business, or businesses that have gone bankrupt and no longer operate; these wouldn't be listed on an exchange but still exist out there in what I call the wild west. My remarks were not about leverage.
But all tiny mining stocks, tons of idiosyncratic risk. So you need to diversify. Ok add some risky cannabis stocks. Now less, but still way too much idiosyncratic risk you're not expected to be compensated for. So you need to keep diversifying. Who knows how far you have to keep adding companies, sectors, regions, etc. before you're diversified away enough uncompensated risk to actually be able to expect higher returns (I'm sure some smart researchers have looked and make a strong claim to knowing. Not me though.) This sounds like the limit to how much compensated risk you can actually get access to and expect it to be beneficial because it's not offset by risky (idiosyncratic) risk. Maybe it's just the whole market? Maybe this is where factors come in? Not an expert at all here.
Or, right, here the tl;dr version of all my hot air:
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
...historically, once prospective returns have dropped below about 7.5%, investors could have adopted what I've called a "Rip van Winkle" strategy: just going to sleep until stocks dropped by at least 30% or moved back to prospective returns above 10% - a strategy that would have historically outperformed the S&P 500 with about half the overall risk.Da5id wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:12 pmProof? It hasn't worked historically, but I guess hope springs eternal.james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:12 pmMarket timing isn't a good option. It just seems the better option.Da5id wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:50 amAttempts to time based on equity valuations by waiting in cash are historically bad for individuals and for funds that try and time as I understand it. The thing is, the path that the stock market may take from current valuations is unknown, and the entry point is also not discernable in real time...
http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc110523.htm
Re: My favorite authors are turning their backs on Bonds
Any comment, vineviz?james22 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 11:49 amRetired, my thinking:
Going to be withdrawing from portfolio (or planning to) for thirty years.
Regular withdrawals will give the thirty year valuation average (assuming fairly valued holdings today - overvalued can suffer permanent loss, and irregular withdrawals at high valuation should do better).
Selling during a bear market at a lower valuation not that big a deal: will also sell during bull markets at higher valuations.
Sequence matters, of course, but not greatly if only withdrawing a small fraction of portfolio (especially if can pull back withdrawals a bit during that time).
So thirty year average returns matter more than price volatility.
Means I'll be mostly stocks. Their average return predictable enough.
Means won't buy bonds that offer little/no/negative returns (after inflation) just because price stable. Especially if overvalued today, which can mean permanent loss.
I hold three years cash to live off of if market values drop significantly. Any more than that I think the opportunity cost is too high.
(I no longer hold cash as dry powder, I let Berkshire do that for me.)
So most years I'll simply sell the highest valuation stocks (or if ever overvalued) for income. I'll try to sell less if undervalued, and hope any significant bear market lasts not much longer than three years.
Why should I want 20% LTT when long-term average stock returns are predictable enough?