(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 12/6/2011 - click here for the original post)
A recent blog on CNBC almost made you feel sorry for active managers It referenced a study by Bank of America Merrill Lynch which found that active managers were having "a rough year." Only 23 percent of large-cap managers beat the S&P 500 index and only 27 percent topped the performance of the Russell 1000.
There is a certain irony in the fact that Bank of America Merrill Lynch is the source of this information. The merger of these two mega active managers was triggered by what the New York Times characterized as Merrill's "billions of dollars in mortgage-related mistakes." Merrill's active management of its own portfolio did little to inspire confidence in its investment expertise.
But I digress.
Active managers were quick to explain their underperformance. Mark Lamkin, the CEO and "chief investment strategist" at Lamkin Wealth Management, blamed his underperformance on "headline risk," noting: "Nine of the last 11 years my active strategies have beaten the market, and I'm underperforming this market. It's all headline risk."
"Headline risk" is the possibility that a negative news story will adversely affect the price of a stock.
I tried to verify Mr. Lamkin's claim that his active strategies have "beaten the market" in nine of the last eleven years and was unable to do so. His firm does not publish the results of its portfolios on its web page. I called his office and asked for additional information but received no response.
Analyzing the significance of claims that a fund manager or advisor "beat the markets" is not uncomplicated. You need to understand how much risk the manager took and whether the benchmark used for comparison is an appropriate benchmark, comprised of a proportionately weighted mix of stocks and bonds.
Mr. Lamkin's lament about "headline risk" is troublesome. Unexpected news is a reason for under performance by active managers, but it is not an excuse that active managers should use to explain their inability to "beat the markets." Tomorrow's news drives stock prices. Active managers don't know tomorrow's news. They can't anticipate what they don't know. "Headline risk" is one of many reasons why active managers historically have underperformed the markets and are likely to continue to do so in the future.
According to a mid-year 2011 study by Standard and Poors, Over the past three years, 63.96% of actively managed large-cap funds were outperformed by the S&P 500, 75.07% of mid-cap funds were outperformed by the S&P MidCap 400 and 63.08% of the small-cap funds were outperformed by the S&P SmallCap 600. Passive management trumped actively managed in nearly all major domestic and international stock categories.
The results for this year, while worse than in previous years, are not unexpected. The skill of active managers is not in "beating the markets." It's convincing you they are likely to do so in the future, and coming up with lame explanations for why they have not done so in the past.
That's my headline.
Dan Solin is a Senior Vice-President of Index Funds Advisors (ifa.com). He is the author of the New York Times best sellers The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read, The Smartest 401(k) Book You'll Ever Read, and The Smartest Retirement Book You'll Ever Read. His new book, The Smartest Portfolio You'll Ever Own, was released in September, 2011.The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
Showing posts with label Dan Solin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dan Solin. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
What Apple & Indonesia Can Teach You Abou Investing
(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 8/30/2011 - click here for the original post)
You wouldn't think Apple and Indonesia have much in common. On the surface, they don't, but they can still teach you a lot about investing. Let's start with Apple.
Apple made the news recently with two major events. It is locked in a battle with Exxon over which is the most valuable company by market capitalization -- a remarkable turnaround. Apple has a market value of over $344 billion. Then Steve Jobs announced his resignation at Chief Operating Officer for health related reasons.
According to a thoughtful blog by Weston Wellington of Dimensional Fund Advisors (not available online), it was not so long ago that the financial media was trashing Apple. In February 14, 2005, Robert Barker, in an article in BusinessWeek stated "...Apple doesn't tempt me..." I wonder what did. Maybe Lehman or Bear Stearns!
Steven Gandel weighed in with an article in Money on March 24, 2004. He quoted Transamerica portfolio manager Chris Bonavico who opined that Apple stock is "...crap from an investor standpoint."
Many analysts credit the remarkable sales of its Apples Stores as the key to Apple's success. In a quote attributed to David Goldstein, Channel Marketing Corp, which appeared in an article in BusinessWeek on May 21, 2001, Mr. Goldstein gave Apple "two years before they're turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake."
What can you learn from these comments about Apple stock? Read the financial media if you find it entertaining. It's useless (and potentially harmful) as a source of reliable financial advice.
What about Indonesia?
The financial media was preoccupied with the downgrade by Standard & Poor's of the credit rating of the U.S, which lowered its rating from AAA status to AA plus. The new rating places the U.S. below the United Kingdom, Canada and even the Isle of Man.
Many investors viewed the lower rating with alarm and considered it a precursor of low stock returns for decades to come. The data tells a much different story, and may indicate there is no better time to invest in U.S. stocks and bonds.
In another blog, Wellington notes that Standard & Poor's rated the credit of Indonesia a "B" in July, 2001, which placed it in the "junk" category. Over the past decade, its credit rating has never risen to investment grade.
Investors in the Jakarta Composite have earned a total return of a whopping 29% per year over the last decade, ending June 30, 2011. According to Wellington, "If the Dow Jones Average had kept pace with Indonesian stocks over the past decade, it would be over 104,000 today."
Here's the lesson to be learned from Indonesia: A low (or reduced) credit rating on sovereign debt does not necessarily correlate to lower stock market returns. This is the opposite of what many investors and financial talking heads believe.
Most investors get their financial information from the financial media or brokers. As Dr. Phil would say: How is that working for you?
Dan Solin is a Senior Vice President of Index Funds Advisors (ifa.com). He is the author of the New York Times best sellers The Smartest Investment Book You'll Ever Read, The Smartest 401(k) Book You'll Ever Read, and The Smartest Retirement Book You'll Ever Read. His new book, The Smartest Portfolio You'll Ever Own, will be released in September, 2011. The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
You wouldn't think Apple and Indonesia have much in common. On the surface, they don't, but they can still teach you a lot about investing. Let's start with Apple.
Apple made the news recently with two major events. It is locked in a battle with Exxon over which is the most valuable company by market capitalization -- a remarkable turnaround. Apple has a market value of over $344 billion. Then Steve Jobs announced his resignation at Chief Operating Officer for health related reasons.
According to a thoughtful blog by Weston Wellington of Dimensional Fund Advisors (not available online), it was not so long ago that the financial media was trashing Apple. In February 14, 2005, Robert Barker, in an article in BusinessWeek stated "...Apple doesn't tempt me..." I wonder what did. Maybe Lehman or Bear Stearns!
Steven Gandel weighed in with an article in Money on March 24, 2004. He quoted Transamerica portfolio manager Chris Bonavico who opined that Apple stock is "...crap from an investor standpoint."
Many analysts credit the remarkable sales of its Apples Stores as the key to Apple's success. In a quote attributed to David Goldstein, Channel Marketing Corp, which appeared in an article in BusinessWeek on May 21, 2001, Mr. Goldstein gave Apple "two years before they're turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake."
What can you learn from these comments about Apple stock? Read the financial media if you find it entertaining. It's useless (and potentially harmful) as a source of reliable financial advice.
What about Indonesia?
The financial media was preoccupied with the downgrade by Standard & Poor's of the credit rating of the U.S, which lowered its rating from AAA status to AA plus. The new rating places the U.S. below the United Kingdom, Canada and even the Isle of Man.
Many investors viewed the lower rating with alarm and considered it a precursor of low stock returns for decades to come. The data tells a much different story, and may indicate there is no better time to invest in U.S. stocks and bonds.
In another blog, Wellington notes that Standard & Poor's rated the credit of Indonesia a "B" in July, 2001, which placed it in the "junk" category. Over the past decade, its credit rating has never risen to investment grade.
Investors in the Jakarta Composite have earned a total return of a whopping 29% per year over the last decade, ending June 30, 2011. According to Wellington, "If the Dow Jones Average had kept pace with Indonesian stocks over the past decade, it would be over 104,000 today."
Here's the lesson to be learned from Indonesia: A low (or reduced) credit rating on sovereign debt does not necessarily correlate to lower stock market returns. This is the opposite of what many investors and financial talking heads believe.
Most investors get their financial information from the financial media or brokers. As Dr. Phil would say: How is that working for you?
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
A Morality Litmus Test For Your Broker
(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 7/12/2011 - click here for the original post)
It's bad enough that Ponzi schemers continue to thrive. The limits these schemers will go to get your money know no bounds. According to a recent report, three former members of the PTA used their connection with a grade school in Los Angeles to bilk investors out of $14 million. The women allegedly represented they had the exclusive right to sell products from a local dairy to various Disney enterprises and others. They promised returns of up to 100 percent.
40 investors used their life savings and took out second mortgages to pony up their "investments." According to investigators, some of the money was spent on vacations, hotels, cars and gambling.
In another scheme, Christopher Pettengill pleaded guilty to a variety of fraud charges. He was charged with concealing information from investors about a foreign currency program, while touting the investment as low risk. Mr. Pettengill admitted making a personal credit card payment of $11,369 from proceeds of the fraud.
These schemes share a common theme: The promise of high returns without commensurate risk. But even if you are too smart to fall for this kind of scam, your investments may still be in danger. You need a morality litmus test before you entrust your retirement savings to any broker or adviser.
A timely case in point is J.P. Morgan Securities. In a release dated July 7, 2011, the SEC charged this venerable firm with fraudulently rigging at least 93 municipal bond reinvestment transactions in 31 states, generating "millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains." According to Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, "Municipal issuers and investors didn't stand a chance against the fraudulent strategies JPMS and others used to guarantee profits."
JPMS settled these charges by paying $51.2 million which will be returned to the affected municipalities and $177 million to settle parallel charges brought by federal and state authorities. As is typical in these matters, JPMS neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint.
JPMS and its colleagues in the securities industry manage trillions of dollars of assets. Most of this money is actively managed, meaning they attempt to add "alpha" by beating designated benchmarks. The fact that overwhelming data indicates most active managers add "negative alpha", has had limited impact on these clients to date.
Investors "don't stand a chance" when dealing with brokers who view breaking the law and paying relatively trivial fines as a minor cost of doing business.
Just because it's business as usual for them, doesn't mean you should abandon your moral and ethical principles and continue to patronize them. A collateral benefit of using your moral compass is that your returns are likely to increase when you discover the benefits of a globally diversified portfolio of low management fee stock and bond index funds -- something your local broker is unlikely to discuss with you.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
It's bad enough that Ponzi schemers continue to thrive. The limits these schemers will go to get your money know no bounds. According to a recent report, three former members of the PTA used their connection with a grade school in Los Angeles to bilk investors out of $14 million. The women allegedly represented they had the exclusive right to sell products from a local dairy to various Disney enterprises and others. They promised returns of up to 100 percent.
40 investors used their life savings and took out second mortgages to pony up their "investments." According to investigators, some of the money was spent on vacations, hotels, cars and gambling.
In another scheme, Christopher Pettengill pleaded guilty to a variety of fraud charges. He was charged with concealing information from investors about a foreign currency program, while touting the investment as low risk. Mr. Pettengill admitted making a personal credit card payment of $11,369 from proceeds of the fraud.
These schemes share a common theme: The promise of high returns without commensurate risk. But even if you are too smart to fall for this kind of scam, your investments may still be in danger. You need a morality litmus test before you entrust your retirement savings to any broker or adviser.
A timely case in point is J.P. Morgan Securities. In a release dated July 7, 2011, the SEC charged this venerable firm with fraudulently rigging at least 93 municipal bond reinvestment transactions in 31 states, generating "millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains." According to Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, "Municipal issuers and investors didn't stand a chance against the fraudulent strategies JPMS and others used to guarantee profits."
JPMS settled these charges by paying $51.2 million which will be returned to the affected municipalities and $177 million to settle parallel charges brought by federal and state authorities. As is typical in these matters, JPMS neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the complaint.
JPMS and its colleagues in the securities industry manage trillions of dollars of assets. Most of this money is actively managed, meaning they attempt to add "alpha" by beating designated benchmarks. The fact that overwhelming data indicates most active managers add "negative alpha", has had limited impact on these clients to date.
Investors "don't stand a chance" when dealing with brokers who view breaking the law and paying relatively trivial fines as a minor cost of doing business.
Just because it's business as usual for them, doesn't mean you should abandon your moral and ethical principles and continue to patronize them. A collateral benefit of using your moral compass is that your returns are likely to increase when you discover the benefits of a globally diversified portfolio of low management fee stock and bond index funds -- something your local broker is unlikely to discuss with you.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Only Question that Matters for Investors
(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 3/15/2011 - click here for the original post)
The financial media is whipped into a frenzy. There is so much uncertainty. Here's a summary of recent developments:
Money manager Laszlo Birinyi advises"[]These kinds of strong beginnings lead to long and durable bull markets. Hedge fund manager Barton Biggs agrees.
Over at The Wall Street Journal, they're not so sure. Brett Arends listed ten reasons why investors should be worried. His sources are interesting. He relies on an unnamed "European hedge fund manager" who is "worried about China." The source is not buying aggressively, and Arends find that significant. It's quite remarkable what passes for responsible financial journalism at The Wall Street Journal these days.
I get asked for my opinion on many of these issues by readers of my books and blogs, advisory clients and prospective clients. Many can't hide their disappointment when I tell them I have no clue how these events will affect the markets. What's more, neither does anyone else, including those who are so confident of their predictions and who dispense their advice so freely. What's more, I don't care and I don't believe intelligent investors should either. Here's why.
Many studies confirm the relationship between loss of money and suicide. Ask most men what they fear most and they will tell you it is the loss of their money and homelessness. You would think their investing decisions would seek to minimize this possibility. Instead, they are more often focused on the short term consequences of current events. This makes no sense.
The average sixty-year-old will live another twenty years or so. Here's the only question she (and all other investors) should be asking her financial advisor:
Can you financially engineer a portfolio for me, using long term (at least 50 years) data, that will maximize my returns for the amount of risk I will be taking, for the rest of my life, and will minimize the possibility that I will be destitute in my old age?
The good news is that it is very easy to accomplish this goal. We have all the tools and data necessary to do so. The analysis can be based on sound academic, peer-reviewed research, used by savvy pension and trust fund administrators and high net worth individuals. Of course, it's not predictive, but it's far more reliable than relying on financial astrologers. I have rarely met an investor who had such a plan, or who understood that he could get one.
You have a choice. You can listen to the musings of people who believe they can predict the future, or you can plan intelligently for your own future.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
The financial media is whipped into a frenzy. There is so much uncertainty. Here's a summary of recent developments:
- Bill Gross eliminated U.S. government debt from the Pimco's Total Return Fund.
- Nouriel Roubini ("Dr. Doom") predicts $100 billion in municipal bond defaults over five years.
- Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain remain in tenuous financial condition.
- The devastating earthquake in Japan has broad economic ramifications.
- Unrest in Libya and in the rest of the Middle East threatens oil prices.
Money manager Laszlo Birinyi advises"[]These kinds of strong beginnings lead to long and durable bull markets. Hedge fund manager Barton Biggs agrees.
Over at The Wall Street Journal, they're not so sure. Brett Arends listed ten reasons why investors should be worried. His sources are interesting. He relies on an unnamed "European hedge fund manager" who is "worried about China." The source is not buying aggressively, and Arends find that significant. It's quite remarkable what passes for responsible financial journalism at The Wall Street Journal these days.
I get asked for my opinion on many of these issues by readers of my books and blogs, advisory clients and prospective clients. Many can't hide their disappointment when I tell them I have no clue how these events will affect the markets. What's more, neither does anyone else, including those who are so confident of their predictions and who dispense their advice so freely. What's more, I don't care and I don't believe intelligent investors should either. Here's why.
Many studies confirm the relationship between loss of money and suicide. Ask most men what they fear most and they will tell you it is the loss of their money and homelessness. You would think their investing decisions would seek to minimize this possibility. Instead, they are more often focused on the short term consequences of current events. This makes no sense.
The average sixty-year-old will live another twenty years or so. Here's the only question she (and all other investors) should be asking her financial advisor:
Can you financially engineer a portfolio for me, using long term (at least 50 years) data, that will maximize my returns for the amount of risk I will be taking, for the rest of my life, and will minimize the possibility that I will be destitute in my old age?
The good news is that it is very easy to accomplish this goal. We have all the tools and data necessary to do so. The analysis can be based on sound academic, peer-reviewed research, used by savvy pension and trust fund administrators and high net worth individuals. Of course, it's not predictive, but it's far more reliable than relying on financial astrologers. I have rarely met an investor who had such a plan, or who understood that he could get one.
You have a choice. You can listen to the musings of people who believe they can predict the future, or you can plan intelligently for your own future.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Clueless
(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 2/8/2011 - click here for the original post)
I'm sure Pat Dorsey is highly intelligent and very competent. He is the director of equity research for Morningstar, which is a big job that gives him access to vast resources about the stock and bond markets. As he noted in an article published January 17, 2010 in Money Magazine's Investor's Guide 2010 entitled "10 stocks that can keep running," the analysts he works with at Morningstar cover 2000 stocks. Wow.
With such an impressive background and extensive resources, I am sure many investors paid close attention to Mr. Dorsey's 2010 predictions about stock market trends.
His primary observation was that we were in the "first phase of a bull market" where "smaller and junkier stocks tend to lead the way." However, he confidently predicted that "...speculative frenzy eventually gives way to the fundamentals, and that should bring your focus back to high-quality blue-chip stocks this year."
He was very negative on "lower-quality small stocks" noting they could "get killed if reality falls short of high expectations."
Many investors no doubt dumped their small stocks and focused on blue chips. After all, Mr.
Dorsey is the director of equity research at Morningstar. Presumably he can accurately predict whether large or small stocks will outperform in a given year.
Not exactly.
In a thoughtful analysis not available to the investing public, Weston J. Wellington, vice president of Dimensional Fund Advisors noted that US small stocks had their best year since 2003. The S&P Small Cap 600 index was up 26.31%, compared to an increase of 15.06% in the S&P 500.
It gets worse.
Wellington did an analysis of the ten blue chip stocks recommended by Mr. Dorsey and found they had an average return of 6.3% , significantly under-performing the S&P 500 index.
Let' see if I got this right.
Mr. Dorsey was dead wrong in his prediction that blue-chips would outperform small stocks in 2010. His selection of blue-chips did not come close to the returns that were yours for the taking by investing in the comparable index.
Yet investors continue to rely on the financial media which features pundits of all stripes, confidently predicting the direction of the markets and advising you to buy this or that stock.
It's all errant nonsense, akin to voodoo, designed to separate you from your money and to continue the transfer of wealth from you to those who "manage" your money.
Mr. Dorsey, and his colleagues who pretend to be able to predict random, future events, may be clueless.
You don't have to be.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
I'm sure Pat Dorsey is highly intelligent and very competent. He is the director of equity research for Morningstar, which is a big job that gives him access to vast resources about the stock and bond markets. As he noted in an article published January 17, 2010 in Money Magazine's Investor's Guide 2010 entitled "10 stocks that can keep running," the analysts he works with at Morningstar cover 2000 stocks. Wow.
With such an impressive background and extensive resources, I am sure many investors paid close attention to Mr. Dorsey's 2010 predictions about stock market trends.
His primary observation was that we were in the "first phase of a bull market" where "smaller and junkier stocks tend to lead the way." However, he confidently predicted that "...speculative frenzy eventually gives way to the fundamentals, and that should bring your focus back to high-quality blue-chip stocks this year."
He was very negative on "lower-quality small stocks" noting they could "get killed if reality falls short of high expectations."
Many investors no doubt dumped their small stocks and focused on blue chips. After all, Mr.
Dorsey is the director of equity research at Morningstar. Presumably he can accurately predict whether large or small stocks will outperform in a given year.
Not exactly.
In a thoughtful analysis not available to the investing public, Weston J. Wellington, vice president of Dimensional Fund Advisors noted that US small stocks had their best year since 2003. The S&P Small Cap 600 index was up 26.31%, compared to an increase of 15.06% in the S&P 500.
It gets worse.
Wellington did an analysis of the ten blue chip stocks recommended by Mr. Dorsey and found they had an average return of 6.3% , significantly under-performing the S&P 500 index.
Let' see if I got this right.
Mr. Dorsey was dead wrong in his prediction that blue-chips would outperform small stocks in 2010. His selection of blue-chips did not come close to the returns that were yours for the taking by investing in the comparable index.
Yet investors continue to rely on the financial media which features pundits of all stripes, confidently predicting the direction of the markets and advising you to buy this or that stock.
It's all errant nonsense, akin to voodoo, designed to separate you from your money and to continue the transfer of wealth from you to those who "manage" your money.
Mr. Dorsey, and his colleagues who pretend to be able to predict random, future events, may be clueless.
You don't have to be.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
Monday, December 20, 2010
New Index Returns Astound Wall Street
(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 12/7/2010 - click here for the original post)
It's hard to be modest about this achievement, but I am going to try.
In January, 2010, I created the Solin Random Stock Index (SRSI). For those skeptics who want to verify this claim, please see this blog I wrote at the time.
I wish I could report that my index was a complex algorithm, but it was really very simple. I just took the spelling of my last name, and punched each letter into a quote engine. I selected the first two stocks (listed on a U.S. stock exchange) that appeared for each letter. Here's the list of ten stocks that comprised the SRSI:
1. Sprint Nextel (S)
2. Sirius XM Radio (SIRI)
3. Realty Income (O)
4. Oracle (ORCL)
5. Loews (L)
6. Las Vegas Sands (LVS)
7. Intel (INTC)
8. International Business Machines (IBM)
9. Netsuite (N)
10. Nvidia (NVDA)
Now that we are coming to the end of the year, I thought this would be a good time to see how the stocks in my index have performed. I know my competitors are busy getting the performance data of their funds together so they can show how well they did. Morningstar will be analyzing this information in order to figure out which funds get the highest "star" ratings.
Investors rely on performance history. High performing funds can expect an influx of revenues. More revenues means more fees. It's a high stakes game. I want a piece of it.
So, how did the SRSI do from January, 2010 through November, 2010? Hold on to your hat. It's up an astounding 45.14%! No kidding.
The S&P 500 is only up 5.87%.
Let's put this stellar performance in perspective so you can really appreciate it. In an article published February 24, 2010, US News recommended its top mutual funds for 2010. It's methodology was impressive. It relied on "some of the brightest minds conducting investing analysis" and used ratings from Morningstar, Lipper, Zacks, TheStreet.com and Standard & Poor's.
Hard to see how you could miss if you followed these recommendations.
Let's compare some of these top funds with the SRSI. The performance data is as of October 31, 2010.
The Yackman Fund (YACKX) is up 9.07%. It was the top ranked Large Value Fund;
The FMI Large Cap Fund (FMIHX) is up 5.15% It was the top ranked Large Blend Fund;
The Parnassus Workplace fund (PARWX) was up 8.35%. It was the top ranked Large Growth Fund.
The SRSI clobbered the returns of all these top rated funds. I didn't have access to any of the "brightest minds" who do sophisticated analysis and I don't even have a subscription to any of these ratings services.
So what can I expect next? I assume invitations from the cable financial shows so that I can educate investors on how I did it. Maybe all those impressive ratings services will start to follow the SRSI. If I was set up to receive funds, I assume I would have to brace for a massive influx. I would wear "back office problems" as a badge of honor.
My real goal is to win Morningstar's Fund Manager of Year award. Bruce Berkowitz was the pick for U.S. stock-fund manager in 2009 for his stellar performance running Fairholme Fund (FAIRX). His fund has $10 billion in assets. Mr. Berkowitz is a highly regarded stock picker, holding only about 20 stocks. The SRSI holds 10 stocks, so we have the over-concentration thing in common.
Fairholme is only up 12.96%. Clearly, my stock picking skills are vastly superior. It should be no contest for 2010. I'm a shoo-in.
I'll still have time to write this blog. I really enjoy it. But I suspect that being known as a "stock picking guru" will have its perks as well.
Sorry, I have to run now. The phone is ringing. I'm hoping it's Jim Cramer. Maybe he will anoint me as "one of the great ones in this business", an accolade he is reported to have bestowed on
Lenny Dykstra, the ball player turned stock picker.
Dykstra filed for bankruptcy in July, 2009.
I'm no Lenny Dykstra.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
It's hard to be modest about this achievement, but I am going to try.
In January, 2010, I created the Solin Random Stock Index (SRSI). For those skeptics who want to verify this claim, please see this blog I wrote at the time.
I wish I could report that my index was a complex algorithm, but it was really very simple. I just took the spelling of my last name, and punched each letter into a quote engine. I selected the first two stocks (listed on a U.S. stock exchange) that appeared for each letter. Here's the list of ten stocks that comprised the SRSI:
1. Sprint Nextel (S)
2. Sirius XM Radio (SIRI)
3. Realty Income (O)
4. Oracle (ORCL)
5. Loews (L)
6. Las Vegas Sands (LVS)
7. Intel (INTC)
8. International Business Machines (IBM)
9. Netsuite (N)
10. Nvidia (NVDA)
Now that we are coming to the end of the year, I thought this would be a good time to see how the stocks in my index have performed. I know my competitors are busy getting the performance data of their funds together so they can show how well they did. Morningstar will be analyzing this information in order to figure out which funds get the highest "star" ratings.
Investors rely on performance history. High performing funds can expect an influx of revenues. More revenues means more fees. It's a high stakes game. I want a piece of it.
So, how did the SRSI do from January, 2010 through November, 2010? Hold on to your hat. It's up an astounding 45.14%! No kidding.
The S&P 500 is only up 5.87%.
Let's put this stellar performance in perspective so you can really appreciate it. In an article published February 24, 2010, US News recommended its top mutual funds for 2010. It's methodology was impressive. It relied on "some of the brightest minds conducting investing analysis" and used ratings from Morningstar, Lipper, Zacks, TheStreet.com and Standard & Poor's.
Hard to see how you could miss if you followed these recommendations.
Let's compare some of these top funds with the SRSI. The performance data is as of October 31, 2010.
The Yackman Fund (YACKX) is up 9.07%. It was the top ranked Large Value Fund;
The FMI Large Cap Fund (FMIHX) is up 5.15% It was the top ranked Large Blend Fund;
The Parnassus Workplace fund (PARWX) was up 8.35%. It was the top ranked Large Growth Fund.
The SRSI clobbered the returns of all these top rated funds. I didn't have access to any of the "brightest minds" who do sophisticated analysis and I don't even have a subscription to any of these ratings services.
So what can I expect next? I assume invitations from the cable financial shows so that I can educate investors on how I did it. Maybe all those impressive ratings services will start to follow the SRSI. If I was set up to receive funds, I assume I would have to brace for a massive influx. I would wear "back office problems" as a badge of honor.
My real goal is to win Morningstar's Fund Manager of Year award. Bruce Berkowitz was the pick for U.S. stock-fund manager in 2009 for his stellar performance running Fairholme Fund (FAIRX). His fund has $10 billion in assets. Mr. Berkowitz is a highly regarded stock picker, holding only about 20 stocks. The SRSI holds 10 stocks, so we have the over-concentration thing in common.
Fairholme is only up 12.96%. Clearly, my stock picking skills are vastly superior. It should be no contest for 2010. I'm a shoo-in.
I'll still have time to write this blog. I really enjoy it. But I suspect that being known as a "stock picking guru" will have its perks as well.
Sorry, I have to run now. The phone is ringing. I'm hoping it's Jim Cramer. Maybe he will anoint me as "one of the great ones in this business", an accolade he is reported to have bestowed on
Lenny Dykstra, the ball player turned stock picker.
Dykstra filed for bankruptcy in July, 2009.
I'm no Lenny Dykstra.
The views set forth in this blog are the opinions of the author alone and may not represent the views of any firm or entity with whom he is affiliated. The data, information, and content on this blog are for information, education, and non-commercial purposes only. Returns from index funds do not represent the performance of any investment advisory firm. The information on this blog does not involve the rendering of personalized investment advice and is limited to the dissemination of opinions on investing. No reader should construe these opinions as an offer of advisory services. Readers who require investment advice should retain the services of a competent investment professional. The information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any securities or class of securities mentioned herein. Furthermore, the information on this blog should not be construed as an offer of advisory services. Please note that the author does not recommend specific securities nor is he responsible for comments made by persons posting on this blog.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Time for a Reality Check
(from Dan Solin's Huffington Post blog, 10/28/2010 - click here for the original post)
As year-end approaches, this seems like a good time for a reality check.
On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at its all time high of 14,164. At that level, it had gained 94% over the preceding five years. The euphoria of the bulls was palpable.
On March 9, 2009, the index reached a new twelve-year low, closing at 6,547. The bears became the talk of Wall Street. Doom was in the air.
How you dealt with your investments during this period is indicative of everything that is wrong with the securities industry and why you need to fundamentally change the way you invest.
Few brokers predicted the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Almost no one predicted both the meltdown and rapid recovery of the markets. Yet more than 90% of individual investors maintain brokerage accounts and rely on the flawed advice of their "investment professionals."
What if you didn't panic and did nothing from October 9, 2007 to date? I call it the Seinfeld approach to investing. You were in a globally diversified portfolio of low cost index or passively managed funds in an asset allocation (the division of your portfolio between stocks and bonds) appropriate for your tolerance for risk and investment objectives.
As of September 30, 2010, if your allocation to stocks was 50%, your portfolio has fully recovered. Investors with with an allocation of less than 50% to stocks have positive returns. If you were among the small percent of investors for whom an allocation of 100% stocks was appropriate, your total return is down almost 20%.
Check your portfolio returns. How do those results compare? Most likely, not well if you were listening to the financial pundits and "fled to safety" when the market crashed.
Almost all clients of brokers invest in actively managed funds, where the fund manager attempts to "beat the market." The use of these funds is another reason why investors typically underperform the market. If there is one compelling reason for terminating your relationship with your broker, it's the fact that recommendations of actively managed mutual funds are the way brokers make a living.
In a recent blog, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, two of the most distinguished Professors of Finance in the country, explained the folly of investing in actively managed funds. They concluded that, when you factor luck into the equation, they expect 97% of actively managed funds to underperform a passive alternative.
Their conclusion is consistent with other studies that have shown over 99% of active fund managers have no genuine stock picking ability.
If your personal reality check persuades you to enter the New Year with a new investing approach, don't necessarily assume you can do it yourself. Studies over a 30 year period show that even those who pursue an indexing strategy on their own fail to capture 100% of market returns. They still do far better than investors in actively managed funds, but their failure to rebalance their portfolios and the lack of discipline to stay the course when times get rough, take a heavy toll.
A competent passive advisor, who focuses on your asset allocation and recommends investments only in index funds, passively managed funds or Exchange Traded Funds, can be a wise investment.
As year-end approaches, this seems like a good time for a reality check.
On October 9, 2007, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at its all time high of 14,164. At that level, it had gained 94% over the preceding five years. The euphoria of the bulls was palpable.
On March 9, 2009, the index reached a new twelve-year low, closing at 6,547. The bears became the talk of Wall Street. Doom was in the air.
How you dealt with your investments during this period is indicative of everything that is wrong with the securities industry and why you need to fundamentally change the way you invest.
Few brokers predicted the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Almost no one predicted both the meltdown and rapid recovery of the markets. Yet more than 90% of individual investors maintain brokerage accounts and rely on the flawed advice of their "investment professionals."
What if you didn't panic and did nothing from October 9, 2007 to date? I call it the Seinfeld approach to investing. You were in a globally diversified portfolio of low cost index or passively managed funds in an asset allocation (the division of your portfolio between stocks and bonds) appropriate for your tolerance for risk and investment objectives.
As of September 30, 2010, if your allocation to stocks was 50%, your portfolio has fully recovered. Investors with with an allocation of less than 50% to stocks have positive returns. If you were among the small percent of investors for whom an allocation of 100% stocks was appropriate, your total return is down almost 20%.
Check your portfolio returns. How do those results compare? Most likely, not well if you were listening to the financial pundits and "fled to safety" when the market crashed.
Almost all clients of brokers invest in actively managed funds, where the fund manager attempts to "beat the market." The use of these funds is another reason why investors typically underperform the market. If there is one compelling reason for terminating your relationship with your broker, it's the fact that recommendations of actively managed mutual funds are the way brokers make a living.
In a recent blog, Eugene Fama and Kenneth French, two of the most distinguished Professors of Finance in the country, explained the folly of investing in actively managed funds. They concluded that, when you factor luck into the equation, they expect 97% of actively managed funds to underperform a passive alternative.
Their conclusion is consistent with other studies that have shown over 99% of active fund managers have no genuine stock picking ability.
If your personal reality check persuades you to enter the New Year with a new investing approach, don't necessarily assume you can do it yourself. Studies over a 30 year period show that even those who pursue an indexing strategy on their own fail to capture 100% of market returns. They still do far better than investors in actively managed funds, but their failure to rebalance their portfolios and the lack of discipline to stay the course when times get rough, take a heavy toll.
A competent passive advisor, who focuses on your asset allocation and recommends investments only in index funds, passively managed funds or Exchange Traded Funds, can be a wise investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
