Stop Trying to Pick the Best Fund

Posted On July 30, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Behavioral Finance /

So much attention is paid to picking “the right fund” or “the best fund” by investors, but in my experience, this question has little bearing on whether or not an investor is successful in achieving their goals. In fact, I don’t even think fund selection is in the top 5 factors for financial success. There are so many more important things to consider first!

1) How much you save. If you contribute $500 a month to your company 401(k) and your colleague contributes $1,000 a month, I would bet that they will have twice as much money as you after 10 years, regardless of your fund selection process. Hot funds turn cold, so most investors just average out over time. Figuring out how to save and invest more each month will get you to the goal line faster than spending your hours trying to find a better fund.

2) Sticking with the plan. Your behavior can have a greater impact than your fund selection. Many investors sold in 2009, incurring heavy losses and then missing out on the rebound in the second half of the year. Trying to time the market is so difficult that investors are better served by staying the course rather than trying to get in and out of the market.

I know that people think they are being rational about their investments, but what usually happens is that we form an opinion emotionally and then find evidence which corroborates our point of view. This is called confirmation bias. Better to remain humble and recognize that we don’t have the ability to determine what the future holds. Buy and Hold works, but only when we don’t screw it up!

3) Starting with an Asset Allocation. People may spend a vast amount of time picking a US large cap fund, but then miss out on the benefits of diversification. Other categories may outperform US large cap stocks. I recently opened an account for a new client, whose previous advisor had him invested in 180 positions – all of which were US large cap and investment grade bonds. No small cap, no international equities, no emerging markets, no floating rate bonds, no municipal bonds, etc.

The most important determinant of your portfolio return is the overall asset allocation, not which fund you chose! Our process begins with you, your goals, timeline, and risk tolerance to first determine a financial plan, including an appropriate asset allocation. The asset allocation is really the portfolio and then the last step is to just plug in funds to each category. Funds in each category perform similarly. If it’s a horrible year, like 2008, in US large cap, that fact is more significant than which large cap fund you chose.

A famous, and controversial, 1995 Study found that 95% of the variability of returns between pension funds was explained by their asset allocation.

4) Not chasing performance. The problem with trying to pick the best fund is that you are always looking through today’s rearview mirror. There will always be one fund that has the best 5, 10, or 15 year returns. There are always funds which are doing better than your fund this year. But if you buy that new fund, you may quickly become disappointed when the subsequent returns fail to match its “perfect” track record.

So then you switch to another new fund. And like a financial Don Juan, the performance chaser is quick to fall in love, but just as quick to move on, creating a tragic, endless cycle of hope and failure. If you are investing for the next 30 years, changing funds 30 times does not improve your chances of success! By the way, if you exclude sector funds, single country funds, and other niche categories from your portfolio, you will be well on your way to avoiding this pitfall.

5) Setting Goals. If you have a goal or large project at work, you probably create a plan which breaks that goals down into a series of smaller steps and objectives. Unfortunately, very few people apply the same kind of discipline, planning, and deliberate process to their finances as they do to their career and other goals. When you begin with the goal in mind, your next steps – how much to save, how to invest, what to do – become clear.

Bonus, 6) Doing what works. Why reinvent the wheel or take on unnecessary risk? We know that 80% or more of actively managed funds lag their benchmarks over five years and longer. With 4 to 1 odds against you choosing a fund that outperforms, why take that risk at all? Even if you get it right once, do you realize how small the possibility is that your choice will outperform for another five years? Better to stick with Index Funds and ETFs. Besides the better chance of performing well, you will also start with very low expenses and excellent tax efficiency. When you use Index funds, it frees up your mind, time, and energy to focus instead on numbers 1-5.

Choose your funds carefully and deliberately because you should plan to live with those funds for many, many years. There are genuinely good reasons for changing investments sometimes and we won’t hesitate to make those trades when necessary. But on the whole, investors trade way too much for their own good. The grass is not always greener in another fund!

Mid-Year Report: The Return of Irrational Exuberance?

Posted On July 2, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management /

We’ve passed the mid-year point and the market has had a strong performance in the first half of 2017. Investors should be very pleased with the results of the past six months, although I believe there are reasons to be guarded going forward. Our portfolio models all notched positive returns, but our value oriented approach held back returns relative to our benchmarks.

Looking first at stocks, our global equity benchmark, the MSCI All Country World Index (iShares ticker ACWI) produced a total return of 11.92%. That would be a great return for the whole year, and it’s only July 1 as I write this. US Stocks, such as the Russell 1000 Index (iShares ticker IWB) were up 9.15% in the first half.

Across the board, international stocks were well ahead of US Stocks, with both Developed and Emerging Markets producing 15% returns for the first half. Our International and Emerging small caps did even better, over 17%. Our positions in foreign equities were strong contributors to our portfolio returns. If you are just investing in domestic stocks, you really missed out so far in 2017. And International stocks remain less expensive than US stocks by most measures.

Our holdings in US Value stocks lagged, gaining only 2-4% versus the 9% of the overall market. Last year, Value outperformed both Growth and Core by a wide margin. For 2017, a handful of technology companies are dominating returns, specifically the so-called FAANG stocks: Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google (now called Alphabet).

While these companies continue to post exciting growth, the price of these stocks is now incomprehensible to me. It feels like 1999 all over again, when there was no price too high for growing tech leaders. While I think that today’s top stocks are bonafide companies with genuine earnings, I still can’t justify the price of the shares.

It smells like a bubble to me, although limited to this small number of stocks. Now that doesn’t mean that we are necessarily on the verge of a collapse. Indices could continue to go higher from here, and even if a few high flyers do get clipped, that doesn’t mean that the rest of the economy will be in trouble.

Our investment process favors patience. We focus our portfolios towards the cheaper segments of the market which have lagged. We look for reversion to the mean, investing as contrarians, rather than chasing momentum. Our value funds and REIT ETF had positive returns, but were detractors from performance, as was our allocation to Alternatives. However, I remain committed to these positions because they are relatively cheap. While they did not beat the market over the past 6 months, our rationale for holding them has only grown more compelling.

In fixed income, the US Aggregate Bond Index (iShares ticker AGG) was up 2.40% year to date. Our fixed income allocations were ahead of AGG by 30 to 80 bps, with higher yields and lower duration. Our position in Emerging Market bonds was a standout performer for the half. I continue to keep a close watch on high yield bonds, but overall think we are well positioned for today’s economy and potential future rate hikes.

I write about the markets twice a year, and not more frequently, to not distract us from sticking to a long-term allocation. We focus on what we know works over time: diversification, keeping costs low, using index funds for core positions, and tilting towards value. Our discipline means that we don’t let short-term events pull us away from our strategy.

Looking at the first half, our fixed income and international equity holdings did quite well. Our value and alternatives holdings have not yet had their day in the sun. However, if the market does eventually realize that the US tech stocks have gotten “irrationally exuberant”, I think we will be glad we have our more defensive positions.

What Are Today’s Projected Returns?

Posted On June 18, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Financial Planning, Portfolio Management /

One of the reasons I selected the financial planning software we use, MoneyGuidePro, is because it offers the ability to make projections based on historical OR projected returns. Most programs only use historical returns in their calculations, which I think is a grave error today. Historical returns were outstanding, but I fear that portfolio returns going forward will be lower for several reasons, including:

Above-average equity valuations today. Lower dividend yields than in the past.
Slower growth of GDP, labor supply, inflation, and other measures of economic development.
Higher levels of government debt in developed economies will crowd out spending.
Very low interest rates on bonds and cash mean lower returns from those segments.

By using projected returns, we are considering these factors in our financial plans. While no one has a crystal ball to predict the future, we can at least use all available information to try to make a smarter estimate. The projected returns used by MoneyGuidePro were calculated by Harold Evensky, a highly respected financial planner and faculty member at Texas Tech University.

We are going to compare historical and projected returns by asset class and then look at what those differences mean for portfolio returns. Keep in mind that projected returns are still long-term estimates, and not a belief of what will happen in 2017 or any given year. Rather, projected returns are a calculation of average returns that we think might occur over a period of very many years.

Asset Class	Historical Returns	Projected Returns
Cash	4.84%	2.50%
Intermediate Bonds	7.25%	3.50%
Large Cap Value	10.12%	7.20%
Small Cap	12.58%	7.70%
International	9.27%	8.00%
Emerging Markets	8.85%	9.30%

You will notice that most of the expected returns are much lower than historical, with the sole exception of Emerging Markets. For cash and bonds, the projected returns are about half of what was achieved since 1970, and even that reduced cash return of 2.50% is not possible as of 2017.

In order to estimate portfolio returns, we want two other pieces of data: the standard deviation of each asset class (its volatility) and the correlation between each asset class. In those areas, we are seeing that the trend of recent decades has been worse for portfolio construction: volatility is projected to be higher and assets are more correlated. It used to be that International Stocks behaved differently that US Stocks, but in today’s global economy, that difference is shrinking.

This means that our projected portfolios not only have lower returns, but also higher volatility, and that diversification is less beneficial as a defense than it used to be. Let’s consider the historical returns and risks of two portfolios, a Balanced Allocation (54% equities, 46% fixed income), and a Total Return Allocation (72% equities, 28% fixed income)

Portfolio	Historical Return	Standard Deviation	Projected Return	Standard Deviation
Balanced	8.53%	9.34%	5.46%	10.59%
Total Return	9.18%	12.20%	6.27%	14.23%

That’s pretty sobering. If you are planning for a 30-year retirement under the assumption that you will achieve historical returns, but only obtain these projected returns, it is certainly going to have a big impact on your ability to meet your retirement withdrawal needs. This calculation is something we don’t want to get wrong and figure out 10 years into retirement that we have been spending too much and are now projected to run out of money.

As an investor, what can you do in light of lower projected returns? Here are five thoughts:

Use projected returns rather than historical if you want to be conservative in your retirement planning.
Emerging Markets are cheap today and are projected to have the highest total returns going forward. We feel strongly that they belong in a diversified portfolio.
We can invest in bonds for stability, but bonds will not provide the level of return going forward that they achieved in recent decades. It is very unrealistic to assume historical returns for bond holdings today!
Investors focused on long-term growth may want more equities than they needed in the past.
Although projected returns are lower than historical, there may be one bright spot. Inflation is also quite low today. So, achieving a 6% return while inflation is 2% is roughly comparable in preserving your purchasing power as getting an 8% return under 4% inflation. Inflation adjusted returns are called Real Returns, and may not be as dire as the projected returns suggest.

10 Ways to Wreck Your Portfolio

Posted On March 19, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Behavioral Finance, Portfolio Management /

Over the years, I’ve seen hundreds of portfolios and 401(k) accounts, and observed investors make tons of mistakes. Admittedly, I have made many of these errors on my own as well, just to double check! Here’s your chance to learn from others’ losses. But, if you still insist that you want to ruin your rate of return, go ahead and make these 10 mistakes…

1) Rely on Past Performance. You invest with winners, not losers! Just find the top performing fund offered by your 401(k) and put all your money in there. That’s why they say past performance is a guarantee of future returns, or something like that.

2) Don’t diversify. Have you seen that Chinese Small-Cap BioTech fund? Why invest in the whole market when you can bet on one tiny, minuscule sliver?

3) Ignore the fact that 80% of actively managed funds under perform their benchmark over five years. You’re going to pick funds from the other 20%. Indexing is for people who are willing to settle for average.

4) Put as much money as possible into your company stock. It’s beat the S&P 500 for X number of years, therefore you’d be stupid to ever take your money out of company stock or to cash in your options. And since you work there, you know more about this investment than anyone. Just like the employees at Nortel, Worldcom, and Enron.

5) To avoid paying taxes, don’t sell your winners. Don’t rebalance or sell overvalued shares. Later, if the stock is down 40% you can pat yourself on the back: “Thank God I didn’t sell when it was up and have to pay 15% tax on my gains. I dodged that bullet!”

6) Never sell your losers either. The loss isn’t real until you sell, and the most important thing is to protect your ego. If you hold on, eventually, you should get your money back. So what if another fund returns 60% while you are waiting for yours to rebound 30%? (Says the guy who has old General Motors shares that are worthless from when the company filed for bankruptcy and wiped out their stockholders.)

7) Do it yourself. Don’t use funds or ETFs, pick individual stocks yourself! It will be fun and easy. Just look at all those smiling people on the commercials for online brokers, they’re getting rich from their kitchen tables! Anyone can beat those fancy investment managers with their extensive training, huge research departments, and decades of experience. And if you spend all day watching your portfolio, it magically grows faster!

8) You know when to get in and out of the market. It’s not market timing if you know what you’re doing. When the market is down, it’s a bad market, so don’t buy then. Wait until the market goes back up before you make your purchases. You should toss out a detailed 20-year financial plan if your gut tells you. And by gut, of course, we mean CNBC, Fox News, or whatever you watched in the preceding 48 hours.

9) When the market is down, your funds are horrible, the managers incompetent, and the market is rigged. When your portfolio is up, it’s because of your brilliant mind for finance. You are investing for decades, but if your portfolio doesn’t go up every single quarter something is horribly wrong with your approach. Change everything you own when this happens.

10) All the good investments are reserved for the wealthy. You can only become rich by investing in complicated, non-transparent private placements or limited partnerships in oil, real estate, leasing, or something you cannot explain in less than three minutes. And it’s rude to ask how much these programs charge, that’s so gauche. On a related note, you should always buy penny stocks that you hear about through an email.

I know no one really wants to wreck their portfolio, but from my vantage point, a lot of our investment pains appear self-inflicted. I can help you avoid these ten mistakes and many, many others. Even more important than avoiding errors, together we can create a financial plan and investment program that will be tailored to your goals, rather than focusing on what the market might do this month or this year.

Professional advice. Comprehensive financial planning. Evidence-based investment management. Ongoing evaluation, monitoring, and adjustment. Those are our tools to help investors succeed. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be years when the market is down, but it does mean we will be better prepared and much less likely to make the mistakes which can make things worse.

Do Top Performing Funds Persist?

Posted On February 27, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management /

How do you pick the funds for your 401(k)? I know a lot of people will look at the most recent performance chart and put their money into the funds with the best recent returns. After all, you’d want to be in the top funds, not the worst funds, right? You’d want to invest with the managers who have the most skill, based on their results.

We’ve all heard that “past performance is no guarantee of future results”, and yet our behavior often suggests that we actually believe the opposite: if a fund has out-performed for 1, 3, or 5 years, we believe it is due to manager skill and the fund is indeed more likely to continue to out-perform than other funds.

But is that true? Do better performing funds continue to stay at the top? We know the answer to this question, thanks to the people at S&P Dow Jones Indices, who twice a year publish their Persistence Scorecard (link).

Looking at the entire universe of actively managed mutual funds, they rank fund performance by quartiles, with the 1st quartile being the top performing 25% of funds, and the 4th quartile being the bottom 25% of funds.

Let’s consider the “Five Year Transition Matrix”, which ranks funds over five years and then follows how they perform in the subsequent five year period. For the most recent Persistence Scorecard, published in December 2016, this looks at funds’ five-year performance in September 2011, and then how they ranked five years later in September 2016.

Here’s how the top quartile of all domestic funds fared in the subsequent 5-year period:
20.09% remained in the top quartile
18.93% fell to the second quartile
20.56% fell to the third quartile
27.80% fell to the bottom quartile
10.75% were merged or liquidated, and did not exist five years later

The sad thing is that if you picked a fund in the top quartile, there was only a 20% chance that your fund remained in the top quartile for the next five years. But there was a more than 38% chance that your top performing fund became a worst performing fund or was shut down completely in the next five years.

Another interesting statistic: the percentage of large cap funds that stayed in the top half for five years in a row was 4.47%. If you simply did a coin flip, you’d expect this number to be 6.25%. The number of funds that stayed in the top half is slightly worse than random.

The Persistence Scorecard is a pretty big blow to the notion of picking a fund based on its past performance. And it’s significant evidence that we should not be making investment choices based on Morningstar ratings or advertisements touting funds which were top performers.

Should you do the opposite? I wish it was as simple as buying the bottom-performing funds, but they don’t fare any better. Funds in the bottom quartile had a similarly random distribution into the other three quartiles, but had a much higher chance of being merged or liquidated.

There are a couple of possible explanations for funds’ lack of persistence:

Styles can go out of favor; a “value” manager may out-perform in one period and not the following period. Hence a seemingly perpetual rotation of leaders.
Successful managers may attract large amounts of capital, making them less agile and less likely to out-perform.
There may be more randomness and luck to managers’ returns, rather than skill, than they would like to have us believe.

Unfortunately, the S&P data shows that for whatever reason, there is little evidence for persistence. Investors need a more sophisticated investment approach than picking the funds which had the best performance. The Persistence Scorecard highlights why performance chasing doesn’t work for investors: yesterday’s winners are often tomorrow’s losers.

What to do then? We focus on creating a target asset allocation, using a core of low-cost, tax efficient index ETFs and a satellite component of assets with attractive fundamentals. What we don’t do is change funds every year because another fund performed better than ours. That kind of activity has the potential for being highly damaging to your long-term returns.

I hope you will take the time to read the Persistence Scorecard. It will give you actual data to understand better why we say past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Diversification and Regret

Posted On February 6, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Behavioral Finance, Portfolio Management / 1 Comment

Diversification is one of the key principles of portfolio management. It can reduce idiosyncratic risks of individual stocks or sectors and can give a smoother performance trajectory, or as financial analysts prefer to say, a “superior risk-adjusted return” over time. Everyone sees the wisdom of not putting all your eggs in one basket, but the reality is that diversification can sometimes be frustrating, too.

Being diversified means holding many different types of investments: stocks and bonds, domestic and international stocks, large cap and small cap, traditional and alternative assets. Not all of those assets are going to perform well at the same time. This leads to a behavioral phenomenon called Tracking Error Regret, which some investors may be feeling today.

When their portfolio lags a popular benchmark, such as the Dow Jones Industrials or the S&P 500, Investors often regret being diversified and think that they should get out of their poorly performing funds and concentrate in those funds which have done better. (Learn about the benchmarks we use here.)

It’s understandable to want to boost performance, but we have to remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results. Many people receive a snapshot from their 401(k) listing their available funds with columns showing annualized performance. Consider these two funds:

	3-year	5-year	10-year	Expense Ratio
S&P 500 ETF (SPY)	11.10%	13.55%	6.88%	0.10%
Emerging Markets ETF (VWO)	2.83%	-0.07%	2.24%	0.15%

Source: Morningstar, as of 2/06/2017

Looking at the performance, there is a clear hands-down winner, right? And if you have owned the Emerging Markets fund, wouldn’t you want to switch to the “better” fund?

These types of charts are so dangerous to investors because they reinforce Performance Chasing and for diversified investors, cause Tracking Error Regret. Instead of looking backwards at what worked over the past 10 years, let’s look at the Fundamentals, at how much these stocks cost today. The same two funds:

	Price/Earnings	Price/Book	Dividend Yield	Cash Flow Growth
S&P 500 ETF (SPY)	18.66	2.65	2.21%	0.33%
Emerging Markets ETF (VWO)	12.34	1.51	3.37%	5.09%

Source: Morningstar, as of 2/06/2017

Now this chart tells a very different story. Emerging Market Stocks (EM) cost about one-third less than US stocks, based on earnings or book value. EM has a 50% higher dividend yield and these companies are growing their cash flow by 5% a year, versus only 0.33% a year for US companies.

I look at the fundamentals when determining portfolio weightings, not past performance. If you only looked at the performance chart, you’d miss seeing that EM stocks are cheap today and US stocks are more expensive. That is no guarantee that EM will beat the S&P 500 over the next 12 months, but it is a pretty good reason to stay diversified and not think that today’s winners are bound to continue their streak forever.

Performance chasing often means buying something which has become expensive, frequently near the top. That’s why I almost never recommend sector funds or single country funds (think Biotech or Korea); the investment decision is too often based on recent performance and those types of funds tend to make us less diversified rather than more diversified.

Staying diversified means that you will own some positions which are not performing as well as others in your portfolio. When the S&P 500 is having a great year, a diversified portfolio often lags that benchmark. But, when the S&P 500 is down 37% like it was in 2008, you may be glad that you own some bonds and other assets.

We use broadly diversified ETFs and mutual funds, with a willingness to rebalance and buy those positions when they are down. We have a value bent to our weightings and are willing to own assets like Emerging Markets, even if they haven’t been among the top performers in recent years. Staying diversified and focusing on the long-term plan means that you have to ignore Tracking Error Regret and Performance Chasing. Just remember that you can’t drive a car forward by looking in the rear-view mirror.

Why We’re Adding Alternatives for 2017

Posted On January 1, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management /

For 2017, we are adding a 10% allocation to Alternatives to our Premier Wealth Management model portfolios (those over $250,000). The 10% allocation will be taken pro rata from both equity and fixed income categories. A 60/40 portfolio, for example, will have 6% taken from equities and 4% from fixed income, for a new allocation that is 54% Equities, 36% Fixed, and 10% Alternatives. We made some trades in December during our year-end tax reviews, and will make the rest of the trades in the next week.

Why Alternatives? The goal of Alternatives is to provide a positive return without being tied to the stock market or interest rates. Our aim is to diversify your portfolio further with a source of uncorrelated returns. Ideally, this can provide a smoother ride and dampen our portfolio volatility. (See Morningstar on Alternatives: When, Why, and Which Ones?)

That’s the goal, but investing in Alternatives poses its own set of unique challenges. Unlike stocks and bonds, there are many types of “Alternative” investment strategies. Alternatives is a catch-all category that encompasses everything from Real Estate, Gold, Commodities, Futures, Long/Short Equity, Arbitrage, to any other Hedge Fund process. And then there are multi-strategy funds which may combine four, five, or more unrelated strategies or managers.

Even within one category, some funds may do quite well and other funds poorly in the same year. That is a much smaller risk in equities, where, for example, most large cap funds are going to have a positive return when the S&P 500 Index is up and a negative return when the Index is down. In Alternatives, there is a wide dispersion of returns even within a single category.

Our view of Alternatives, then, is that it is a satellite holding that we want to employ tactically, rather than a core strategy that we hold at all times. We think the environment of 2017 could be just such a time to want to include Alternatives.

We enter the year with equities at or near their all-time highs and valuations somewhat above their historical averages. 2016 gave us a very nice return in US stocks: 9.5% in the S&P 500 and 19.4% in the small cap Russell 2000. The maxim that “the market climbs a wall of worry” definitely was the case in 2016. While the market confounds expectations frequently, valuations, not sentiment, are our guide to how we weight segments in our allocation. Valuations today, both relative and absolute, suggest diversifying from US stocks.

In fixed income, we saw a remarkable summer low in interest rates, with the 10-Year Treasury trading at a 1.6% yield. The second half of the year was painful for bondholders, with interest rates rising a full 1% on the 10-Year. It was such a dramatic move that we think it would be a mistake to think that interest rates can continue to increase at a linear projection of the past six months. Still, we may have just seen the end of the 30 year Bull market in bonds and that suggests expected returns going forward will be both lower and more volatile than historic returns.

Our goal within each portfolio is not only to grow your wealth, but to protect and preserve what you already have. Our modelling of adding the 10% allocation to Alternatives suggests that we can potentially reduce portfolio volatility and improve the risk/reward characteristics of our models. While that is no guarantee that returns will be positive in 2017, I want you to know that we are constantly monitoring, studying, and looking for quantifiable ways to better manage your money.

When would you not want Alternatives? If you went back to the lows of March 2009, the start of the current Bull Market, adding Alternatives would have held back your performance. They aren’t aiming to generate double digit returns, which you can sometimes get in equities on a snap-back like 2009. But that’s not where we are in January 2017. Today, with US stocks and bonds looking a bit expensive, we are looking to strengthen our defensive. (ICYMI, our Four Investment Themes for 2017)

As always, I’m happy to chat about your goals, the state of the market, or what we do in our investment management process. Give me a call or drop me a note. One of the reasons why we write about investing in the blog, is to communicate to everyone at the same time and then when we do have our next meeting or call, we can focus 100% on you and not the market.

Four Investment Themes for 2017

Posted On November 14, 2016 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management / 2 Comments

Each November and December, I undertake a complete review of our Premier Wealth Management Portfolio Models and make tactical adjustments for the year ahead. We have five risk levels: Conservative (roughly 35% equities / 65% fixed income), Balanced (50/50), Moderate (60/40), Growth (70/30), and Aggressive (85/15).

Our investment process is tactical and contrarian. Each year we look for those market opportunities which have attractive and low valuations, and increase our weighting to those segments, while decreasing those categories which appear more expensive. We include Core positions, which offer broad diversification and are the essential and permanent foundation of our portfolios. And we purchase Satellite positions which we feel offer a compelling current opportunity in a more narrow or niche investment category. Typically, there are 12-15 positions in total, consisting of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and Mutual Funds.

While we are not afraid to make changes to our models, we believe that when it comes to trading, less is more. We want to minimize taxable sales and especially to avoid short-term capital gains. That’s why we only change the models once a year, although we also believe that more frequent trading would be likely to be detrimental rather than return enhancing.

For 2017, our portfolio changes will be based on three considerations:
1) Relative valuations (reducing expensive stocks and adding to the inexpensive segments).
2) Replacing our holdings in a few categories, where another fund appears to offers a better risk/return profile.
3) Our world view of the markets in 2017, which is more focused on identifying risk than trying to predict the top performing investments. No matter what, diversification remains more valuable than our opinions about investment opportunities.

Here then are our four investment themes for 2017:

1) Low for Longer
Although interest rates may have bottomed in 2016, it does not appear that there will be a V-shaped recovery. We think interest rates, inflation, Domestic and Global GDP will all remain quite low for 2017.

2) Full Valuations
US Equities are no longer cheap. Years of central banks holding interest rates near zero (or actually negative in some countries this year) has forced investors into risk assets. This has driven up PE multiples. And while I would not call this a bubble, you can’t say that the US market is cheap today. That means that equity growth going forward is likely to be tepid.

Low bond yields pushed investors into dividend stocks, specifically to consumer staples and utilities, which are perhaps the most “bond-like”. These categories seem to be especially bloated and could underperform.

Turning to bonds, the yield on the 10-Year Treasury has increased from 1.6% to 2% in the past three months. Time will tell, but could this summer have been the peak of the 30-year bull market in bonds? I don’t know, but when yields are this low, prices on long-term bonds can move dramatically. We invest in bonds for income and stability and to balance out the equity risk in our portfolios. We’re not interested in using bonds to speculate on the direction of interest rates.

While there may not be an equity level of risk in bonds, it is safe to say that the price of bonds globally is higher in 2016 than it has ever been before. Bonds are much less attractive than five years ago, although we find some pockets that interest us and may at least give us a chance of exceeding inflation and earning a positive real return on our money.

3) Leadership Rotation
I believe we are going to see a very gradual shift in three areas:

A) From Growth to Value. Since 2009, growth stocks have dominated value stocks. This tends to be cyclical, but over the long-term, value has outperformed. We see a widening valuation gap between popular growth stocks, some of which are trading at PEs of 100 or higher, and out of favor value companies. Value is showing signs of life in 2016, and we think that there will be mean reversion at some point that favors value.

B) From Domestic to Emerging. Over the past 5 years, US stocks have reigned. Boosted by a strong dollar and a global flight to quality, US stocks have outperformed others and become more expensive than international stocks. Emerging markets have languished and are now trading at a big discount to developed markets. But emerging economies have higher growth rates and overall, have less debt and more favorable demographics than developed markets. While volatility will be higher, Emerging markets could greatly outperform if you are looking out 10 or 20 years from now.

C) From Bonds to Commodities. In 2016 we have already seen a rebound in oil, gold, and other commodity prices. After years of commodity prices falling, have we put in a bottom? We don’t have commodities in our models currently, but when inflation and interest rates start to pick up, I expect to see commodities gain and bonds suffer. That’s why the bull market in bonds may well end at the same time as the bear market in commodities. 2017 may be a good year to start diversifying for long-term investors.

4) High Risk, Low Return
With full valuations in equities and very low interest rates in bonds, expected returns for a Balanced or Moderate allocation are likely to be noticeably lower than historical returns. While volatility has been actually very mild for the past several years, investors should not be lulled into thinking that their portfolios will continue to grind higher without the possibility of a 10% or 20% correction.

Unfortunately, in today’s global economy, it seems less likely that a traditional diversification, for example, adding small cap and international stocks, will provide any sort of defense in the next bear market. We are expanding our investment universe to look for alternative strategies which can offer a true low correlation to equities. When the market is booming or even just recovering (like 2009), equities are often the top performers. But in a high risk, low return environment, we want some positions that offer the potential for positive returns with lower, different, or uncorrelated risks. If you want to explore these in greater detail, see our new Defensive Managers Select portfolio model.

These four investment themes are important considerations for how we position for 2017. You can get investments anywhere and they are becoming a low-cost commodity. However, what you cannot get anywhere is insight, personal service, and a custom-tailored individual financial plan. Investments are interesting, but we view them as a means to an end. Investments should accomplish your financial goals with the absolute least amount of risk necessary. The more interesting angle is how we can use investments to fulfill your plan just for you.

2016 Market Update

Posted On July 11, 2016 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Portfolio Management /

While the Brexit turmoil in June roiled markets, stocks, bonds, and our portfolio models finished in positive territory for the half-year through June 30. I am happy to provide periodic updates on market performance, but I would be remiss if I did not include my customary remarks that we really should not dwell on short-term performance, let alone mistakenly believe that this type of data should form the basis of our portfolio management or trading decisions.

Looking globally at equities, the iShares All-Country World ETF, ticker ACWI, was up 2.06% through June 30. Our US Large Cap ETF (IWB) tracks the Russell 1000 Index and was up 3.68%. Not surprisingly, international developed stocks were down slightly, with our ETF, VEA, down 1.93%. Strong performances were contributed by Emerging Markets (EEMV), which was up 7.36%, and top honors go to Real Estate Investment Trusts (VNQ) at 13.48%. All considered, not bad, and even the categories which were down – and received a great deal of news coverage – were in fact only down a couple of percent.

We may be starting to see a shift which I have been anticipating for several quarters. Value lagged growth for years, but that seems to be reversing in 2016. Same for Emerging Markets Equities: after years of trailing US stocks, their valuations have become too cheap to ignore and EM outperformed over the past six months. Our process is based on contrarian investing. We overweight the segments which are the cheapest and often, have performed the worst in recent years. “Buy low and sell high” means buying segments that are temporarily out of favor.

While stocks were up in the first half of the year, bonds were actually up more, thanks to interest rates’ steady decline. As fear picked up in the second quarter, investors fled to the safety of bonds, pushing prices up and yields down. As of last Friday, the 10-year US Treasury bond had a yield of 1.37% and the 30-year bond of 2.11%. It is absolutely unbelievable to see US bonds at these levels, except that the yields are even lower in Germany, Japan, and a handful of other developed countries. Through June 30, the US Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG) was up 5.30% and we saw even greater gains in our high yield and emerging markets debt funds.

Looking ahead to the second half of the year, I have modest expectations for stocks. The S&P 500 Index is currently over 2100, and it seems to stall each time we reach this level. I think the market needs to see significantly better than expected earnings to finally catapult the index over 2200. We should be prepared for increased volatility, like we saw in June. I would not hesitate to put money to work on any drops in equities.

If bonds were overvalued six months ago, they have only become more so today. However, that doesn’t guarantee that yields are poised to rip higher this year. There seems to be an increasing belief that these shockingly low yields are not a temporary phenomenon, but a new reality caused by the high debt, slow growth, zero inflation backdrop that seems to be spreading throughout the world. We will continue to emphasize short duration in our fixed income holdings. The quest for yield has become very expensive, and some investors may not realize the potentially high risks that accompany many 3, 4, and 5% yields.

We will not be making any changes to our model portfolios for the second half of 2016. We focus on low-cost index strategies that are diversified, tax efficient, liquid, and transparent. It’s a recipe for success for the patient investor. I am pleased that we are up this year, even if it just in the low single digits.

Funding Your Retirement With Dividends

Posted On May 2, 2016 By Admin In Retirement Planning /

Much has been studied, analyzed, and written about the “safe withdrawal rate” from a retirement portfolio, but unfortunately, there is no withdrawal rate that is guaranteed to work in all circumstances. The interest rates on bonds remains so low today that a portfolio of 60% equities and 40% bonds is almost certainly going to lag its historical return over the next decade. That’s a real danger to anyone who is basing their retirement withdrawals on past performance.