I write this column for "responsible investors": Hard working Americans saving for retirement or for their children's education.

I have nothing against those who want to speculate with their assets. However when speculators regale us with reports of outsized returns, it is important to challenge them for several reasons.

First, if they have discovered the holy grail of investing--big returns with little risk--we should all know about it and benefit from it.

Second, if their reports do not withstand scrutiny, we should know about that as well, so that investors are not deceived into believing that there really is a free lunch.

In my last column, I challenged a reader who reported that he had achieved returns of 32% a year for the past ten years. His system was simple. He stated that he "...pretty much followed the Motley Fool recommendations..."

When confronted with conflicting facts, he responded that he had neglected to mention that he also used "...the advice of another 'stock picker' you may know to help keep my fundamentals sound; his name is Warren Buffett and he seems to do ok."

His response stimulated a spirited discussion and many questions.

In order to deal with as many issues as I can that were raised in the ensuing dialogue, I am going to change the format of this week's column. I will ask myself questions reflecting your concerns and then answer them.

Let me know how you like this format.

Please continue to add your views and questions as comments to this blog. I find all of them helpful and thought provoking.

Question: What's wrong with relying on the "stock picking" advice of Warren Buffet?

Answer: Warren Buffet does not engage, or believe in, stock picking. He typically buys companies or plays an active management role as a member of the Board of Directors of the company in which he invests. His advice to investors is to buy index funds. Here is a quote from his 2007 Chairman's letter:

But this group [active investors] will incur high transaction, management and advisory costs. Therefore, the active investors will have their returns diminished by a far greater percentage than will their inactive brethren. That means that the passive group--the 'know nothings'--must win.

My advice to investors mirrors Warren Buffet's.

It is interesting to note that the compounded annual gain of Berkshire Hathaway stock from 1965 to 2007 was 21.1%, which is significantly less than the gain reported by the reader who says he relied on Warren Buffet's "stock picking" advice.

Question: You are always talking about the difficulty of "beating the market." What does that mean?

Answer: "Beating the market" refers to the efforts by investors to obtain higher returns from their portfolios than they would be able to achieve by purchasing an index fund that had a comparable level of risk.

Most investors do not know how much risk they are incurring with their portfolios, so they are unable to determine the benchmark or index to which it should be compared.

Question: Why do you fail to acknowledge the fact that many investors and funds are successful in "beating the markets"?

Answer: I don't. Every year, approximately one-third of all mutual funds beat their benchmark. Over a ten year period, only about 5% of them are able to do so.

There have been some notable exceptions. Bill Miller, who manages the Legg Mason Value Trust Mutual Fund, beat his benchmark for 15 years in a row. However, by the end of 2007, the three-year annualized returns of the fund he manages were 3.64 percentage points below the S & P 500.

My point is not that beating the markets is impossible. It is that it is a negative sum game when you consider the costs and the significant odds against achieving this goal over the long term. I have yet to see any peer reviewed study indicating that success is based on skill rather than luck.

Question: Why isn't the formula for investment success to buy "good companies" and stay focused on fundamentals?

Answer: To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what your definition of "good companies" is. Companies with good fundamentals or companies that yield superior returns?

As I noted in a previous blog, the stocks of poorly managed companies, with bleak prospects, have historically outperformed investments in well-managed, financially healthy, companies over the long term.

In addition, it is somewhat naïve of investors to believe that they can find mispricings in the market when thousands of highly paid analysts are scrutinizing all publicly available information about every stock.

Finally, if there was a system that permitted outsized returns by analyzing stocks in a certain manner, or by following a well-defined methodology, it would be published in a peer reviewed journal like The Journal of Finance.

There is no such published study. That should tell you something.

Question: If I had listened to you, I would have been long in the market and lost money this year. How do you explain that?

Answer: Not true. If you had listened to me you would have determined an asset allocation appropriate for your investment objectives and tolerance for risk. If you concluded that the risk of any loss in the market for any period of time was unacceptable, you would not have invested in the market. Instead, your portfolio would have been in CDs, Treasury Bills or a short term bond index fund.

If you determined that you could withstand some market risk, you would have incurred losses so far this year, but you would understand that the market has risks and that short term volatility is one of those risks. You would be prepared to hold on for the long term and would not turn unrealized losses into realized ones.

Question: Your investment advice seems to ignore the dire straits that our economy is in. Why?

Answer: My investment advice is that investors should determine their risk level and invest in a globally diversified portfolio of index funds. These portfolios can range from very conservative to very aggressive.

I do not have the ability to predict the future of the economy and make no judgment -- positive or negative -- about the direction of the markets. I can find no data indicating that anyone has this ability.

I understand that some readers believe we are headed towards financial Armageddon. I don't know if they are right or wrong. If they believe this is the case, they should not take any market risk. Of course, if they are wrong, they will be taking meaningful inflation and tax risks.

Question: How should investors protect themselves from a falling dollar?

Answer: Some readers believe that the dollar will keep falling "for another ten years." These predictions are very unreliable. I am opposed to currency speculation because of its inherent risk. For example, if it is true that the dollar will keep falling, what currencies would be a better investment: China? India? The Euro? How would you make that determination?

I have advised investors to have a globally diversified portfolio and to invest 30% of the stock portion of their portfolios in international stocks, using low cost index funds like Vanguard's Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX) or Fidelity's Spartan International Index Fund (FSIIX). For the bond portion of your portfolio, I have recommended that investors have 50% invested in foreign bonds. The SPDR Lehman International Treasury Bond ETF (BWX) would be worthy of consideration. Other foreign bond funds include the Oppenheimer International Bond Fund, unhedged (OIBAX), the Templeton Global Bond Fund, hedged (TPINX), the Alliance Bernstein Global Bond Fund leveraged, un-hedged (ANAGX) and the T. Rowe Price International Bond Fund (RPIBX).

Dimensional Fund Advisors has passively managed, foreign bond funds (which are part of my personal portfolio and in which I place my clients). These include the DFA Two Year Global Fixed Income Index Fund, and the DFA Five Year Global Fixed Income Index Fund.

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.


 
 

Comments
22
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Stocks are like girlfriends (when you think about it). And...wallstreet offers romance in that way which we have come to understand by connection with the hard nosed governor Spitzer.

A farmer may have a bumper crop, but a price movement in an ownership abstraction that is engineered by a stock analyst working with a hedgie, now there is an orgasm.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:10 AM on 03/27/2008

Here are three scenarios that will significantly beat the market:

1) Buy Berkshire Hathaway stock , which generated a historical average of 21.1% according to you. This compares to the 0% gain in the S&P over the past nine years ...negative if you count inflation ...and probably with alot further to drop.

2) Watch the 20 week and 50 week simple moving averages for the S&P 500. When the 20 is above the 50 be fully invested in stock. When the 50 is above the 20 go to cash or treasuries (or possibly short if you are more experienced).

see Karl Denninger - http://market-ticker.denninger.net/2008/03/not-durable-durable-goods-and-more-bear.html - about half way down the page he discusses #2.

3) Similar to #2, when the S&P Price/Earnings ratio (P/E Ratio) is above 20 sell your equities and go to cash, treasuries or shorts. When the PE goes below 10, buy equities again.

see Dr. John Hussman - http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc070702.htm - article is about a very similar model to #3.

Here is your holy grail sir ...buy low and sell high (#2 or #3) ...or let Warren do it for you(#1).

Finally, God help the "responsible investors" ...most of them do not have a clue about investments, yet we are facing the worst financial crisis since the depression. Whatever they have invested may well get wiped out in the next couple years.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:04 AM on 03/27/2008

I appreciate where you're going, but...

1) 1965 - 2007 ain't exactly the past nine years.

2 and 3) Have you "back-tested" these strategies?

Cheers.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:07 AM on 03/27/2008

Good points...

1) I can only get data back to 1990 on Berkshire, but from 1990-Present they grew about 1700% compared to the S&P's 300%. Also, from 2000 to Presnt when the S&P grew 0%, Berkshire grew 120%.

2) Nope, but the articles cover historical returns (particularly Hussman). The only issue I saw with the moving average was when the market drops too fast (like 1987 and 1929). You would still end up a lot better than most ...and would retain more of your initial investment to recover quicker. Both of these systems allow you to avoid most of the bear markets ...and have you invested during most of the bull markets.

Buy low, sell high! That's all these two systems are telling you...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 03/27/2008

# 2 actually works extremely well, problem is Jim might be significantly underestimating the whipsaw of getting in when 1 minute the signal goes off and 10 minutes later it is no longer valid, then 10 minutes later it goes off again, than a day later it's no valid. Fun game huh...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 03/27/2008

worldtraveller ...Actually these are the 20 week and 50 week moving averages, which don't cross very often. I don't have my graph in front of me, but I think they only crossed about 3 or 4 times in the past 10 years.

The PE and Moving Average plans are both fairly low maintenance plans. If you track them both you might spend 10 minutes a month.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 PM on 03/27/2008

Love it all; new format, common sense, empirical advice.

I read Solin to sigh, and Bonddad to pull my hair out.

Keep up the good work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:41 PM on 03/26/2008

I am reading your column with much interest and enjoy it. I am not an investor in stocks. I do find it interesting but have found investing in my own business to be more lucrative than stocks considering the modest amount of money I have available. I would suggest that for some folks it might be wiser to invest in themselves and their ideas rather than invest in the various markets. The returns might be weak at first but if you stick to your own business rather than trying to capitalize on others you may find a better return on your investment. What do you think?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 03/26/2008

Dan,
Advice I like
1- Investment advisers are basically worthless
2-Vanguard is a phenomenal place to keep money
3- Few can beat markets

but you just floored me, did you actually say "You would have incurred losses so far this year...you would be prepared to hold on for the long term and would not turn unrealized losses into realized ones."

I swear I would seriously consider firing someone for saying that, where closing price is acts as settlement and if it is lower than the purchase price than you HAVE TAKEN A LOSS. wishful thinking that it will eventually go back up does not mean it is not a realized loss, your statement sees it as a loss, your current net worth sees it as a loss.. IT IS A REALIZED LOSS!! If I bought Google at 700 and today it is 400 but I have not yet sold it makes it no different. It is a REALIZED LOSS!!!!

Even as a random walker you should agree that a binomial distribution would suggest an almost equal likelyhood of up to down (not exactly since it is really a lognormal distribution.. but regardless 60% up to 40% down depending on volatility)

Please be more careful with statements like that. they are wrong!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:14 PM on 03/26/2008

continued...
The reason investors, as well as us tax geeks, pay attention to this is that, in general, holding a stock for more time will lose you less money, and make you more money, then selling your dogs and buying new ones. The standard idea of a "balanced portfolio," is that when your stocks lose value you buy more, because now you are buying at a discount. When your stocks go up you sell, and take your gains. It is counterintuitive and rather hard emotionally, but it is consistantly the best way to make money in the market.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 03/26/2008

There are many number 1 rules to trading but THE number 1 is "ride the gains.. cut the losses short." NEVER let yourself take a big loss, use stops under your trades. So adding more length into Google, Yahoo, Cisco, Enron, Bear Stearns on the way down did what for you?? Make you broke exponentially faster is the correct answer to that.

Think what you are saying you would have sold each of those early on the way up and seen no significant gains but then had you gotten long again later on you would have rode it all the way down and even added to it losing even more.

If picking stocks is a coin toss and your bet is 50/50 than how can you make if you always take 10% gains but 30% losses. I've been doing this since I was 12 and sorry to tell you but the math doesn't work Aaror.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 AM on 03/27/2008

Mr Solin is using an investment and tax term, an "unrealized loss," is a loss on a stock not yet sold. You cannot deduct this loss on your taxes because you have not sold the asset at a loss and "realized," it. A "realized loss," is a loss cemented by selling the stock.
There is more than wishful thinking involved in this. In your example of Google, you have an unrealized loss of $300 per share. There is a chance the stock will go up, in which case your unrealized loss will decrease, and there is a chance the stock will go down, which will increase your unrealized loss. Now, lets say that you don't sell Google for a year, and the price goes up to $800 per share, at which point you sell it. Did you lose $300 per share and then make $400? Not really, you bought it at $700 and sold it at $800, giving you a gain of $100 per share. Until you sell the stock you have not realized any gain or loss.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 PM on 03/26/2008

I won't go deep into the tax thing as I live in the world of section 1256 accounting so your comments do not apply to me, regardless I think Dans comments have always been about return and staying to apples to apples i will stay on overall returns. Lets just say the point of attempting to force companies to go to mark to market accounting was in order to stop the foolishness of unrealized gains vs losses and forcing companies to mark to fair value.(not like it happened)

Now if you had $1,000,000 in Bear Stearns a year ago and your current statement says you now have $70,000 and you want to think you didn't realize a loss of $930,000 only because you haven't liquidated your position all the power to you.

p.s. i like how your google example ends with it going back up 100% Hope you are not still waiting for your long Yahoo from 1999 to do that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:58 AM on 03/27/2008


"I understand that some readers believe we are headed towards financial Armageddon."

"I write this column for "responsible investors": Hard working Americans saving for retirement or for their children's education."

Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the massive debt level of individuals, corporations and the government of this country? Why haven't the unprecedented actions of the Fed caused you any alarm? If Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citi Group and even JP Morgan and Bank of American end up being bailed out by the Fed or even nationalized will that alter your advice? How about if the Federal Government ends up buying a couple trillion dollars in bad mortgages with even more fiat currency? How about if unemployment rises to 25-30 percent or higher?

I'm trying to ask if even you, at some point, will have to pull the blinders off and, if only for the sake of 'Hard working Americans saving for retirement', acknowledge no system is infallible...even index funds!

Someone once said that the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. I submit that capitalism shouldn't be either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 03/26/2008

Dan you say - "I have yet to see any peer reviewed study indicating that success is based on skill rather than luck"

You provide your own proof

"Over a ten year period, only about 5% of them are able to do so."

Statistically speaking as a random walker, such as you yourself state that you are, that number should have been 1/10th of 1 percent. If of course the 5% is beating it every year, you weren't clear on that.

Actually from my experience I would have thought the number would be lower but I made my living once taking money from people that thought they could beat the market... Unless you have an advantage, with few exceptions, you will not beat the averages.I agree with you on that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 03/26/2008

It's gambling, pure and simple. Call it what it is and be done with it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 03/26/2008

That takes the "fun" out of it, MrC.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:20 PM on 03/26/2008

It's only gambling if it's with your money, and if you don't already know the outcome!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:19 PM on 03/26/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Stock Quote

Enter a ticker symbol below:

Data provided by AOL



 
 
Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Dan Solin›
 

 Site  Web ask.com