In a recent post on the NY Times Bucks blog, portfolio manager and author Richard Ferri shared his own personal portfolio. As a proponent of low-cost, passive investing, it was not surprising to see mostly index funds in his portfolio, but it was interesting to see that his overall asset allocation is 80% stocks and 20% bonds. He is quick to note that he does have a pension and defined-benefit plans which balance out his overall financial picture. Wouldn’t you like to know what all those financial advisors out there actually own?

Asset Allocation

Here is his asset allocation broken down into stocks and bonds separately using pretty pie charts:

Here’s the overall 80/20 breakdown with ticker symbols (based on this Bogleheads post):

34% Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI)
10% S&P SmallCap 600 Value Index Fund (IJS)
5% Ultra-Small Company Market (BRSIX)
8% Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ)

6.5% Vanguard Pacific ETF (VPL)
6.5% Vanguard European ETF (VGK)
5% DFA International Small Cap Value
5% DFA Emerging Markets Core
—- [alternative: Vanguard Emerging Markets ETF (VWO)]

12% Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Fund Investor Shares (VBMFX)
4% Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund Investor Shares (VIPSX)
4% Vanguard High-Yield Corporate Fund Investor Shares (VWEHX)

Reading his book All About Asset Allocation was very helpful in creating my own portfolio. (Also see Model Portfolio #3 taken from that book.) I haven’t been updating my own own portfolio asset allocation as diligently as I should, although I have been keeping track of it. Here’s the last snapshot I took:

I’ve had some asset allocation drift for sure, although I have been countering this by rebalancing with new funds. I really need an update…

Emergency Funds

It’s also interesting to note that he keeps an emergency fund of two years’ living expenses, and that he uses the Vanguard Short-Term Bond (BSV) with a current SEC yield of 1.08%. Very simple and almost no-maintenance.

I prefer using a mix of high interest savings accounts and longer-term CDs/rewards-type checking accounts. I figure that index fund investors get so excited by saving 10 basis points (0.10%) on mutual fund, but with a bit of work you could beat a short-term bond fund by 100 basis points (1%) with what I would call less risk.

Bond funds still have risk to principal, meaning you may have to sell for less than you bought in for, while FDIC-insured bank accounts do not. Money market funds are currently averaging less than 0.10% yield.

The last time I wrote about stable value funds was in late 2008, both before the 2009 crash and a time when most of my 401k was in stocks. This time around, as I was trying to figure out how to rebalance my larger portfolio in a tax-efficient manner, I took another look at this asset class found almost exclusively in defined-contribution plans like 401ks. According to the Stable Value Investment Association (SVIA), approximately 15 to 20 percent of 401(k) assets are in stable value funds.

What are Stable Value Funds?

Generally, stable value funds are a bunch of bonds which have a insurance “wrapper” around them which protects it from interest rate volatility. The intended result is a product that pays the higher interest rates of intermediate-term bonds, with the liquidity and stable day-to-day price of a money market fund. Think “cash but pays higher interest”. A chart from the SVIA [pdf] illustrates:

The Attraction

Here’s my current situation. The stable value fund in my 401k has a guaranteed net interest rate in 2010 of 3.50%. The low-cost Vanguard Intermediate-Term Bond Index Fund Investor Shares (VBIIX) currently yields 3.17%, but will have a moderate amount of price volatility, especially if interest rates rise. The Vanguard Prime Money Market Fund (VMMXX) currently yields 0.11% with its high-quality, ultra-short-term holdings and Vanguard backing.

I could get the stability of money market fund, with an interest rate more than 3% higher! (All yields are net of fees.)

The Risks

Higher interest rates with no price volatility? Free lunch? Not quite. First of all, any guarantee is only as good as the entity doing the guarantee. Check the safety ratings of the insurer of your fund. Mine is Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Co. (TFLIC):

Not the greatest, but not bad. In addition, there are actually several ways an insurer can get “out” of the contract. From the SVIA FAQ:

Are there instances when book value or contract value does not apply?
There are a few, limited instances when participants do not get book value from a stable value fund. These limited instances are typically contractually defined. One such instance typically not covered is security defaults or downgrades. In order to protect the integrity of the stable value fund, most contracts incorporate investment guidelines establishing minimum credit quality requirements for the underlying securities. These contracts have established mechanisms to address downgraded or defaulted securities that fall outside the contractual guidelines.

Corporate-initiated events, which are employer-driven events such as an early retirement program, layoff, or bankruptcy, are also typically not covered. Corporate-initiated events generally cause withdrawals in masse from a stable value fund. These withdrawals can negatively impact investors and plans that choose to remain in the fund.

First up, if the underlying securities turn out to be utter crap via a default or credit downgrade, then the insurance doesn’t apply? Wait, the insurer gets to choose the securities in the first place? Sometimes smells here. In fact, this happened in 2009 to the insurer State Street, although they decided to step in to make investors whole in order to preserve their reputation. Via this CBS Moneywatch article:

In December 2008 and January 2009, State Street elected to provide support – a total of $610 million – to the bond portfolio in stable value funds the company managed. State Street was not contractually obligated to do this. As the company’s 8-K filing (a report filed with the SEC to notify investors of any events that could be of importance to shareholders) stated, “liquidity and pricing issues in the fixed income markets” so affected the accounts that the wrappers “considered terminating their financial guarantees.” State Street’s action to bolster its portfolios kept the wrappers in place.

Finally, there is the “corporate-initiated event” of a huge layoff or bankruptcy. At the end of 2008, Lehman Brothers infamously went bankrupt, which left their stable value fund managed by Invesco with a negative return of 1.7 percent in December and an annual return for 2008 of 2 percent. In April 2009, a stable value fund for Chrysler employees only paid out 89 cents on the dollar, a drop of 11% due to the company’s troubles.

As you can see, there is a lot of things that can invalidate the guarantee. So, the next step is to understand the holdings, which in the event of a liquidation can help you imagine your worst-case scenario. You should be be able to see at least an overall breakdown of the assets, and a market-to-book-value ratio must be disclosed at least once a year. This will show any discrepancies between what the insurer says is worth $1 and what the market says. My TFLIC stable value fund’s market-to-book ratio was 101.30% as of March 31s, 2010 and here is their holdings summary:

Bottom Line

In good times, the stable value fund has a pretty easy job of maintaining an image of price stability and paying out the stated interest rate. However, when the poo hits the fan there are a lot of ways the insurance wrapper can be worth less than a bubble gum wrapper. The only real good news is that you are still left with some intermediate-term, investment-grade bonds. Even with the upheaval of 2009, the worst example I could find was a drop of 11%. Even Lehman Brothers investors ended up with a overall positive return for the year. These losses are not insignificant, but something the order of the drop in other similar bond funds during that time. The key is to understand the risks that you are taking, which oftentimes people don’t (including me).

As for my personal investments, after doing my bit of due diligence, I am going to put a small percentage (less than 5%) of my total assets in my stable value fund, given the limited alternatives in my 401k. I am willing to take the risk of a small loss in order to earn 3.50% for all of 2010 in this current interest rate environment.

Good financial advice is hard to come by. There are so many variables, such that you have to find the balance between providing enough information, and making things digestible enough that peoples’ eyes don’t glaze over.

Check out this advice column found in the newsletter that comes in my 401k statement each month. Can you spot what’s missing?

There is no mention of what investment vehicle you should be sticking your money in, or even how much they estimate your future returns to be. Is it 100% stocks? 50% stocks/50% bonds? Orange juice futures? 6% returns? 12% returns? Who knows. Is this pre-tax or post-tax? Is it all in tax-sheltered accounts? Is my annual income supposed to rise as sharply as the chart seems to imply? I selfishly hope so!

Yet, I feel like this is what a large percentage of workers want to read. One impossibly simple chart that defines your retirement needs. So someone gives it to them. Maybe it gives them a general idea of where to start. But is a vague, possibly wrong answer better than guessing? I feel another poll coming on…

Is Such "One-Size-Fits-All" Financial Advice Helpful?

• Yes, something is better than nothing.
• No, on the whole it does more harm than good.
• It doesn't matter, we're all doomed anyway.

View Results

 Loading ...

Another theory of predicting future stock market returns states that there are three main components to long-term stock market performance. Amongst many others, I learned this from authors and investors Jack Bogle and William Bernstein.

Part 1: Dividend Yield
If your stock distributes 2% in dividends each year, then you will have a 2% contribution towards of return. This is what dividend investors love to see coming in each quarter, and is relatively easy to track for a large group of companies. Here it is over time for the S&P 500, courtesy of Multpl.com:

Part 2: Earnings Growth
If earnings stay constant, then all other things equal, one would expect the share price of your company to stay constant as well. If the earnings grow by 5% every year, then your share price will grow by 5% per year. Thus, earnings growth rate is a vital component of total return.

If your portfolio was all of the stocks traded in the United States, like that of a broad-based index fund, this would create a connection between the growth rate of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product and the earnings growth rates of all US companies. In other words, the fundamental return is based on GDP growth. In turn, the GDP growth rate is connected to population growth and productivity per person.

These two parts added to together are coined the fundamental return:

Some bad news: Now, from 1950-2000, fundamental returns were 10%: 4% dividend yield and a 6% earnings growth rate. These days, the S&P 500 has a dividend yield of only about 2%. Earnings growth rate estimates are subject to debate, but they hover around 5-6%.

Part 3: Changes in P/E Ratio
The price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is the price per share divided by earnings per share. In other words, it is how much investors are willing to pay for each unit of earnings. If they are willing to pay 20 times annual earnings, the share price of the stock will be twice as high as if they only paid 10 times earnings. This part is denoted the speculative return, as it has changed throughout history. Here it is again for the S&P 500:

In 1950, the P/E ratio was less than 10. As of right now in mid-2010, it is 20. It is very unlikely that this more than doubling of price-per-share will happen again, with the historical average being around 15. (During the dot-com bubble, the P/E ratio was over 40. In 2008, it was over 25.) This will lead to a zero, and quite possible negative, future speculative return!

Summary

Source: Little Book of Common Sense Investing, Exhibit 7.1

When predicting future returns, you have to look at all the sources of those expected returns. Fundamental return is still a solid reason why stock prices will go up on the long-term, especially if you are not investing only in one country or economy. Some people call it a belief in capitalism, that economic growth will continue and GDP will continue to increase. I simply believe in the passion and motivation of all the people out there, from Sweden to China to Brazil. However, there is good evidence that you might not be getting 10% historical returns due to P/E ratio contraction.

In a recent column, Larry Swedroe shares that the forecasts that he has read are predicting a 5% total annual growth in earnings and 2% dividends for a total return of 7% (similar to above). Inflation is predicted at 2.5%. However, he points out the current minimal-risk return is pretty low as well, so you need consider the big picture:

The bottom line is that while the expected nominal return to stocks is lower than the historical return, so is the expected return to Treasury bonds. You should decide if the expected risk premium for stocks is sufficient given your unique ability, willingness and need to take risk.

Every year, the low-fee investment advisor Portfolio Solutions, LLC founded by Rick Ferri provides a 30-year market forecast based on their analysis of several factors. In their own words:

Each year, we analyzed the primary drivers of asset class long-term returns including risk as measured by implied volatility, expected earnings growth based on expected long-term GDP, market implied inflation based on the spread between long-term Treasury Bonds and TIPS, and current cash payouts from interest and dividends on bond and stock indexes. These factors plus others are used in a valuation model to create an estimate for risk premiums over the next 30 years. In a sense, we believe these expected returns reflect what the market is estimating will be a fair payment for each asset class over T-bills over the long-term.

You can view all the asset classes on their site, but I have included some of the major ones below for preservation and reference. Another set of estimates to throw into the mix.

*The estimate of risk is the estimated standard deviation of annual returns.

As part of gathering the data needed to go beyond net worth, I’ve shown ways to track find your personal savings rate by tracking your current spending with your current after-tax income. For now, I’m skipping ahead to estimating your portfolio’s long-term investment returns.

There are a lot of ways to estimate future stock returns. You’ve probably heard of the P/E ratio, which is usually the price divided by last year’s earnings. This is one measure of “value”. Here is a plot of historical values of the inflation-adjusted S&P 500 index, along with its annual earnings (source).

Historical Price & Earnings Separately

Historical P/E Ratio

As you can see, there is a lot of volatility in P/E ratio. The “P/E 10” ratio is the share price divided by the average earnings over the last 10 years. By taking a long-term average, you smooth out the noise and bumps.

Professor Robert Shiller of Yale University, which provided the above data as well, spoke about the usefulness of this ratio in his book Irrational Exuberance, and provided the data for the following chart. The x-axis shows the real “P/E 10” of the S&P Composite Stock Price Index (inflation adjusted price divided by the prior 10-year mean of inflation-adjusted earnings). The y-axis shows the geometric average real annual return of the same index, reinvesting dividends, and selling 20 years later.

Price-Earnings Ratios as a Predictor of Twenty-Year Returns

You can definitely see the relationship that a higher P/E10 usually leads to a lower future return. However, there is still a great deal of scatter for any given P/E10 ratio.

What about today? As of June 2, 2010 the P/E10 is 19.99 with the S&P 500 index at around 1,098. Historical average is about 15. Back in March 2009 when everything was looking bleak, the P/E10 was 13.32. (P/E10 is also referred to as Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings (CAPE) ratio.)

The Early Retirement Planning Insights website provides a calculator that forecasts future returns based on the current value of P/E 10, again using historical returns. I’m not sure exactly how they did all the regression. Here’s their return forecast for a P/E 10 ratio of 20.

Future Returns Prediction (P/E10 = 20)

For a 20-year forecast, it shows an average outlook of 4% returns, on a real (after-inflation) basis. Of course, the range indicates that the actual returns could look much worse. As the time-horizon lengthens, the range gets smaller due to the phenomenon of reversion to the mean. Kind of scary to look 60 years ahead!

Warnings

To me, this stuff is useful as a general Big Picture planning tool, not as a short-term trading tool. These are just predictions based on the past, which is often the best we can do, but still far from perfect. Many people use P/E10 as a tool for market timing, shifting their asset allocation as it rises and falls. Shiller himself states that his plot above:

confirms that long-term investors—investors who commit their money to an investment for ten full years—did do well when prices were low relative to earnings at the beginning of the ten years. Long-term investors would be well advised, individually, to lower their exposure to the stock market when it is high, as it has been recently, and get into the market when it is low.

That may be true, but market timing systems can really test an investor’s faith when they seem to be wrong for a long period of time. On a personal basis, I’d probably limit any asset allocation moves – if any – to if the P/E10 ratio moved to an extreme, for example dropped below 10 or above 25.