Investing, economics, finance and random thoughts.
Archive for February, 2010
Person to Person Deadbeat Lending
Feb 25th
Over at the Diehards forum a conversation came up about the fad of Person to Person (P2P) lending.
When I first saw this idea years ago, the first word to pop into my head was “foolish.”
The first reason I knew it was foolish is because business magazines thought it was a great idea.
The second reason is why in the world would anyone make an anonymous loan over the Internet to someone they know virtually nothing about? I’d rather just donate the money to charity where it could be better used.
What’s funny though is that these sites got started for reasons of undermining The Man (being the banks) that are so mean by requiring, you know, to prove credit worthiness. How archaic! Clearly we live in a world now where deadbeats, I mean “sub-prime borrowers”, are not risky at all. We’ll just do P2P loans and sing Kum-Ba-Ya and it will all work out and we’ll cut out those greedy middlemen.
But maybe The Man had this figured out long ago as the default rate on these peer to peer loans is abysmal. Check out the graph from this blogger:
http://www.prospers.org/blogs/Fred93
Prosper Default Rates Over Three Years
Since loans that are one month late nearly always default at these sites, that’s a 20% default rate after the first year and keeps going up the longer the loan is. Ugly! Now we know why loan sharks need to charge so much to their clients to turn a profit. No real bank could survive on default rates this high.
But it seems that sites like Prosper.com are trying to clean up their image.
But now Prosper is back in action with a relatively low default rate of 5% among borrowers, according to Barron’s. This service and its competitors are now putting people through their paces to weed out the baddies. The company claims 850,000 members and just a little under $200 million in loans underwriting at this date.
Lending Club has a 3% default rate, meanwhile, and turns down 90% of potential borrowers in an effort to cull the herd and find the most credit worthy.
The article follows up with this salient point:
That, of course, begs the question: Why would anyone go the P2P route if you’re credit worthy?
Yeah that’s pretty much what I think, too. If someone needs a loan from P2P they are probably doing it because nobody else trusts them enough.
But what about the returns?
The returns you might get as a lender can be enticing. Prosper claims the average lender earns 7% on their money, net after expenses and charge-offs. But those who are really into this virtual underwriting boast that they can make a 12% return.
The stock market has averaged around 9-10% a year the past 80 years. And now they’re telling me I’m going to beat the market by 20% a year with 12% returns by making loans to anonymous people that can’t get a real low-interest rate loan from a bank? Sounds like BS to me. If someone claims you are getting above market returns you are taking above market risks. There is no free lunch.
If I wanted to risk a 12% return (and let’s not kid ourselves because it would be quite risky) I’d just put the money I was going to use for P2P loans into a volatile emerging market stock index and let it ride. It may be a bumpy ride, but it could pay off. Yet, I may not get 12% over time but I’m not going to lose -100% either like with a large number of P2P loans. And for 7% returns? For that I’d just put it in the Permanent Portfolio allocation and go do something less stressful with my life while earning more money.
What’s most interesting is that these P2P sites started up to give loans to people that evil banks wouldn’t consider because of the credit risk. Now they are turning into weeding out credit risks just as evil banks do because of the deadbeats ruining it for everyone. In other words they’re turning into….evil banks! The hippies must be choking on their granola at this thought.
From all of this there is a lesson to be learned and that is that banks can seem heartless at times, but they have their reasons. Ultimately, as a depositor giving them my money to help fund loans for others, I want them to be picky. When they’re not picky (or told to not be picky by government rules) we end up with things like real estate bubbles where someone earning $20,000 a year is given $500,000 to buy a house. Also, loaning money to someone who can’t pay it back just makes that person’s situation worse by straddling them with more debt. How is that fair to them? It’s an overall bad deal for everyone involved.
Yeah I know there are some people that are not deadbeats in this P2P thing and could be good loan risks. But mostly I think these loans won’t lead to any additional profits vs. just doing something simpler (and safer) with the money. If you are trying to be charitable, then just donate the money to charity.
Overall, this entire idea of P2P loans reminds me of an Onion article I read a while back.
The Dollar is Crashing!!
Feb 23rd
What was this stuff I kept hearing last year about the dollar crashing? In December 2009 this talk reached a fevered pitch. Here’s the dollar index over the last year and you can see how much it’s recovered since the dark days of December 2009:
You can track the US Dollar index at this link.
Since this time the Euro has taken a pounding due to the issues with Greece possibly going into sovereign default. This drove the Euro down and the Dollar was the beneficiary. I’m not a dollar bull necessarily, but I post this just to show (yet again) that reacting to news that everyone else already knows is rarely a good way to invest. The markets are random and things we think must happen may not happen for a very long time (if at all).
Best to ignore all of the financial news and just stick to a simple diversified portfolio that can take care of you whether the dollar is sinking or flying.
European Permanent Portfolio Blogs
Feb 17th
For our readers across the pond there is another blog that focuses on Permanent Portfolio investing. The blog by Marc de Mesel looks at investing in the Permanent Portfolio from a European perspective. The blog is in Dutch, but Google translate does a passable job for those looking for foreign analysis of investing markets:
Marc de Mesel’s European Permanent Portfolio Blog (Dutch)
Marc de Mesel’s European Permanent Portfolio Blog (Translated through Google – Click on the blog links and they will translate for you.)
Marc covers many topics affecting Europe that aren’t covered here. He runs his own Permanent Portfolio using European-centric assets (like German Govt. Bonds vs. US Bonds). You’ll enjoy it whether you live in Europe or not. Check it out.
UPDATE: Marc adds that he still has a couple articles up at this link that discuss the Permanent Portfolio. In particular, he provides an interesting analysis of how the portfolio would have fared vs. a stock/bond only portfolio during Iceland’s 2008 currency collapse:
English European Permanent Portfolio
Complicated costs. Simple saves.
Feb 12th
I was going through some old investing books today getting ready to dispose of them to make room on my shelves. When paging through the candidates for removal, I saw so many complicated investing strategies. Some of the portfolio recommendations held 10 or more different mutual funds as part of their allocations! I bought these books early in my investment career and during that time they convinced me that only a complicated investment strategy could deliver diversification and performance.
Boy, was I wrong.
After looking back over the many years when I first bought these books it showed me this: Despite the complexity of these various strategies, not a single one of them added anything significant to investor diversification over this time. Owning a bunch of stock funds does not make you diversified. If anything, these approaches were tremendously risky for what you got out of them. Yet, the approaches hid those risks by making you think you had diversification because you owned so many different stock assets.
Well, stocks share the same market risks by and large because of the deep interconnections that exist between them all. Just because an investor owns some small company stocks, large company stocks, foreign stocks, etc. is no guarantee that a bad bear market can’t come up and bite them all at once. I didn’t go back and run the performance numbers, but my quick look predicts that over the period I owned the books they wouldn’t have done any better than a simpler portfolio. With the additional trading and management costs involved, there is a chance they did worse than a simpler approach.
This just reminded me how important it is to keep investing simple. Complicated investment schemes can hide many risks and expenses. The simpler you keep investing, the less chance you have of making a mistake. Investors don’t need to follow complicated investment plans to get good results. Indeed, I’ve found the simpler you keep investing the more likely you are to turn a good profit and not face any wicked surprises.
Why I own stocks…
Feb 11th
After 2008 many people swore off stocks. “Too Risky!” they say and then tell you about their hot new investment in a multi-level marketing scheme or their Uncle’s new franchise opportunity. Isn’t it funny how whatever assets you don’t own you always think are “too risky” when someone else owns them? I’m as guilty as the next guy on this. For instance, I don’t touch junk bonds and emerging market debt. It’s too risky. 
But I think I can make a better case for this position than people who don’t own any stocks for the same reason.
I own stocks and I admit it. I feel comfortable with stocks in my portfolio because they represent an ownership stake in the productive capacity of my country. Every time someone buys a Coca Cola, a computer or any other product they hand me money through the profits. When I’m awake they are handing me money. When I’m asleep they are handing me money. They are handing me this money 24 hours a day and seven days a week across the planet as they make their purchases.
Stocks have risks. Sometimes these risks show up in big price declines. But sometimes these risks cause the prices to climb far higher and faster than any other asset you can own. Over time, stock dividends reinvested can grow capital by large amounts through compounding. This makes it different than assets like gold which cannot grow on its own as it pays no dividends.
While market risks can impact a company’s stock over a period of time, I also realize that most companies are resilient and can adapt to changing economic conditions and survive. Not all of them can do this, but most do. This is why I own a broadly based stock index fund. Such a fund may own over 5,000 individual company stocks. This means any one of company going bankrupt has an insignificant impact on the entire portfolio. Not only this, but stock index funds are cheap. Every penny an investor saves in management fees is another penny in their pocket each year to compound and grow.
I know the markets have proven to be efficient over time. This means it’s almost impossible to outperform the market averages as everyone else on the planet receives the same information you do almost instantly. I recognize that sometimes the markets are not 100% efficient all the time. But I also recognize that it’s close enough that debating the point is academic because rebalancing between assets eliminates these risks.
I admit that all the brokerage houses receive news of major events within seconds and have computers and people that will trade positions just as fast in reaction to it. Therefore, I don’t try to compete with these people by out trading them because someone like me is always the last to know. Instead, I just hold on to my boring index fund that owns everything and profit from the thrashing the professional and amateur traders are doing underneath. Over time, my index fund will beat in excess of 95% of all of them.
The markets are random. The price movements are not predictable day-to-day or even each year so I balance my stock ownership with assets like bonds, gold and cash. I don’t own just stocks because owning 100% in stocks is extremely risky and not guaranteed to bring any more success than a diversified portfolio. I know there have been protracted decade-plus stretches where stocks have performed poorly in real terms (such as the 1970s and 2000s). Therefore, I reject the idea that stocks are the only asset any investor needs. Instead, I diversify just in case the next decade of under-performance happens to be during a period of time when it could hurt me.
I understand that portfolios which do not have any stock exposure face the risk that they will not be able to grow faster than inflation over time. So I accept that stocks have risks of loss in order to ensure I have the chance to take advantage of gains when they present themselves to grow my money. Although assets like gold and bonds by themselves are useful to diversify against certain market risks, I know they may not be enough to beat inflation and grow the portfolio alone. That’s why I own stocks.
Why I own gold…
Feb 10th
Why do people freak out so much when you tell them you own some gold in your portfolio? It’s as if you had just told them you killed a dozen people before lunch. The hyper-ventilation you hear from some when you even mention this topic is just nutty. It usually starts with some juvenile comment involving tinfoil hats. Then they pull out some quote from an economist (usually one that loves inflation to solve all problems) about how useless gold is. They may even hit you with the ol’ “gold is not a form of wealth but just a shiny metal” lecture (ignoring the bulk of human history, and all major central banks, that disagree with them). Then they tell you how “risky” gold is when their own portfolio may be loaded to the hilt with junk bonds, emerging market debt or other complicated investment products. They must think the Nigerian stocks they hold in their Frontier Market fund are a sure thing (assuming they even know what’s in the funds they own).
Well, I own gold and I admit it. I feel comfortable owning gold in my portfolio. I sleep well at night knowing I own gold even though it could drop in value. I understand that in a balanced portfolio gold is a useful tool. I trust gold to protect me in high inflation more than indexed linked bonds (TIPS) ever will.
Gold has no interest or dividends. I admit these things and acknowledge that this is one area that makes gold different than stocks and bonds. However, this does not make gold useless for diversification.
Gold maintains real purchasing power over time and it’s really good at doing this. No other asset on this planet has such a long history. I don’t worry about politicians printing trillions of dollars of gold. This is because politicians can’t print gold. Gold can also be owned directly without any obligations attached to it. These are unique attributes for an asset class when used properly in a portfolio (and properly does not mean 100% gold).
While gold does not have the interest or dividends of stocks and bonds, it has other benefits that can work at certain times to protect a portfolio that does hold stocks and bonds. Gold for instance does very well under high inflation when stocks and bonds do not.
Gold has risks just as stocks and bonds have risks. I understand what these risks are and how they fit in a diversified portfolio. Yet, I do not rely only on gold in a portfolio. I also own stocks and bonds to drive returns when gold is performing poorly. In diversification there is safety which is why I own all these assets and don’t get religious about it. I accept gold’s quirks because I know when it comes time for it to perform it will do so better than all its contemporaries.
The empirical evidence says that owning some gold in a portfolio is not the death sentence academic literature would suggest. In fact, at certain times having gold can be a tremendous help. So, either reality is wrong or the academic theories are. Given a choice between the two, I’ll take reality. That reality is that all portfolios should hold some gold for diversification against stocks and bonds despite what critics state. That’s why I own gold.
Why these assets?
Feb 9th
I’m often asked questions about substituting some asset X for one of the other assets in the Permanent Portfolio. I think this is a bad idea because you could introduce a potentially weaker investment for one of the time-tested assets the portfolio holds.
Now, as a recap we know that the Permanent Portfolio holds four core assets:
1) Stocks in an inexpensive broadly based index fund like the Total Stock Market Wilshire 5000 or Russell 3000
2) US Treasury Long Term Bonds
3) Cash in a US Treasury Money Market fund
4) Gold bullion
So why does the Permanent Portfolio hold these specific assets? Why not some of the new stuff being sold by Wall Street each year? Or some of that other stuff being pawned off as the hottest new fad by some academic and the book they’ve written?
Well, this is primarily because the goal of the portfolio strategy is to grow money when it can and protect that money when it can’t. To do this, the Permanent Portfolio owns a variety of assets which are best in their class for each particular economic condition (prosperity, inflation, deflation and recession) and do not take any risks outside of the area they specialize in. These assets have proven themselves a number of times in the past to do exactly what they say they will do. This lessens the chance that you’ll be surprised by some unforeseen risk.
What is meant by this is that the portfolio holds stocks in a cheap and broadly diversified index fund free and clear with no margin (leverage). Broadly based stock index funds have an excellent track record compared to actively managed funds and do well when prosperity is driving the markets. This means you are only taking market risk with the stocks and not additional risks of being unable to service your margin loan forcing you to liquidate your portfolio for a margin call in an emergency. Nor are you taking on risk that a stock fund manager may have you out of the market when there is a big rally going on forcing you to miss the gains.
For bonds we are taking on interest rate risk by owning long term Treasuries. However we are not taking on credit and call risk present in other bonds. This means if a deflation situation hits we can profit from the rise in Treasury prices but not have to be concerned with the resulting bad economy that could cause non-Treasury bonds to default. Neither do we need to worry about the low interest rates that could make bond issuers recall their bonds and sell new ones that are cheaper for them. It also means that during times of prosperity we have a nice steady income stream from the bond interest to add to our stock gains.
For our cash we hold only a Treasury Market Fund because they also have no credit risk. But they also eliminate needing to rely on FDIC insurance limits and liquidity issues that could affect non-Treasury securities and money market funds as we experienced in 2008. You will always be able to access your cash if you own Treasury bills in a money market fund because they are the most liquid paper investment on the planet. You never have to worry about a non-Treasury money market fund freezing redemptions because they broke the buck due to their bad investment decisions (also happened in 2008). Nor do you need to worry about your bank going under and wondering how long it will take FDIC to clean up the mess and allow depositors to access their money.
Finally we have gold which can suffer malaise during times of a good market but is the most powerful asset you could possibly own during a period of bad inflation. Gold also functions as an ultimate insurance policy in case something truly awful were to happen to the US Dollar.
These assets were chosen for specific performance reasons because they tend to combine in a way where risks in one are cancelled out by benefits of another. Interest rate risk in bonds are cancelled out by the inflation performance of gold. Gold price declines are cancelled out by stock and bond price gains. Stock market losses can be countered by gold or bond price increases. Etc. Risks are taken where they should be taken and avoided where they should be avoided.
When you substitute a lesser quality asset for one of the rock stars the portfolio already owns you can seriously damage the diversification potential in unpredictable ways. So my advice is to leave the core portfolio alone. The only real exception to this are for foreign users of the portfolio strategy who should be holding their cash, bonds and probably more stock in their home country to be sure their portfolio is in sync with their local economic climate and not tied so close to the US and US dollar.
If you want to add other assets then you can do it by holding them in your variable portfolio for money you can afford to lose. But I think changing around the core assets is not a good idea.
At this point we have about 40 years of data showing the strategy has been working. A full thirty years of that data is actual empirical evidence. This is because this portfolio strategy was conceived in the late 1970s with only minor tweaks into the 1980s and largely unchanged since. The worst loss the portfolio had was about -4-6% in 1981. There are no guarantees going forward of course because the past does not predict the future, but the portfolio theory works as designed so far and has a really solid record of performance and safety. So why do you want to go in and mess around with something that has been shown to work in good markets, inflationary markets, deflationary markets and everything in between?
I say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Keep it simple.