Posts tagged risk management

What if you’re wrong?

Have you ever noticed how confident people are with their predictions on the investing markets? So many seem to be so sure about so much that is so uncertain. Their favorite pet asset (stocks, bonds, gold, commodities, etc.) just have to go up because, well, they own it and they are never wrong about these things. Besides, losing money stinks and if we just think good thoughts then losing money doesn’t happen, right?

What if you’re wrong?

That’s the question I always ask myself about an investment decision. It’s not that a lack of confidence is a good thing. It’s just that overconfidence can mask bad investment decisions that can be truly painful. The problem comes up not only in investments we may pick ourselves, but also in following the latest guru’s advice because they sound, well, confident in what they are saying.

Before I make an investment decision I always want to know what the worst scenario is in case the deal blows up or goes sideways in unexpected ways. What are the risks? How much can I lose? Are the gains worth the potential pitfalls? I think it is important to recognize that a worst case scenario can happen in any investment and realistically plan for it.

This way of thinking really helps temper investing. Maybe instead of putting 90% of your life savings into that hot new stock your brother-in-law told you about you’ll cap it at 5% instead. Sure, perhaps this new investment is going to later show you having 500% profits in two years. But then again it could sink by 50%. Think about the consequences if you’re wrong.

If you invest long enough you’re going to be wrong eventually about the markets. When it happens, don’t let it be something that wrecks your life savings. Stay diversified and not too confident in any one investment. It’s a good way to avoid bad things.

William Bernstein is Wild About Harry

Investment author William Bernstein from Efficient Frontier recently wrote an article about the Permanent Portfolio:

Wild About Harry

He states:

In many respects, this allocation is a thing of beauty. Not only does it provide some protection against all but the most dire of scenarios, but its correlation grid is one rarely seen in finance: four non-derivative assets populated entirely by near-zeros…

- William Bernstein – Efficient Frontier “Wild About Harry”

He continues:

And therein lies the real problem with the TPP (ed: Theoretical Permanent Portfolio): because of its huge tracking error relative to more conventional portfolios, it attracts assets and adherents during crises, then sheds them in better times. There’s nothing wrong with Harry’s portfolio – nothing at all – but there’s everything wrong with his followers, who seem, on average, to chase performance the way dogs chase cars.

Sadly, this [buying assets before they have gone up in price] is the opposite of what the legions of new TPP adherents and PRPFX owners have been doing recently – effectively increasing their allocations to red-hot long Treasuries and gold. Consider: over the long sweep of financial history, the annual real return of long bonds and gold have been 2% and 0%, respectively; over the decade ending 2009, they were 5% and 11%.

- William Bernstein – Efficient Frontier “Wild About Harry”

His point about people not sticking to an investment plan is well taken, but hardly unique to the Permanent Portfolio. As for whether gold or LT bonds are a good buy now: I learned a long time ago that whenever I think I know what the markets are going to do I’m usually surprised later.

I read articles back in 2007 saying how expensive gold was when it was $600 an ounce and would crash any day now (it’s over $1200 now). I read articles over a decade ago about avoiding LT bonds because of the inevitable rise in interest rates (30 year bonds yielded 5.9% in 2000 – today they are 3.5% giving big profits to long bond holders over this time). In fact, I’ve read investment books going back over 20 years saying the exact same thing about the inevitable destruction of the long bond (30 year bonds in 1990 yielded 8.6% BTW).

The above is to say nothing of the copious amounts of doom and gloom stock predictions in 2009 that proved to be horribly incorrect as the market recovered so sharply it could give you whiplash. All of these predictions have been dead wrong and highly unprofitable if followed.

As it were, Harry Browne actually got this type of question about avoiding this or that asset over the years and I made this audio clip of him answering it:

http://crawlingroad.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/HarryBrowne-WhichAssetWillDoBest.mp3

This clip was made in 2004 but could have been recorded last week (Browne even mentions about the Dow being 10,000 back then and it’s there again right now in fact – It’s de ja vu all over again). These debates about what to buy and sell are raging constantly in the market and will do so forever. Investors just need to ignore all of them.

The point is not to be a cheerleader for some particular asset because eventually every investment has a bad spell. It’s simply that we can’t predict the future and the reason we own different assets in the portfolio is to provide protection against the unknown.

Diversifying asset classes, as Harry Browne knew well, can benefit a portfolio. The secret is deploying them before those diversifying assets shoot the lights out.

- William Bernstein – Efficient Frontier “Wild About Harry”

I disagree. Investors can’t possibly position their portfolio in a way to take advantage of an asset before it goes up in price. It just doesn’t happen that way.

What’s the real secret? Simple:

Just own everything at once because we have no way of knowing what is going to do best going forward.

It was investors who owned assets like gold and long bonds all the time, regardless of what was being predicted, that were able to reap these rewards the past few years. They may continue to do well, or maybe not. Maybe stocks will finally come out of their funk and go gangbusters again as they did in the 1980s and 1990s. Nobody knows.

We just don’t know when the markets will move one way or another. Investors therefore must diversify, and must stay diversified, all the time regardless of what their opinion is about the future. We simply cannot know what asset is going to do best ahead of time and allocate accordingly.

The correct strategy then is to hold fast to your asset allocation. If something has gone up enough in price to trigger a rebalancing band, then sell it down and use the profits to buy the laggards. But never time the buying or selling of an asset in the portfolio because of how you feel about it. That’s a sure way to run into big problems. The Permanent Portfolio is designed to hold volatile assets together in the form of 25% each stocks, bonds, cash and gold. If you take out any one piece you lose the protection of the portfolio.

Performance chasers will always performance chase and will always show poor results for their efforts. The Permanent Portfolio is not designed to be a hot rod so the performance chasers will eventually be disappointed. What the portfolio provides however is moderate growth with wide diversification and low volatility even in very bad markets. At the same time the strategy has shown reasonable real after-inflation returns for the level of risk involved with no market timing nor close monitoring required. For people looking for those attributes, the strategy may make you wild about Harry, too.

Assets in Isolation: Long Term Bonds

Long term bonds are hot now. Posting about 20% gains so far this year.

Yep, they’ve gone up a lot. Same thing happened in 2008. In 2009 LT bonds dove in price by -22% as yields climbed from the lows of January back to the upper 4% range by the summer. Bummer. If you read what so many people say this should have been devastating. A 22% loss is just crushing, right?

No, it wasn’t.

The stock market recovered sharply that year posting around 30% gains. This effectively wiped out all of the losses in the LT bonds. If you rebalanced in 2008 taking LT bond profits and buying stocks and then taking some stock profits in 2009 to buy back into LT bonds when they fell in price you are doing perfectly fine.

In fact you’re doing better than fine because those LT bond prices have climbed again while the market this year is floating around 0%. This doesn’t even include the interest payments you’re getting. Heck, if you had just done absolutely nothing the past two years but held on for dear life you still posted small gains through the worst bear market in decades and the sharp recovery:

Portfolio 1: 60% Stocks and 40% Total Bond Market

Portfolio 2: 50% Stocks and 50% Long Term Bonds

Portfolio 3: Permanent Portfolio 25% Stocks/Bonds/Cash/Gold

Portfolio 4: 100% stocks in the Total Stock Market


CAGR 2008-2010 YTD

60/40: -1.80% / Year

50/50: +3.25% / Year

Permanent Portfolio: +5.96% / Year

100% Stocks: -7.33% / Year

For a starting balance of $10000 in 2008 you ended up with in 2010 YTD:

60/40: $9469

50/50: $11007

Permanent Portfolio: $11666

100% Stocks: $7960

The above assumes rebalancing happened each year. If you didn’t rebalance then your results were less, but still a positive return for the 50/50 portfolio and about the same for the Permanent Portfolio. Losses in the other portfolios were still present to a greater or same degree. But these returns happened even with massive losses in stocks in 2008 and massive losses in LT bonds in 2009. It’s not magic, it’s diversification in action.

It is a bad idea to look at assets in isolation. Only total portfolio value matters. Investors do not win every year in every investment. Anyone who says so is a liar. The point of having a wide diversification is so you can ride up with the winners and be protected against severe losses in the losers. If we had listened to the pundits this year about staying out of LT bonds we would have missed the gains. If we had listened to the pundits in 2009 about avoiding stocks we would have missed those gains. I see a pattern here.

Ignore the pundits and stick to the plan.

Overall, the direction of the Permanent Portfolio is heading the right way (growing each year) so there is no point in fretting over what an asset may or may not do going forward. It’s a complete waste of time even thinking about this stuff because nobody can tell what is going to happen. Stick to the rebalancing bands and buy and sell when needed. Simple.

Looking at assets in isolation is a good way to get headlines, but a terrible way to run a portfolio.

The Five Minute Rule

Vanguard CEO Bill McNabb gave a speech recently about the financial markets and the need for trust. With the past few years shaking the confidence of investors, the industry has certainly been lacking in the trust department.

In this speech CEO McNabb gives out three important points about investing that are critical:

1) Simplicity – Investments should be simple to understand.

2) Transparency – Investment vehicles should be transparent so all moving parts are understood.

3) Candor – Investors and advisors should be honest with each other about the risks in an investment.

His point on simplicity matches up very closely to one of the 16 Golden Rules of Investing. That is, never invest in something you don’t understand completely:

A great rule in investing is the five-minute rule: If you don’t understand an investment in five minutes or less, take a pass. This should apply to sophisticated investors, novices opening their first accounts, and everyone in between. – Bill McNabb, Vanguard CEO on Restoring Investor’s Trust

Very wise counsel! A complicated investment can conceal many dangers. All investments have risks, but as investors we must be certain we understand each risk as best as possible. Having unknown risks buried in a complicated and opaque investment scheme is bound to cause problems eventually.

Remember this: There is no shame passing on an investment you don’t understand. I have done it myself many times in the past and have never regretted it.

Simplicity is critical to investing success and this can’t be stated often enough. The Five Minute Rule is a great way to weed out bad investments and keep things simple.

Gold “Bubble”

There’s much discussion in the news about Gold’s new price high (about $1300). The word “bubble” is getting tossed around a lot. There are a flood of articles (and advertisements) about buying gold and an equal flood about selling gold. What to do?

Talks about gold seem to devolve into market timing arguments. But for someone holding gold as part of their total asset allocation, such as the Permanent Portfolio, it should be treated like stocks or bonds with no market timing involved.

The only reason to be timing the market with gold is if you are treating it as a speculation. In this case it’s no different than relying on various indicators to sell out of all your stocks or sell out of all your bonds, etc. So use what you feel is best because they are all equally unreliable as market timing doesn’t work.

I can recall seeing these gold conversations when it hit $600 an ounce. I recall them when it hit $850 an ounce (matching the high in 1981). I can recall them when it hit $1000 an ounce. I can recall them when it hit $1100 an ounce. And of course I am seeing them all over as gold hovers near $1300 an ounce. The price of gold could fall at any time, but then again it could just keep going up responding to world events. We have no way of knowing these things.

If you own gold in your portfolio already then be sure you keep it rebalanced and use the profits to buy your laggards. If you don’t own it already, be sure you are doing so with a logical plan in place why you are doing it and not some knee jerk reaction to what you are seeing in the news.

This topic is being discussed on the forum.

Go to Top