Obviously, my site features some banner ads from Google. These ads bring in enough revenue to cover the costs of the web hosting (if that). Well lately I’ve been seeing ads encouraging people to buy California Bonds at this site:

Buy California Bonds

I’ve never seen a state so aggressively advertising their bonds in banner ads. I can’t say it would put my mind at ease if I owned California Munis to see this.

EDIT: I’m not the only one who noticed this:

Bill Lockyer Goes Direct To Retail Investors With The “Terrific” Opportunity To Front Run Institutional Investors In Cali Bonds

EDIT #2: Here’s the ad that just showed up on my site:

Oh! The offer ends March 10th! Better hurry! I’m sure they’re selling like hotcakes so don’t miss out!

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.

Clark Howard reports:

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.

A theme you’ll hear on this blog about investing is the idea that the markets are not predictable. You may believe that I’m referring to the idea that you can’t predict returns on investments ahead of time and that’s partially true. The other part though relates to extreme risks that sweep through the markets in unpredictable ways with unpredictable results.

Aside from standard market risks, when you look at your investments it’s also important to always ask yourself: “What if I’m wrong?” Because, odds are, you will be wrong eventually. It’s just a question of degrees on how wrong it will be: A little or a lot.

The Permanent Portfolio has protection against unpredictable market risks and being wrong. If you’re wrong, you’re not going to be wrong so much that you take a crushing blow to your portfolio (because your asset allocation is widely diversified in relatively small chunks). We should also understand though that all investments have risk. Without risk, you will not get rewards. So risk must be taken to grow a portfolio, but it must be done with specific goals in mind. We need profits, but we also need defenses against an unknown future.

In this light, I’d like to share with you some books and podcasts that I think really hit at this problem of risk, uncertain futures and protecting yourself against being wrong. They may help you understand why diversifying and eliminating unnecessary risks in your portfolio is so important and why being wrong does not have to be fatal if you handle it correctly.

First there is John Allen Paulos and his book A Mathematician Plays The Stock Market. This 2003 title is one of a series of excellent books written about his worldly observations as a mathematician. In this case, the book details his own personal story of losing money in the stock market and how uncertainty rules. It’s an interesting look at many concepts you see in the investing world with respect to stocks vs. bonds, efficient market hypothesis, chaos theory, etc. And, best of all, it’s a very easy and fun read with almost no math but high level explanations of many concepts with real-world examples. He has a number of books written in his “A Mathematician” series exploring everything from innumeracy in society to his experiences investing (and losing) lots of money in Worldcom as he discusses in this book. The bottom line is that risk is real, markets are random, and trying to beat it can be very costly. His dedication reads:

To my father, who never played the market and knew little about probability, yet understood one of the prime lessons of both. “Uncertainty,” he would say, “is the only certainty there is, and knowing how to live with insecurity is the only security.”

John Allen Paulos – A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market Dedication

Now that’s a dedication I can get behind! That is the core philosophy of how the Permanent Portfolio is designed to operate.

…the government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at their risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deemed these events “unlikely.”

Nassim Taleb – The Black Swan Pg. 225

I’d say he certainly called that one correctly.

I also think you’ll enjoy these two podcasts from Nassim Taleb. One recorded in 2007 talks about his book The Black Swan. The second was recorded in 2009 after the market meltdown as an after-action report on what he had written and said before:

Taleb on Black Swans – April 30, 2007

Taleb on the Financial Crisis – March 23, 2009

One thing about Taleb is while he has disdain for most fields of economics (and especially the very silly Keynesians), he does have an affinity for the Austrian Economic School and their dislike of the over-application of mathematics in economics for what is, essentially, a human behavioral problem (aka. scientism). Why does this matter? For one, you cannot model risks accurately with standard statistical methods because human behavior is not predictable. Secondly, Harry Browne was a firm believer in Austrian Economics and the Permanent Portfolio design, at its absolute core, is based on the Austrian School’s theory on monetary cycles (a lengthy topic for another day) and embracing unpredictability in the world. In fact, I think that one of the reasons the Permanent Portfolio is good at dealing with market risk is because the Austrian Economics school is right about a great many things. This outlook helps to drive the portfolio down the right path over time avoiding serious pitfalls and dangerous assumptions about the future.

With these three books and two podcasts you will understand more about market risk than most professional investors and economists. Seriously. Combine that with Harry Browne’s podcasts, and his own previous books, and you’ll be well versed in the dangers of the unpredictable in the investing world and how to position yourself to deal with them.

Johnny Carson as the Carnac the Magnificent

I know this blog would be more interesting if I commented on the latest market happenings and posted pretty graphs projecting future returns. Perhaps some latest prediction by an investing guru about the state of the world and what it means going forward. Etc. But I won’t do these things because I don’t believe they are productive. To a diversified investor, these activities are at best a waste of time. At worst, these activities can cause investors to make rushed decisions that could lead to large portfolio losses and market underperformance.

Investing should be dead simple. It should not involve complicated machinations inside your portfolio and relying on a bunch of prognostications about what the markets are going to do. Why? Because the markets are not predictable.

I don’t know what future asset prices are going to do. I don’t know if something is overvalued or undervalued. I don’t know what gold is going to do next week. I don’t know what stocks are going to do in a month. I don’t know if bonds are going to crash tomorrow. Nobody is clairvoyant despite how confident about the future they may sound.

Please do not expect anyone to know what is overvalued, what is undervalued, and whether the Permanent Portfolio will blow up next week because of some unexpected event. No one can possibly know. Harry Browne used to say: “Anything can happen, but nothing has to happen.” That pretty much sums up the issue. Most people don’t go to psychics for life advice so why go to market psychics for investing advice?

The future is unpredictable. You do your best to diversify and that’s all you can do. Invest your money passively, keep costs low, keep turnover low, diversify widely, learn from your mistakes, keep things simple, and expect the unexpected. Doing these things makes it easier for you to say “I don’t know” and be happy with your answer.

Let’s get to the meat of any investment strategy: How well does it actually work?

In a prior post we talked about the Permanent Portfolio allocation which is:

25% – Stocks (in a broad based stock index fund like the S&P 500)
25% – Long Term Treasury Bonds
25% – Gold Bullion
25% – Cash (in a Treasury Money Market Fund)

This allocation will provide protection when the economy shifts through the cycles of prosperity, inflation, deflation and recession.

Now, some may be thinking that this allocation sounds very different than what they’ve seen elsewhere. For instance, the idea of owning gold is scoffed at by some investment advisors because it has no dividends or interest. Long Term Bonds? Many will tell you that they’re too risky due to rising interest rates. How about Cash? Isn’t holding a bunch of cash missing out on the hot stock market action? And, only 25% in stocks? Well everyone knows that stocks always beat every other investment so surely you want more than 25%, right? Right!?

Not exactly.

The reality is the investment markets are uncertain and unpredictable. What may look good in a theoretical backtest may blow up horribly as economic conditions change. Even worse, portfolio strategies that should work well based history often don’t work in actual application as people abandon them due to volatility and long periods of underperformance. Finally, every reputable study on the subject has shown that relying on your gut instinct, hunches, investment gurus and hot tips to run a portfolio is a road to disaster for performance and safety.

The Permanent Portfolio strategy works because it has very wide and true diversification. You have exposure to assets that can grow your money safely at all times without having to predict the future. You also have protection in the diversification against losing large amounts of money which can cause you to abandon the strategy in bad markets.

A Couple Small Changes

I did make two small changes to the original Permanent Portfolio as investment vehicles have changed in type and availability over the years. Harry Browne recommended using the Treasury Money Market Fund for cash. I personally like using Short Term Treasuries in combination with a Treasury Money Market Fund which provides nearly identical risks but slightly better returns on your cash. Also, instead of using the S&P 500 Index, I’ve chosen to use the Total Stock Market Index(also called the Russell 3000, or Wilshire 5000 index). The Total Stock Market Index provides wider stock diversification (holds 3-7000 stocks) with slightly better results than the S&P 500 (which holds 500 stocks). The slightly better result is because the Total Stock Market also holds small and medium sized company stocks which can sometimes outperform the large company stocks of the S&P 500 alone. The Total Stock Market also has expected higher tax efficiency due to how the index is constructed and managed.

You can use my changes or not. It doesn’t matter much. If you stick to the S&P 500 and Treasury Money Market Fund as originally recommended the results are within about 0.50% (one half percent) annually (favoring short-term bonds and total stock market) through the years.

Historical Returns

Let’s look at the score card and see how the Permanent Portfolio Allocation has done the past 36 years from 1972-2008 (1972 is the furthest we have data for Gold which was taken off the fixed exchange rate in 1971).

The assumption in this table is we rebalance each year to get back to our 25% allocation split among all four asset classes. In the table below I’ve highlighted in Red the asset that did the worst in a particular year and Green for the asset that did the best. Note that “worst” does not mean the asset was necessarily negative, just that it was the lowest performer for that particular year. In the average column I highlighted in Orange any year with a loss for the portfolio.

Data pulled from the Simba Spreadsheet on the Diehards Forum. Gold returns pulled from: http://www.finfacts.ie/Private/curency/goldmarketprice.htm. NOTE: Gold prices were largely fixed before 1971 and tied to the dollar. So the prices of gold did not move according to market fluctuations much before 1971. 2008 values pulled directly from market indicators. LT Treasuries for 2008 reflects owning 25-30 year treasuries directly and not the market index 20 year benchmark (which the portfolio is not designed to use).

Results

The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is 9.7% for the entire period.

The worse loss for the portfolio in any one year was 1981 which had you down only about 4%. The market problems through the decades were barely registered in the final return each year. This means the portfolio was able to provide these solid and stable returns with very low volatility and risk.

You’re probably wondering how this portfolio compares to other strategies. The Permanent Portfolio was able to rack up the following returns against these competitors if you invested $10,000 back in 1972:

Now, some might be thinking: “Hey, gold was price controlled before 1971 so it’s not fair using 1972 as the start because the price of gold shot up. It made it look better than it really was!” (OK, maybe you weren’t thinking that, but I was because it’s true and we need to consider its impact). We’ll start a couple years out in 1974 then, enough time that the gold market would have settled out:

The Permanent Portfolio allocation is always competitive with the 100% stock allocation and the 50/50 bond allocation. Anything within +-0.50% of each other is essentially market noise that can easily flip back and forth each year.

The most important part is the Permanent Portfolio never had wild gut wrenching swings in value. In 1973-1974 stocks lost 50% in value. In 1987, stocks dropped 25% in one day. During the 2000-2002 Internet bubble crash, stocks dove about 40% over two years and the NASDAQ dove 80%! In 2008 stocks were down about 40% for the year.

Yet given all the above the Permanent Portfolio was able to produce positive returns during these very bad markets. Most recently in 2008 we had the worst single year market crash since 1931 and the portfolio still squeezed out a 2% profit for the year. The Permanent Portfolio allowed you to avoid all those disasters but gave you performance on par with the far riskier 100% stock allocation.

Even better, the Permanent Portfolio was able to provide real after-inflation returns during some times when the stocks and bonds couldn’t (such as the decade of the 1970′s). This means that even though inflation may have been killing your stocks and bond returns (by giving you negative real growth even though they went up in value), the Permanent Portfolio was able to go above and beyond by several percentage points to give real results that weren’t being eroded by a falling dollar.

Take a look at the returns table above and notice how you’ll always have one asset class doing very well and one doing flat or badly. Isn’t that counter-intuitive that you should be able to profit from that type of movement? Nope. It’s diversification in action. The way the Permanent Portfolio uses its assets to diversify according to economic conditions is what makes it work so well.

We’ll talk more about this in the future.

The foundation of the Permanent Portfolio strategy lies upon what Harry Browne called his 16 Golden Rules of Financial Safety (expanded minimally to 17 rules in his 2003 version of Fail-Safe Investing). These rules will help anyone avoid many dangers that face investors. I will re-print them here (with permission) from his main website. I believe if investors followed these rules diligently they’d be hard pressed to lose their entire life savings due to an investing mistake.

You can hear Harry Browne discuss the 16 Golden Rules yourself in this radio show link.

16 Golden Rules of Financial Safety

Your Career 

Rule #1: Your career provides your wealth.

You most likely will make far more money from your business or profession than from your investments. Only very rarely does someone make a large fortune from investments.

Your investments can make your future more secure and your retirement more prosperous. But they can’t take you from rags to riches. So don’t take risks with complicated schemes in the hope of multiplying your capital quickly. Your investment plan should be aimed, first and foremost, at preserving what you have—preserving it from investment loss, government intervention, or mismanagement.

Your Wealth May Be Non-Replaceable

Rule #2: Don’t assume you can replace your wealth.

The fact that you earned what you have doesn’t mean that you could earn it again if you lost it. Markets and opportunities change, technology changes, laws change. Conditions today may be considerably different from what they were when you built the estate you have now. And as time passes, increasing regulation makes it harder and harder to amass a fortune.

So treat what you have as though you could never earn it again. Don’t take chances with your wealth on the assumption that you could always get it back.

Investing vs. Speculating

Rule #3: Recognize the difference between investing and speculating.

When you invest, you accept the return the markets are paying investors in general. When you speculate, you attempt to beat that return — to do better than other investors are doing — through astute timing, forecasting, or stock selection, and with the implied belief that you’re smarter than most other investors.

There’s nothing wrong with speculating — provided you do it with money you can afford to lose. But the money that’s precious to you shouldn’t be risked on a bet that you can outperform other investors.

Forecasting the Future

Rule #4: No one can predict the future.

Events in the investment markets result from the decisions of millions of different people. Investor advisors have no more ability to predict the future actions of human beings than psychics and fortune-tellers do. And so events never unfold as we were so sure they would.

Yes, there have been forecasts that came true. But the only reason we notice them is because it’s so exceptional for even one to come true. We forget about all the failed predictions because they’re so commonplace.

No one can reliably tell you what stocks will do next year, whether we’ll have more inflation, or how the economy will perform.

Investment Advice

Rule #5: No one can move you in and out of investments consistently with precise and profitable timing.

You’ll hear about many Wall Street wizards, but the investment advisor with the perfect record up to now most likely will lose his touch the moment you start acting on his advice.

Investment advisors can be very valuable. A good advisor can help you understand how to do the things you know you need to do. He can help call your attention to risks you may have overlooked. And he can make you aware of new alternatives.

But no one can guarantee to have you always in the right place at the right time. And worse, attempts to do so can sometimes be fatal to your portfolio.

Trading Systems

Rule #6: No trading system will work as well in the future as it did in the past.

You’ll come across many trading systems or indicators that seem always to have signaled correctly where your money should have been, but somehow the systems never come through when your money is on the line.

Operate on a Cash Basis

Rule #7: Don’t use leverage.

When someone goes completely broke, it’s almost always because he used borrowed money. In many cases, the individual was already quite rich, but he wanted to pyramid his fortune with borrowed money.

Using margin accounts or mortgages (for other than your home) puts you at risk to lose more than your original investment. If you handle all your investments on a cash basis, it’s virtually impossible to lose everything—no matter what might happen in the world—especially if you follow the other rules given here.

Make Your Own Decisions

Rule #8: Don’t let anyone make your decisions.

Many people lost their fortunes because they gave someone (a financial advisor or attorney) the authority to make their decisions and handle their money. The advisor may have taken too many chances, been dishonest, or simply incompetent. But, most of all, no advisor can be expected to treat your money with the same respect you do.

You don’t need a money manager. Investing is complicated and difficult to understand only if you’re trying to beat the market. You can preserve what you have with only a minimum understanding of investing. You can set up a worry-proof portfolio for yourself in one day — and then you need only one day a year to monitor it. Allowing the smartest person in the world to make your decisions for you isn’t nearly as safe as setting up a safe portfolio for yourself.

Above all, never give anyone signature authority over money that’s precious to you. If you should put money into an account for someone else to manage, it must be money you can afford to lose.

Understand What You Do

Rule #9: Don’t ever do anything you don’t understand.

Don’t undertake any investment, speculation, or investment program that you don’t understand. If you do, you may later discover risks you weren’t aware of. Or your losses might turn out to be greater than the amount you invested.

It’s better to leave your money in Treasury bills than to take chances with investments you don’t fully comprehend. It doesn’t matter that your brother-in-law, your best friend, or your favorite investment advisor understands some money-making scheme. It isn’t his money at risk. If you don’t understand it, don’t do it.

Diversification

Rule #10: Don’t depend on any one investment, institution, or person for your safety.

Every investment has its time in the sun — and its moment of shame. Precious metals ruled the roost in the 1970s while stocks and bonds were in disgrace. But then gold and silver became the losers of the 1980s and 1990s, while stocks and bonds multiplied their value. No one investment is good for all times. Even Treasury bills can lose real value during times of inflation.

And you can’t rely on any single institution to protect your wealth for you. Old-line banks have failed and pension funds have folded. The company you think will keep your wealth safe might not be there when you’re ready to withdraw your life savings. 

We live in an uncertain world, and surprises are the norm. You shouldn’t risk the chance that a single surprise will wipe out a large part of your holdings.

Balanced Portfolio

Rule #11: Create a bulletproof portfolio for protection.

For the money you need to take care of you for the rest of your life, set up a simple, balanced, diversified portfolio. I call this a “Permanent Portfolio” because once you set it up, you never need to rearrange the investment mix— even if your outlook for the future changes.

The portfolio should assure that your wealth will survive any event — including an event that would be devastating to any individual element within the portfolio. In other words, this portfolio should protect you no matter what the future brings. 

It isn’t difficult or complicated to have such a portfolio this safe. You can achieve a great deal of diversification with a surprisingly simple portfolio. 

Speculation

Rule #12: Speculate only with money you can afford to lose.

If you want to try to beat the market, set up a second — separate — portfolio with which you can speculate to your heart’s content. But make sure this portfolio contains no more of your wealth than you can afford to lose.

I call this second pool of money a “Variable Portfolio” because its investments will vary as your outlook for the future changes. It might be all or part in stocks or gold or something else — whatever looks good at any time — or just in cash. You can take chances with the Variable Portfolio because you know that, whatever happens, no loss can be devastating. You can lose only the money you’ve already decided isn’t precious to you.

International Diversification

Rule #13: Keep some assets outside the country in which you live.

Don’t allow everything you own to be where your government can touch it. By having something outside the reach of your government, you’ll be less vulnerable — and you’ll feel less vulnerable. You’ll no longer have to worry so much about what the government will do next.

For example, maintaining a foreign bank account is quite simple; it’s little different from having a mail or Internet account with an American bank or broker. 

Tax Shelters

Rule #14: Beware of tax-avoidance schemes.

Tax rates are still low enough in the U.S. that you might gain very little from the risk and effort of constructing elaborate tax shelters. And a great deal of money has been lost by people who hoped to beat the tax system. The losses came from investments that provided special tax advantages but didn’t make economic sense, and from tax shelters that were disallowed by the IRS — incurring penalties and interest on top of the liabilities.

There are a number of simple ways available to minimize taxes — through such things as IRAs and 401(k) plans. These plans are effective but non-controversial. They won’t come back to haunt you.

Enjoyment

Rule #15: Enjoy yourself with a budget for pleasure.

Your wealth is of no value if you can’t enjoy it. But it’s easy to spend too much while the money’s flowing in. To enjoy your wealth, establish a budget of money that you can spend yearly without concern. If you stay within that amount, you can feel free to blow the money on cars, trips, anything you want — knowing that you aren’t blowing your future.

When in Doubt . . .

Rule #16: Whenever you’re in doubt about a course of action, it is always better to err on the side of safety.

If you pass up an opportunity to increase your fortune, another one will be along soon enough. But if you lose your life savings just once, you might never get a chance to replace it.

The Rules of Life

The rules of safe investing are little different from the rules of life: recognize that you live in an uncertain world, don’t expect the impossible, and don’t trust strangers. If you apply to your investments the same realistic attitude that produced your present wealth, you needn’t fear that you’ll ever go broke.