Process versus results

Every few months, I seem to return to this subject because it's so important to successful investing--there is a world of different between investment process and investment results, especially in the short term!

Results are what you get, process is how you get it. Confusing the two leads to all kinds of investment mistakes. Why?

The reason why, to over-simplify, is randomness. The world is so complex that you can't possibly know all the variables that can impact a particular result. You may have a bad results, but a good process. Or, you may have a bad process, but get good results in the short term.

If you have the right process, but watch short term results too closely, you may give up before the big payday comes. If you have the wrong process, but get lucky and have a good result, you may continue to implement the wrong process leading to terrible long term results.

Let me give a concrete example because the subject probably seems way too abstract so far.

Suppose I make you an offer: would you pay me $200 for a one in six change of winning $1,000? I'll roll a die, if it comes up 1 I'll pay you $1,000, if it comes up 2-6, I keep the $200 you pay me to play. Sound like a good offer?

No, it's not. You have a 1 in 6 chance of getting $1,000, so you have a 16.67% chance of winning. Multiply the probability, 16.67% times the payout, $1,000, and you come up with the expected value: $166.67. Because you have to pay $200 to play and the expected value is less, you shouldn't play.

Let's suppose you haven't done the math above, and you decide to play. Suppose you win. Winning will be psychologically exhilarating, releasing all kinds of feel-good endorphins in your brain. This "high" feeling will encourage you to play again. But, the more you play, the more likely you are to lose. The odds and payout are against you.

The good result, winning luckily the first time, may encourage you to continue using a bad process, playing a game with a negative expected value.

Let's suppose I tell you it costs $100, instead of $200, to play the game. Would you play now? Because the expected value is more than the price to play, you should play.

Let's suppose you decide to play, but you lose the first time. Let's suppose you play again, and lose again. The more you play and lose, the more you feel like you should quit the game. The price of playing over and over again and losing takes it's toll on you, you begin to get angry, frustrated, and want to quit. Should you?

No. The odds and payout are in your favor, so you should keep playing. Just because the outcomes look bad over the short term, doesn't mean they are bad over the long run. In the long run, you'll win if you keep playing, but that takes a lot of discipline.

I think about process and results all the time. Sometimes I make a good process investment and it doesn't do well. I beat myself up for being so stupid, but that doesn't mean my process is bad or that my long run results will be poor. If the odds and payout are in my favor, I'll win if I keep implementing the right process. Sometimes I make a bad process investment and it does well. This encourages me to repeat the process, especially if I don't examine whether I was lucky or good. But, implementing the bad process will eventually catch up with me, the odds always do, and I'll lose in the long run.

Focusing on process is vitally important in any situation where randomness plays a part. If you focus too much on short term results instead of the process, you'll make costly and repeated mistakes.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

The stock market is all about expectations

The stock market has rallied strongly since March. Why has the market rebounded in the face of weak economic data? The reason: because the market is all about expectations.

The stock market is a reflection of investor expectations about future economic profits. When investors expect economic conditions to improve and companies to make growing profits, the stock market tends to go up.

Recent economic reports do not show a growing economy, but they do show that the economy is declining less quickly. Why is that a good thing? Think about an airplane in a nosedive. Before it starts to climb again, it's rate of descent needs to slow. Then it levels off before it climbs. The rate of descent must get less bad before leveling or climbing can occur. Same with the economy.

The market has rallied since March not because economic data or profits have grown, but because things are getting bad less quickly. If it turns out that profits level off at a low level, keep declining slowly, or climb at a slower rate than people expect, the market will decline. In other words, the market will decline if economic growth and company profits don't meet or exceed investors' current expectations.

How likely is it that economic growth and company profits will miss, meet or exceed expectations? I have no idea, but in the short run that's the $64,000 question. If you invest long term, pick good investments, and pay the right price, you don't need to guess this outcome.

But, it's an interesting question to ask. Do you expect strong economic growth over the next year? Do you think consumers are ready to start spending again despite 10%+ unemployment? Do you think recent government efforts to spur economic growth will work? Do you think company profitability will rebound by around 50% like the market is expecting?

After listening to conference calls over the last 3 weeks, I have to admit to having an opinion (for what that's worth). Almost every company I've listened to has beat profit expectations by cutting costs and missed expectations in terms of sales. In other words, they are missing expectations for selling products, but meeting profit expectations by firing people and not spending for future growth. That doesn't sound sustainable to me.

The market seems to be basking in the glow of potential, not actual growth. If that growth turns out to be ephemeral, look out below!

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

China's precarious position

One of the major reasons for the market's continued rally is China.

China has been buying up commodities, especially copper, and that has caused a resurgence in the price of copper. Because copper is such a fundamental unit in overall economic demand, many are taking the surge in copper prices as a sign that underlying economic demand is rebounding and set to run for quite some time.

But, is the demand from China fundamental, or is it due solely to economic stimulus from China's government? Even if it is due to government stimulus, does that mean such demand will or will not continue? These questions are not easy to answer.

China's banking system is not very sound because so many loans are given out as political favors. On the other hand, the Chinese save a huge percentage of their income, some say 20-40%, which is three to seven times higher than here in the U.S. (and that's the highest U.S. saving rate of around 6% since the 1990's). Savings become investment over time, and investment can make up for a lot of bad loans.

China is also experiencing political unrest. China's highly centralized government is fighting to balance the interests of 600 million people living on the east coast (who benefit from free trade) with the interests of 700 million people living in China's interior (who are mostly dirt-poor farmers). This is a delicate balancing act, and, without high economic growth, likely to get much more difficult.

China's economy is very dependent on exporting products. Because worldwide demand is down so much, China has little to export. They are trying to shift their economy more from exporting to internal demand, but this will take a lot of time and effort, and success is by no means assured.

If China succeeds in their efforts to keep growth going, then expect higher commodity prices and increasing growth for the world economy. If China can't keep the growth engine going, then expect commodity prices to tank and for the world economy to muddle along.

China is likely to be the main driver of short to intermediate economic growth for some time.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

How to invest with deflation/inflation

Last week, I talked about why I thought we'd be experiencing deflation over the short term and inflation over the long run. This week, I'll discuss how to invest in both scenarios.

A deflationary environment is the harder of the two.

The thing that does best is U.S. government bills, notes and bonds. This was clear late last year as U.S. Treasuries were the best performing asset class. Cash and gold did okay as well, but U.S. Treasuries were the all-star.

Not much else does well in deflation. Some people think other bonds like corporates or municipals or mortgage backed do well, but I beg to differ. The problem is that deflation usually leads corporations to collect less revenue, thus increasing default and bankruptcy risk. Municipalities suffer from less tax revenue and, unlike the Federal government, can't print money or run huge budget deficits. Mortgage backed bonds do poorly for the same reason as corporations--people default on their loans under deflation.

Gold tends to hold its value, but it doesn't produce any cash flow and it is very expensive to store, insure, etc. Cash is a great thing to have, especially if you can deploy that cash as deflation is bottoming and before inflation has taken off.

Stocks tend to get clobbered during deflation. Some companies do better than other, though. High quality companies do better than low quality companies. Companies with pricing power--that can raise and lower their prices easily--tend to do well. Companies with low or no debt do well.

Another problem with investing during deflation is timing. If deflation increases or decreases, it can dramatically impact returns. If you are sitting in U.S. Treasuries when deflation bottoms, you can get clobbered (and many have since January). Nobody can time the market, so trying to go to Treasuries and jump back into stocks or other risky assets is very tough. I don't know anyone who can consistently do it.

Inflation is an easier environment to invest in.

Most people instantly think of gold, but I don't believe gold is the best investment in inflation. Once again, gold is expensive to invest in and it doesn't throw off cash. It will maintain its value over the long run, and that's important, but other investments do better.

Commodities do well under inflation. Resource and mining companies tend to do even better. Land and real estate--as long as it's not bought with debt--can hold up well in an inflationary environment. The things that do well in inflation tend to be tangible.

Stocks tend to do poorly in the initial stages of inflation, but then do outstandingly when inflation is brought under control. Once again, companies with pricing power do better. Companies with debt can do well as long as their debt isn't floating (variable rate).

The problem, like with deflation, is getting the timing right. It's not easy or even possible to do.

For that reason, I have a different approach than most to investing in a deflationary and then inflationary environment, especially because I know I can't get the timing right on when deflation will turn into inflation.

First, I am buying high qualities companies with pricing power. They should fall less during deflation and should recover more quickly when inflation kicks in.

Second, I am buying companies with resource exposure as the market goes down. I can lock in better and better prices on the way down, and then really do well as inflation kicks in.

Third, I'm investing in foreign companies. When the dollar goes down for U.S. macro-economic reasons, that doesn't mean other country's currency will go down, too. High quality companies with pricing power in countries with more solid economics than the U.S. fit the bill here.

Finally, I'm caring more cash than usual going into this deflationary scenario. I will have cash as the market goes down and will be able to buy great companies, resource companies and foreign companies on the way down. It's hard to buy low if you don't have cash because you have to pick something that will probably have gone down a lot to buy something else cheap.

Deflationary and inflationary environments are tough to invest in, but there are smart options. Timing things perfectly can't be done, so don't try it. Investing to benefit from such an environment, however, can allow you to build tremendous wealth over the long run, and having a disciplined plan in place helps. Happy investing!

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Inflation or deflation?

One of the big arguments raging in markets is whether we face inflation or deflation going forward. This is an extremely complex subject, and I don't believe anyone really knows, with certainty, which will happen. I certainly don't. My educated guess is that we'll experience deflation in the short run and then inflation in the long run.

I believe this issue is clouded because the terms "inflation" and "deflation" are used to refer to two entirely different, but related, things in reality.

One is what I'll refer to as monetary inflation and deflation. Monetary inflation and deflation is caused when the supply of money grows faster or slower than the economy. When money is created faster than the economy grows, all things equal, then inflation results. When money is created slower than the economy grows, all things equal, then deflation results.

The second kind is what I'll refer to as credit based inflation and deflation. Credit based inflation or deflation is caused by the creation or retraction of credit. This is very similar to monetary inflation in that banks can create money equivalents when they advance credit to borrowers using the money they gather from demand depositors (that's your checking account--it's lent out to borrowers). When credit money is created faster than the economy grows, you get credit based inflation, and when credit money is destroyed through bad loans or banking regulation, you get credit based deflation.

Credit inflation and deflation require more explanation, so stick with me for a little bit. Credit inflation creates an artificial demand that flows into whatever sector is popular--housing in the mid 2000's. Credit deflation occurs when the credit expansion collapses because asset prices collapse without an ever-increasing supply of more credit--welcome to the 2007 and 2008 residential real estate bust. Credit deflation is very ugly because using borrowed money to buy a product and then finding out you can't pay back what you borrowed creates a real decline in growth. Borrowing $100 and paying back $90, when done in the aggregate, leads to negative economic growth. No fun.

If you're lost at this point, you're not alone. Like I said before, this subject is complex and it doesn't seem like anyone has a firm grasp on this overly abstract subject.

I don't think you'll find any conventional economists or investors using the terms I've used above. It's my nomenclature and it's based on my extensive reading and experience on the subject.

Things get very difficult to grasp because when the Fed creates money in the monetary inflation sense, it also causes banks to create credit based inflation as well. This was easy to see in the Dot Com bubble of the late 1990's and the housing bubble of the early and mid 2000's. In both cases, inflation didn't show up in the conventional measures (like the consumer price index), but it was easy to see in assets prices--technology stocks in the first case and residential real estate in the second.

With that framework in mind, let me explain where I think we are now and where I think things will go. I think the monetary inflation that was unleashed to fight the Dot Com collapse created a credit inflation that went, predominantly, into residential real estate in the early and mid 2000's. Because these loans went bad, meaning people in aggregate borrowed $100 only to find out they invested in something that was worth less than $100, we are experiencing credit based deflation.

The Federal Reserve is trying to fight that credit based deflation by using monetary inflation. This keeps prices from spiraling down, in theory, but it doesn't make the original credit based borrowing justified. What you see, in the short term, is a credit based deflation in relative equilibrium with monetary inflation, keeping prices, as a whole, from falling.

The problem is that printing money--monetary inflation--doesn't really solve the problem. When someone invests money and doesn't get all their money back, then you have insolvency instead of a lack of liquidity (a lack of money to lend or spend). What needs to happen is people need to spend less than they make to replenish the capital that was lost in bad investments made with credit based money. That takes time.

When that capital is replenished and growth continues, the Fed will have to use monetary deflation--taking money out of the system--to prevent inflation. I'm not sure if you can see where this is going, but the Fed has an almost impossible task. It has to print just the right amount of money to make up for credit based deflation--and no one knows exactly what that number is--and then they have to take the exact right amount of money back out of the system when the credit based deflation ends and becomes inflation again. I think that's a super-human task that no mere mortal can perform (not even Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke).

Perhaps a simpler way of putting it is this: the banks made a bunch of bad loans at the behest of politicians trying to bring prosperity through collusion, and then those loans went bad. Now the Fed is printing money to make up for the bad loans, but the banks aren't lending that money out, yet, because they need to rebuild their money to make up for loan losses. When those losses are made up for and the banks start lending again, the Fed has to bring all that printed money back out of the system.

In the short run, I think the Fed isn't printing enough money to make up for loan losses because it's under-estimating how many bad loans were made. That's why I think we will be experiencing deflation over the short term.

Eventually, though, due to higher saving rates (consumers have gone from saving less than 0% of their income 2 years ago to saving almost 6% of their income now), capital will be rebuilt and banks will start lending. This will not be entirely clear at the time, and the Fed (facing a lot of political pressure from the President and Congress) will not want to pull money from the system until they are sure the economy is going again. The Fed will almost certainly wait too long and not pull the money out fast enough, which will lead to inflation.

In my opinion, this will be the highest inflation we will have seen since the 1970's. The Fed will get on the ball, eventually (like it did in the early 1980's), and that will probably cause another nasty recession (like it did in the early 1980's).

The result, in my humble opinion, will be deflation over the next few years and then high inflation.

Next week, I'll address how to invest under these scenarios and why this could be an unbelievably good time to make money when everyone else is losing theirs.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

What could go wrong?

The economy seems to be getting back on its feet. New unemployment claims seem to be turning the corner. Manufacturing seems to be turning up. The housing market even seems to be stabilizing.

There are very good reasons to believe the U.S. economy may be growing again before year end.

That's the good news.

But, what could go wrong? When things look rosy, I begin to wonder what would happen if most people are wrong. There are good reasons to worry.

This is not a normal post World War II recession. This is a credit induced recession, and credit induced recessions take longer to work out. It's possible we are out of the woods, but I don't think it's likely.

For starters, the thing that got us into this recession, a credit induced binge to buy real estate, doesn't seem to have worked its way out, yet. Housing may be stabilizing, but option ARM, jumbo, Alt A and prime loans will be reseting to higher rates over the next couple of years. That could put us right back into a 2007-2008 scenario.

On the other hand, the governments of the world have done everything they can, both monetary and fiscal stimulus, to get the world economy going again. There's no such thing as a free lunch, so such stimulus will have consequences. Those consequences could include much higher inflation and perhaps even a dollar crisis.

More credit defaults would be deflationary. If the economy improves, then government stimulus will be highly inflationary. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If everything happens perfectly, then we'll be okay and we won't experience inflation or deflation. But, that doesn't seem to be the odds-on bet.

More likely than not, investors will want to be prepared for both contingencies. If deflation happens, then you'll want to be in solid companies with strong balance sheets and earnings power. If inflation happens, you'll want to be invested in companies that benefit disproportionally from inflation, like resource companies or companies with strong pricing power.

It's possible for us to reach a Goldilocks economy again with low inflation and good growth, but it doesn't seem likely considering the dynamics currently at play.

Be prepared for either inflation or deflation. Keep some dry powder in case great opportunities come up. Don't invest in marginal or junky companies--this is not the time to gamble.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Investing in the unloved

The highest returning investments are also the most unloved.

This may sound counter-intuitive at first, but it makes sense when you stand back and think about it.

Great companies, like Google and Apple, that are firing on all cylinders, almost always have share prices that reflects that fact. The very obviousness that such companies are doing well causes investors to flock to those stocks, and hence bid up their shares to very high prices relative to underlying fundamentals. As Warren Buffett puts it, you pay a high price for a cheery consensus. Once everyone loves a stock and has bought it, who is left to buy more?

The companies that are seemingly on the ropes, like Microsoft and Dell (full disclosure: my clients and I both own shares of Microsoft and Dell), on the other hand, have share prices that reflect their tough competitive landscape. Everyone knows that Google is going to crush Microsoft and that Apple is going to crush Dell, so Microsoft and Dell have low share prices relative to their fundamentals. Once everyone who hates a stock has sold it, who is left to sell more?

But, what if what everyone knows to be true isn't true? What if Microsoft and Dell aren't completely doomed? What if they do even slightly better than everyone thinks? Then their share prices may perform better than consensus. Actually, once everyone who is going to sell Microsoft and Dell to buy Google and Apple have done so, then there is only one direction share prices can go, and its the opposite of what most people expect.

In my experience, the more hated the company, the more potential for great upside. This isn't always the case (think: Worldcom, Enron, AIG, Citigroup), but it happens much more frequently than most think.

In fact, I tend to get excited when the consensus comes to such a conclusion. When I tell people I own Comcast (full disclosure: my clients and I own Comcast) and their reaction is, "they are toast, everyone will be watching TV and movies for free over the Internet!", I just smile and nod. I know that Comcast's share price reflects this consensus opinion, and that it's price probably has a lot of upside.

Investing in what is hated is tough. No one will pat you on the back at cocktail parties. But, what would you rather have? Pats on the back, or long run market out-performance? Not everyone agrees with me on this, but it's an easy choice for me (and I think my clients are happy that I take on that burden for them).

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Don't invest with your heart, invest with your head

Emotions make us lousy investors. People, as humans, tend to act in emotional ways during tough or exciting times. When people give in to emotions--investing with their hearts instead of their heads--they get lousy results.

If you've refused to sell a losing investment, bought because everyone else was, sold because a stock's price went down, picked investments because they seemed safe, or sold because the economy looked dreadful, then you've invested with your emotions. Don't feel bad, everyone fights and succumbs to this at some point.

The field of behavioral finance has clearly shown that we humans suffer from several biases that lead us to make unwise investment decisions.

For example, there's anchoring bias. If you hold an investment waiting for it to get back to the price you paid, you're suffering from anchoring bias. If you wait to buy an investment until it declines back to the price you could have bought it at (and regret not having done so), that's anchoring bias again.

Another bias is called recency bias. This is the tendency to think that recent events are more likely than they are (and that distant events are less likely). Someone who buys hurricane insurance because a bunch of hurricanes seem to have hit recently is suffering from recency bias. Someone who drops earthquake coverage because an earthquake hasn't happened in a while has been hit with recency bias.

Loss aversion is one of the most common biases. It happens when people refuse to sell an investment because they don't want to "book the loss." People feel losses more keenly than gains, and they usually need twice the gain to make up for a given loss. This can lead people to make bad investment decisions by holding on to something they should sell.

Then, there's the endowment or halo effect. This happens when one particular good attribute overwhelms all other attributes. Many people still see GM as a great company because it was in the past, even though there's a lot of evidence it isn't anymore. It can also happen the other way around, when one particular bad attribute overwhelms all good attributes. Many assume a company whose stock has gone down a lot must be bad, even though it may have many excellent characteristics. The price drop seems to overwhelm everything else.

Finally, there's overconfidence. When asked, we all claim to be above average drivers, kissers, and investors, but this isn't Lake Wobegon and everyone can't be above average. It's hard for us view ourselves objectively, and so we make unwise investments when we feel more confident than the facts suggest.

The way to fight these biases is simple, but not easy: discipline. If you use strict criteria to buy and sell investments and act on that criteria, you can fight these emotional biases and win. This will greatly improve your results. Even better, If you'd prefer to let someone else be disciplined for you (I'm not unbiased on this suggestion), then unemotionally select an advisor that can act with discipline on your behalf.

Invest with your head instead of your heart, and you'll get dramatically better investment results over the long term.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Can investors trust their money managers?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal, "Taking Control," by Jennifer Levitz highlights how investors feel they can no longer trust money managers. Multi-billion dollar Ponzi schemes by the likes of Bernie Madoff, prominent financial companies being accused of cheating clients, and terrible recent performance have all conspired to make investors feel shell-shocked.

This is quiet understandable. After being re-assured that regulators were looking out for their interests and by money managers who have conflicts of interest, no wonder people feel scared.

The article goes on to spell out some of the things investors can do to take back control, so they don't feel as scared.

1) Do your homework when picking a financial advisor. Every investment advisor must provide a Form ADV Part II to prospective clients. This form spells out an adviser's structure, methodology, criminal record, compensation, etc. If you advisor won't disclose this basic information, then don't consider them. I gladly provide this form to all my prospective clients.

2) Ask tough questions to identify potential conflicts of interest. Some advisers are salespeople in disguise. They are compensated by commissions and they only have to judge a potential investment as "suitable" for clients. A tougher standard, which all registered investment advisers must meet, is a "fiduciary" standard. A fiduciary must put the client's interests first. A commission-based broker only has to ensure an investment is "suitable," which has a lot of wiggle room. Make sure your advisor holds themselves out to the fiduciary standard. I do.

3) Find out how an advisor is compensated. If they are compensated by commission, then your interests and theirs are not aligned. Their commissioned-based structure may not be obvious to you, so ask a lot of questions. If an advisor gives you a financial plan for $500, and they recommend you put $100,000 with a mutual fund they get a 5% commission ($5,000) for recommending, they have 10 times the reason to get you to buy their fund than to provide you with an objective financial plan. If they work for a flat fee and don't receive kick-backs for recommending investments, then their interests and yours are aligned. If they work for a fee based on assets under management, then their interests are aligned with yours except when you ask them how much of your money they should manage. Find out how your advisor is compensated and you'll find out if their interests are aligned with yours. I'm compensated by a fee based on assets under management, so my interests are aligned with clients, and I disclose my conflict of interest when they ask me how much money they should stick with me.

4) Ask tough questions about risk factors. Most advisers try to paper over risk factors. They stick clients with a hundred page prospectus (feeling certain no one except accountants and engineers will read it), or they try to understate risk considerations. Make sure your advisor can clearly articulate the risk factors of their particular approach. I have a brutally honest web page that explains the risk factors of equity investing (which is what I do), and I tend to over-emphasize risk to my clients. My first client letter, in the summer of 2005, said the market was over-valued and that clients should lower their return expectations. Fortune favors the prepared mind.

5) Don't expect a free lunch. When someone gives you a free steak dinner, you have to question their motivation and objectivity. When someone says something is "cash-like," doubt their statement. Cash is cash-like; structured products, bonds, even CDs all carry risks that are distinctly not cash-like. I invest in equities, and they are not cash-like. Don't be fooled by someone trying to pitch a product that anything other than cash is truly cash-like.

6) Does a manger invest his own money the same way he's recommending you invest your money? Does he or she eat their own cooking? If your advisor doesn't or won't invest where he is recommending you invest, be very worried. If they earn $100,000 a year selling variable annuities and have $20,000 of their own money in a variable annuities, be very worried (they make so much more from selling annuities that they'll never care about the mere $20,000 they might lose). If an advisor believes in what they do, then they'll have all, or almost all, of their money invested there. I have over 90% of my money invested in the same securities I recommend for clients. My other 10% is in a bank account in case an emergency happens.

7) Does your adviser's firm have interests aligned with yours? Firms make more money when they advise more people. But, the more people they advise, the less time they have for you. Such is the conflict of interest of money management. Added to this, large firms cannot move as quickly as small firms to exploit market opportunities, nor can they deploy their money in smaller situations like small firms can. The benefit of large firms is the possibility of lower costs. With Vanguard, that's the case. Most firms that are 100x my size still charge more than I do, when all costs are considered. Many large firms charge their clients to help them market to new clients, that's what 12b-1 fees are at mutual funds. What a rip-off. My firm is small and nimble, allowing me to provide excellent, personalized customer service to a limited number of unique clients.

Yes, Virginia, some money managers can be trusted, but you have to do your homework to find that out. Get full disclosure, ask about advisor conflicts of interest, find out how they're compensated, get clear information about risk, don't expect a free lunch, ask lots of questions and expect understandable answers. It's hard work, but very much worth the effort.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Higher saving rates are a GOOD thing!

The U.S. saving rate recently hit 5.7%, and all types of commentators have been saying this is bad for the economy. I think this is a load of hooey!

One of the most famous economists of the last century, John Maynard Keynes, made this fallacy main stream with his "Paradox of Thrift."

I'll spare you the details, but the gist is that savings aren't spent in the economy, and therefore prevent growth, employment, all good things.

This fallacy has all kinds of people, including economists and commentators with IQs that are much higher than mine, saying that more savings will crush the economy.

But, I think they are full of baloney. Saving stuffed under a mattress, as they were during Keynes time, aren't spent in the economy. But who puts their savings under a mattress nowadays?

No, most people put their saving into the bank, bonds or stocks.

If savings go to the bank, they are lent out again and used for consumption or investment in productive capacity. I call that spending.

If the money goes into bonds, then whoever sold the bond will either spend the money, which is consumption, or invest the money elsewhere, which will turn into an investment in productive capacity.

If the money goes into stocks, you get the same thing as with bonds.

If people save their money (and don't stick it under the mattress), it gets invested. Investment is where higher productivity, new jobs, and growth come from.

We shouldn't be encouraging people to spend, we should be encouraging them to save and invest. Consumption, especially consumption paid for with debt, is what got us into this economic mess to begin with!

What we need is more, not less savings. That will create new jobs, higher productivity and higher growth. This will not prevent growth, but is the necessary precursor to growth.

Okay, I'll get off my soap-box now...

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Bond market in focus

Most stock investors, myself included, tend to focus solely on how the stock market is doing. I own almost entirely stocks and so do my clients, so why focus on bond markets?

For starters, bonds are alternatives to stocks. If bond yields rise high enough, some people will sell stocks to buy bonds. If bond yields are climbing, like they have been lately, then it may lead investors to sell stocks and buy bonds.

Bonds are also a strong indicator of inflation. If bond yields are climbing, it means bond investors are probably worried about inflation. With governments around the world printing money to get the world economy going again, this worry is not unjustified. Inflation is bad for stocks in the short run, so increasing bond yields are a bad sign for stocks in the short run. If you remember the 20% stock market crash that happened in one day in 1987, you might also like to know that bond yields had been rising and the dollar sinking for months beforehand. Sounds like today in some ways...

Bond markets are good indicators of financial stress, too. When investors become worried about credit issues, they frequently flood into U.S. Treasuries, which leads to declining interest rates. Lately, interest rates have been going the other direction, indicating that worries about credit issues are declining and the economy may be recovering. This could be signaling the end of the credit crisis, and/or the beginning of a dollar crisis.

Bond markets are as vital to understanding the economy and investing as stock markets. They frequently signal economic, credit, and inflation changes long before stock markets do. It's important to pay attention to bond markets for this reason.

As I've highlighted above, interest rates have been climbing recently. Interest rates climb when bond prices go down, and are an indication that stock markets may decline because of competition with bonds or worries about inflation. Increasing interest rates can also mean the credit crisis may be ending, the economy may be improving, and investors may becoming increasingly concerned about the value of the U.S. dollar.

These are important things to consider.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Selling low and buying high

Sometimes the stock market seems like a machine designed to produce regret.

When the market goes down, most people hang on until they reach a point of maximum pain and they sell. That's when the market starts to climb back up again.

When the market goes back up, most people wait for the market to pull back (so they can "buy back in"). When the pull back doesn't occur and the market continues to climb, they reach a point of maximum regret and buy back in. That's when the market starts to tank again.

And so the story goes on and on over time. People end up buying at the top and selling at the bottom, en masse, because they invest using their psychological inclinations instead of their heads. That's what allows calmer minds to make money over time.

The financial press is full of articles about those who sold at the bottom and are now regretting it and buying back in at the top. Why don't people learn that trying to time the market doesn't work?

This fear and regret cycle has repeated twice over the last 6 months. As the market tanked in October and November of last year, people sold at the bottom. As the market climbed out of those lows, the same people bought back in only to see the market tank again in March. Guess what happened from March to May? Rinse and repeat.

Why don't people just accept that their psychological inclinations are almost always wrong when it comes to investing in the stock market? I don't know. Tons of studies have shown that people make bad investing decisions using their psychological reactions. And yet they continue to do so.

The stock market will go up and down, I guarantee it. When it feels awful to hold on, you should be buying. When it feels wonderful because things are going up, you should be selling. Do almost the exact opposite of what you feel, and you'll be a better, more successful investor.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

A little extra cash is not a bad thing

I must admit, I used the recent stock market rally to sell some of my clients' and my holdings, and I didn't re-invest the money into something else right away.

This may sound like a prudent thing to do, but many take issue with such an approach.

They believe not being fully invested means timing the market. But I disagree with the approach that always being fully invested is the smartest way to go. I also disagree that not being fully invested--holding cash--means timing the market.

In the history of free enterprise, the most successful businesses almost always operate more conservatively than they need to. By doing so, they have the ability to be aggressive in difficult times.

During the Great Depression, companies with extra cash were able to boost advertising at low rates, purchase competitors at cheap prices, expand into new markets, etc., while their competitors were simply attempting to survive the crisis. Having extra cash on hand during tough times allows great businesses to buy at super-cheap prices exactly when competitors are hamstrung.

The same is true for investing. By operating a bit more conservatively--holding extra cash in principle--an investor can purchase during those rare times when prices are once-in-a-lifetime cheap. Those who are fully invested cannot. Those with extra cash may under-perform during boom times, but they tend to out-perform over the long run.

Holding extra cash is not the same as timing the market, either.

Timing the market is the attempt to sell at the top and buy at the bottom. That's not my approach, nor do I think timing the market is a successful strategy.

Instead, I assess the value of businesses. With such an assessment, I attempt to purchase businesses (that's what buying stock is: purchasing part-ownership in businesses) when they are cheap and sell them when they're dear. The buying and selling occurs because of the relationship of price to value, not because of my opinion about the market's top or bottom.

Carrying extra cash can be a competitive advantage, both in business and investing. I'm happy to sit on a little extra cash and wait for stock prices to move to cheaper valuations. If it happens sooner, great. If later, that'll work, too.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

It looks like a slow economic recovery is on the way! (but that doesn't necessarily mean we're out of the woods)

At long last, there are some pretty solid signs the economy may recover soon.

This week, both the weekly initial jobless claims report and the monthly unemployment report showed improvement. Initial jobless claims have been high, but declining, which usually happens several months before the economy starts growing again. The monthly unemployment report showed high and growing unemployment, but with much fewer jobs being cut by employers.

These reports aren't saying the employment situation is getting better, just that it's getting bad less quickly. But, that's always the first necessary step to an economic recovery.

You see, unemployment almost always peaks long after the economy starts growing again, so it's normal for the employment situation to be getting less bad when the economy turns.

Not surprisingly, the stock market anticipated this situation. The market has been rallying since March, showing once again its predictive ability. But keep in mind, the stock market has forecast 9 of the last 5 recessions and 9 of the last 5 recoveries.

That's not a typo, the stock market frequently tanks or moves up falsely, indicating things are getting worse or improving when that isn't the case. In other words, it's not a great indicator by itself, but it is a good indicator in concert with others.

Adding to information from employment and the stock market, the Chinese government is working hard to stimulate its economy, and it looks like those efforts have been successful so far. Unlike the U.S. government, the Chinese government actually has money to stimulate their economy instead of simply borrowing from others to stimulate. This doesn't mean the Chinese government's efforts are efficient or even sustainable over the long run, but for now it's working, and they have a lot of money they can spend to get things going.

Putting these data points together, along with retail sales, copper prices, industrial activity, inventory levels, and so forth, it looks like an economic recovery is on the way.

How will this impact investors? Good question. As usual, I don't really know what will happen in the short run.

This could be a V recovery, a sharp economic rebound, a U recovery, a long slow period followed by faster growth, a W recovery, a sharp rebound followed by another slowdown followed by a sustainable recovery, or an L "recovery," where we don't really recover so much as things don't continue getting worse. An L recover is really a U recovery where the base of the U is very, very wide. Think Japan over the last...well...20 years.

If a V recovery is in the works, the stock market could just keep going up. It won't move straight up, because conflicting information will cause temporary setbacks, but on the whole it will not reach new bottoms and will trend upward over time. That would be the most fun, but I believe it's the least likely scenario. It's possible, though.

A U or L recovery would mean the stock market has gotten ahead of itself, and if companies start pre-announcing that things don't look that great for the 3rd and 4th quarter, the market would probably tank. The market's recent move indicates V or W with strong growth and earnings beginning late this year or early next. If that doesn't happen, market participants will be very disappointed and prices will decline, perhaps significantly.

If a W recovery is in the works, the market could go up for the next year or more, only to crash again as the current nascent recovery turns out to be a false dawn followed by another recession. Unfortunately, I see this scenario as quite likely. Government stimulus may lead to higher inflation and high commodity prices, which could send the economy right back into recession.

My guess, and I'll admit its no better than that, is that we are in a W recovery. That means enjoy the rally for the time being, but be prepared for another downdraft in a year or two. This may sound unpleasant, but it will produce many opportunities to make money both on the up and the downside. That's what happened in the late 1970's and early 1980's. There was a lot of money to be made on commodities during the turmoil, and then the greatest bull market of all time began in 1982.

The next most likely scenario, in my opinion, is a U/L recovery. This would be no fun for most investors, but work out fine--over the long run--for the prepared. It would provide a lot of false dawn rallies and several exploitable downdrafts. That's what the 1930's and 1970's looked like, as well as Japan over the last 20 years.

The V recovery, which I consider least likely, would, I believe, look like the recoveries we saw after the late 1990-91 recession and the 2001 recession. In both cases, the market didn't really take off until a couple of years after the economy left recession. In both cases, they were referred to as "job-less" recoveries, with economic growth and very slow employment improvement.

As you may have noticed, I didn't include any scenario where the market just takes off into a 20 year bull market with annualized returns of 20%. That's because I consider such a scenario so unlikely as to be hardly worth mentioning. It's possible, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It feels a lot better to be talking about recovery than it did talking about how bad things were last November or March. However, I believe the market may be getting ahead of itself in predicting robust growth by year end. It might be a good time to take some profits and sit on a little bit extra cash.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

The peril of bonds

Long term bonds have beaten stocks for decades.

As reported by Rob Arnott (chairman of Research Affiliates), 20 year bonds have provided better returns than the S&P 500 starting any time from the 1979 through 2008.

That's a startling fact to many investors who've been told, ad nauseam, that stocks always do better than bonds over the long run.

This out-performance by bonds has not gone unnoticed by investors, who are selling stock mutual funds and buying bond funds.

Is it time to abandon stocks and buy bonds?

No.

You shouldn't drive your car by looking in the rear view mirror, and you shouldn't invest your money that way, either. The past can be a wonderful guide to the future, if and only if situations are sufficiently similar.

But, the situation over the next 30 years is highly unlikely to be the same as it was over the last 30 years.

For starters, inflation was in double digits 30 years ago. When inflation is high, bonds sell at super-cheap prices. When high inflation is tackled, as it was by Paul Volcker in the 1980's, and continues to decline for another 20 years, as it did, then bonds have remarkable performance.

That is not the situation today. In fact, reported inflation is at an all time low, showing its first annual decline since the mid 1950's. Bond yields reflect this low inflation with record low yields.

Bonds will not perform as they did over the last 30 years because inflation isn't starting high and going to record lows. Count on it.

In addition, the threat of growing inflation is as high now as it was the last time bond rates were this low, in the 1960's.

At that point in time, government spending was going through the roof to fund new social programs like Medicare and to fight an on-going war in Vietnam. If that sounds familiar to you, it should.

The U.S. government is running record high deficits as a percentage of the economy in an attempt to jump start an economic recovery, fight on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fund social programs like universal health care, and reduce carbon emissions to prevent global warming. If you think that won't sooner or later lead to high inflation, I've got a few bridges I'd like to sell you.

Just because long bonds have done well in the past doesn't mean they will do well in the future. If deflation continues for some time, as many smart people think it will, long bonds will do well. But, I believe that situation will only be temporary.

When inflation kicks up, as I think it will, long bonds will be gutted.

Stocks may not do well in the short run, but they offer excellent long term protection against inflation. Stocks are also selling at historically low prices relative to bonds. Bonds are now priced for perfection (low or declining inflation) whereas stocks are priced for a sustained recession.

Stocks may under-perform bonds over the short run, but over the long run, I don't think its even a contest--stocks will almost certainly out-perform over the long run.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Less bad than expected

This is the time of year when companies report how they did last quarter. It's referred to as "earnings season."

There's nothing magical that happens in a single quarter to business in general, but Wall Street pays a lot of attention to quarterly reports.

Its amusing to watch.

Wall Street analysts try to guess (and I use that term intentionally) what companies will earn in a quarter. There is a lot of focus on these estimates because most people trade securities every 6 months.

If a company beats Wall Street "expectations," the stock price tends to jump. If a company misses "expectations," its price usually tanks.

Keep in mind that the fundamental value of a business changes very little over a single quarter. A company is worth it's earnings into the infinite future. What it does this quarter is, at best, meaningful to less than 5% of a company's value.

But, if you hold a stock for only 6 months, like most market participants do, then those quarterly estimates and price moves become vitally important. Why play that game?

I don't. I pay attention to long term business value. I tend to hold companies for 3 to 5 years on average. The reason I buy is because a company seems to be selling far below its mathematically assessed value. I sell because someone is willing to pay much more than think it's worth.

I don't guess what will happen in one quarter. I don't hold for 6 months. I don't play that game.

This quarter has been particularly amusing to watch because companies are reporting earnings that are less bad than Wall Street expects.

That wording is also intentional. The companies aren't doing a lot better, they are just doing a lot less bad than Wall Street expects.

These are meaningful moves. When USG (full disclosure: my clients and I own shares of USG) reported earnings on Tuesday, its price jumped 25.4% in one day. When Mohawk (full disclosure: my clients and I own shares of Mohawk) reported earnings today, its price jumped over 33% (as of 1:51 Mountain Standard Time).

Did these companies report record earnings? No, they reported big losses. Did they forecast huge sales and earnings increases in the short term future? No, they both said the economy looks terrible and they don't know when end demand will pick up.

Did these two companies become 25-30% more valuable simply by reporting losses and dire outlooks? No, of course they didn't. They just reported less bad earnings and expectations than expected.

If you ever think markets are rational and that most market participants thoughtfully consider the prices they buy and sell securities, just remember these examples of how short term and silly Wall Street and most market participants can be.

I must admit, its amusing to watch....

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Retirement prospects look poor

An article in the Wall Street Journal today highlighted that those in or preparing for retirement are less confident than ever.

Only 13% of workers say they are very confident about having enough money to retire comfortably. That's a record low.

This is not a surprise considering that 49% of people 55 and older have saved less than $50,000. That's so far short of what's needed as to be outrageous. That could pay out around $4,400 a year over 30 years assuming an 8% return. Nowhere near enough money.

Those retired or going to retire over the next decade or two may at least have the benefit of social security and perhaps a pension. Younger folks should know that social security will be so far insolvent as to be unavailable to everyone.

Hope is not a strategy.

Only 25% of workers are highly optimistic about covering food and housing costs in retirement. That means 75% of people know--absolutely KNOW--they can't take care of themselves in retirement. Stunning!

For those currently retired, only 20% are confident about being able to afford a secure retirement. Only 25% say they have enough for medical expenses. Only 34% are optimistic about covering basic expenses. That means two-thirds of retirees believe they can't pay for the basics. Unbelievable!

On the bright side, workers are doing something to change their situation. They are cutting spending, working more hours, saving more, and talking to a financial professional. I hope they get good advice.

One major problem is that so many believe they can work longer to postpone retirement. But, 50% of current retirees left the workforce sooner than they expected because of health problems, downsizings or obsolete skills. Counting on working longer is not a solution.

Also, two-thirds of workers planned to work after retiring, but less than 35% actually ended up being able to work. Hoping to work more is not necessarily a viable option.

What do people need to do? They need to save more. They need to invest that money wisely. They need to think hard and independently about the amount of money they will need and why. They need to plan to take care of themselves, not hope that things "work out." Hope is not a strategy. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

New Bull Market, Or False Dawn?

Has the stock market finally turned the corner? Is the economy really recovering? Is it time to throw all your money at the market?

Everyone would love to know the answer to these questions--including me--but no one does. Someone may guess (like I will below) and be right, but that will be luck, not skill (that's why market strategists are like diapers, they require frequent changing, and for the same reason).

Why can't anyone know if the market and economy are finally recovering? Because it's too complex. Why can't I gather enough data to figure out precisely how many inches of rain will land in a square foot in my back yard this month? Same reason: it's too complex. Knowing all the inputs doesn't tell you the outcome. Markets are even more difficult to precisely predict than rain, because the weather doesn't possess freewill, but investors do!

There are strong psychological reasons for wanting to know what the market and economy will do. No one wants the regret of investing and then watching the market tank by 50%. For that matter, no one wants the regret of NOT investing and then watching the market double, either.

The fear of regret drives people to look for all kinds of clues, but such searching and wishing won't bring the answers. You can't reap the benefit of market returns if you sit on the sidelines. You have to put your money at risk and then either win soon, or win later. Not a bad bargain, when you think about it.

Okay, enough rambling, what do I think about the market and economy? I believe there are faint glimmers that the economy may be starting to turn. Those signs come in lower claims for unemployment, a slight rebound in factory activity, a pickup in activity in China, better than expected retail sales, and stronger than expected exports.

Do those glimmers mean the economy definitely will recover? No (please reread above if you expected the answer to be yes). There is still plenty of bad news out there, like higher credit defaults, higher foreclosures, more bankruptcies, higher unemployment, weak car sales, etc.

What about markets? Does a market recovery require an economic recovery, first? Probably not. Markets anticipate improving fundamentals and tend to turn up first, usually 3 - 9 months before the economy does. The stock market's rebound is one of the main reasons many believe the economy may be starting to recover.

I tend to think that the market and economy have yet to turn up, but that's just a guess. The problems that got us into this situation--housing and credit markets--are still in serious pain. Just because housing starts and prices are declining at slower rates doesn't mean happy days are here again. The economy and markets will probably recover before housing and credit do, but I think there is still a lot of downside there before things turn up.

Also, the stock market has only been going down for 1 1/2 years. This is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, so markets will probably be down longer than usual. The 2001 recession was one of the mildest on record, yet the stock market took 3 years to hit bottom. Granted, valuations were higher in 2000 than in 2007, but that doesn't account for everything.

Also, the consensus of leading economists think the economy will recover late this year or early next. Those folks are almost always wrong! Guess how many of them predicted this severe recession even with over-extended credit markets and declining housing prices staring them in the face? Zero, zilch, nada, not a one. If those folks didn't see this coming, then why should I believe they correctly see the recovery? I don't.

It's possible the economy could start to recover toward the end of this year or early next year, and that would indicate an increasing stock market now, this summer or this fall. But, the stock market could also go down much further into this fall (2009), spring of 2010 or fall of 2010. Who knows? I don't, and I don't know anyone else who does or can, either.

It's also possible the economy starts to recover only to enter another recession in 2011 or 2012. That's referred to as a double dip recession, and it happened in the late 1970's and early 1980's. That was the worst recession we had had since the Great Depression, until this one of course. A Double dip recession could easily be caused by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates too soon, or by raising them too slowly and causing enough inflation to send us back into a scenario like the stagflationary 1970's. Let's hope not (but, hope is NOT a strategy).

The best thing to do is invest wisely in sound, low valuation companies and prepare for the market to be bumpy. No predictions will prevent the market from going up and down. Sitting on the sidelines through it all is a sure-fire way to miss the upswing when it does come--whenever that will be. . .

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.