Index Funds Don’t Work in Bear Markets

This is a guest post from Rob Bennett. In the Carnival of Personal Finance we recently hosted, we included a submission from Mike Piper at The Oblivious Investor that Rob disagreed with. He asked if he could rebut it, and because he largely met the Control Your Cash guest post criteria, we said yes. We then gave Mike the opportunity to rebut the rebuttal. He politely declined, so we’ll consider today’s post to be the terminus of this issue. (So if you want to leave a comment today, you’d better make it count.)

As for Rob, his claim to fame is developing “the first retirement calculator that contains an adjustment for the valuation level that applies on the day the retirement begins.” His bio is here.

Some people LOVE a bear market


Mike Piper at The Oblivious Investor blog argues in a recent article that Index Funds Work in Bull and Bear Markets. The argument is that index funds earn the market return and that, if you try to pick good stocks, you might pick wrong and end up earning less than the market return. So index funds are your best choice.

 

I don’t buy it.
If stock investing were not so intensely emotional an endeavor, we would all be able to spot the flaw in this logic chain in 10 seconds.

 

Stocks do not do well in bear markets! Index funds are stocks! You do not want to be invested in index funds in bear markets! D’oh!

 

I have a stock valuation calculator (“The Stock-Return Predictor”) at my web site that performs a regression analysis on the historical stock-return data to reveal the most likely 10-year return for stocks starting from any of the possible starting-point valuation levels. It shows that the most likely annualized 10-year return in 2000 was -1%. Treasury Inflation-Protection Securities (TIPS) were at the time paying a government-guaranteed return of 4% real.

 

That’s a differential of 5 full percentage points of return per year for 10 years running. The investor who chose stocks over TIPS in 2000 was setting himself up to over the course of 10 years lose 50 percent of his accumulated savings of a lifetime. The investor with a $100,000 portfolio was likely to end up $50,000 poorer at the end of 10 years. The investor with a $500,000 portfolio was likely to end up $250,000 poorer at the end of 10 years. The investor with a $1 million portfolio was likely to end up $500,000 poorer at the end of 10 years.

 

Those who appreciate the power of the compounding returns phenomenon will understand why those numbers are only the beginning of the story, not the end of it. Investors who won for themselves a $50,000 differential or a $250,000 differential or a $500,000 differential will be seeing the size of those differentials grow and grow over the course of however many years they will be continuing their walk through the valley of tears.

 

It’s not just crazy Rob Bennett who says that valuations affect long-term returns. Yale Economics Professor Robert Shiller showed this in research published in 1981 and explained why it works this way in his widely praised and best-selling book Irrational Exuberance. There is now 30 years of academic research backing up Shiller’s findings. The latest study making the point is a study by Wade Pfau, Associate Professor of Economics at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. You’ll find that one here.

 

Pfau’s study states: “On a risk-adjusted basis, market-timing strategies provide comparable returns as a 100% stocks buy-and-hold strategy but with substantially less risk. Meanwhile, market timing provides comparable risks and the same average asset allocation as a 50/50 fixed allocation strategy, but with much higher returns…. Valuation-based market timing with P/E10 has the potential to improve risk-adjusted returns for conservative long-term investors.”

 

So we do not need to be invested in stocks via index funds or through any other means during bear markets!

 

Long bear markets are not random events. They only show up following runaway bull markets. And they always show up following runaway bull markets.

 

Pay attention to the price of the stocks you buy, going with a lower stock allocation when stocks are insanely overpriced than you’d go with when stocks are fairly priced or low-priced, and most of the risk associated with buying stocks no longer applies for you. Yet you obtain higher returns! Investor heaven!

 

This approach (Valuation-Informed Indexing) sounds so easy and so rewarding and so rooted in common sense. Why doesn’t Mike Piper follow it? Why doesn’t everybody follow it?
Stock investing is an intensely emotional endeavor. When stocks were priced at three times fair value in 2000, the numbers on the bottom line of the last page of our portfolio statements overstated by a factor of three the amount of lasting wealth we had accumulated up to that time. We all wanted to believe that it was the portfolio statements that had it right and the last 30 years of academic research that had it wrong.

 

We tell ourselves that index funds always work even though there is a voice of common sense within each of us that tells us that it cannot possibly be so. How could there ever be an asset class that is worth buying at any price?

 

Mike uses numbers in his arguments. But it is emotion that drives his analysis of the numbers and it is emotion that makes Mike’s analyses popular with his readers.  Mike and his readers very, very, very much want to believe that index funds work during bear markets. But it is not so, at least not according to the 140 years of historical data available to us today.

In college? Switch majors. TODAY.

 

Did she major in a) philosophy, b) drama, or c) applied mathematics?

Problem: a college’s engineering students have futuristic ideas, but no clue how to monetize them. That same college’s business students have grand capitalistic designs, but nothing to market.

You can probably figure out the solution.

We’ve said repeatedly at Control Your Cash that formal higher “education” isn’t an absolute good. And we’ll continue to put the word “education” in quotes if people are going to classify Montclair State’s “How to Watch Television” as no less worthwhile than MIT’s Atomistic Modeling and Simulation of Materials and Structures. (No dismissive quotes required for that course description.)

State legislators and impressionable parents throughout the country transfer far too much taxpayer money into the pockets of directionless adolescents looking for a place to drink, protest and sleep late while deferring productivity. The tangibly beneficial college and university courses continue to get outnumbered by dross like everything listed here.

And then there’s the Cambridge of the Mojave, the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
Indulge us with some time for a little local content.

To most people who think about this kind of thing, UNLV is a punchline – a basketball factory, a commuter school for unambitious commuters, the kind of institution that’s emblematic of the same faux learning that we’ve spent the last few paragraphs deriding and whose only redeeming feature is its world-renowned hotel management school.

Not quite. UNLV is also home to a groundbreaking program that should revolutionize post-secondary education: a partnership between the two most crucial schools at the college, engineering and business. (UNLV doesn’t teach medicine.)

(Note: Control Your Cash co-founder Betty is also a co-founder of UNLV’s Center for Entrepreneurship, known colloquially as the “E-Center”. Betty attended Northern Arizona University for one semester, realized her fortune lay elsewhere, and sought and achieved it. With no student loans to worry about paying off. Years later, she realized that the common financial sense she implemented in her own life barely existed in academia. But rather than dismiss the typical university education as largely pointless, she committed resources to finding a way to make it meaningful.)

The UNLV engineering/business partnership began as the fusion of two separate but easily unifiable ideas. Since 2000, the curriculum requires senior engineering students to form small teams and enter a design competition. Simply put, the teams have to invent something practical. And their brainchildren have been not just feasible, but inspiring: a cane that uses sonar (for blind people), motorcycle headlights that see around corners, etc.

A few hundred yards away, business students were doing something similar: creating plans and projections for potential businesses. The last couple of years your humble bloggers have had the pleasure of serving as judges for the business students’ contest, and we’ve seen some impressive proposals. They include the group that was going to import and distribute a revolutionary weatherproofing compound from South Korea, and the “micro-farmer” team who wanted to grow vegetables on abandoned urban lots. Some of the other ideas were less marketable than they were creative, still others were quite the opposite. But the very act of conceiving and developing these ideas did and will do far more good for the world than the nearby English class looking for meaning in the short stories of Jack Kerouac.

The trouble was that none of the engineering projects ever got off the ground. (Figuratively speaking, particularly in the case of the dolly that lifts 300-pound payloads 3 feet in the air.) Meanwhile the business projects, while some of them had potential, weren’t exactly recalibrating the boundaries of human endeavor.

So the deans of the departments got together and meted out a little interdiscipline. For full credit, the engineering students had to partner with the business students (and vice versa) to develop a viable plan. For the engineers, it meant developing an appreciation for normally mundane tasks like securing warehouses, filing paperwork, and learning how to market. For the aspiring MBAs, it meant gathering the requisite technical knowledge about how moneymaking gadgets make money. (Dr. Andrew Hardin, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship, got the inspiration for this from a similar program at Washington State University.)

You need both the yin and the yang. This is just one of countless examples, but there’s a $500 Universal Corporation all-in-one remote control at Control Your Cash headquarters that contains 43 buttons and 6 screens, most of which never get used. The device is supposed to control the TV, the DVD player, the satellite radio, the AM/FM, the CD players, the iPod and probably one or two other things. Three years in we still haven’t mastered this leviathan of overengineering, because we can’t be bothered to spend the necessary couple of days decoding its indecipherable user’s manual. Seriously, we don’t need 80 equalization pre-settings (“Classical”, “Bass Reducer”, “Sports”) for the tuner. We’re not Jimmy Iovine.

A competent business management team would have simplified the remote while maintaining its primary selling feature – the ability to control every electronic component in the house. The team would have hired an erudite technical writer to translate the instructions into something a layperson will want to comprehend, and packaged the remote as something more necessity than luxury. We can only wonder what engineering breakthroughs never make it to market, for lack of marketing.

When teachers’ unions in your state complain that you need to fork over more tax money for education, ask them if and how they’re prepping kids for crucial programs like UNLV’s engineering/business partnership. And making a legitimate difference in the world, not a theoretical one.

TONIGHT, the winners of the 2011 competition do a dress rehearsal for the forthcoming tri-state competition. If you’re in the neighborhood, swing by and see how the future doesn’t merely appear.

**This article is featured in the Totally Money Carnival #21-Memorial Day Edition**

**This popular post is also featured in The Carnival of Wealth #42**

It’s not what you earn. It’s what you negotiate II


Sully got fleeced and was never heard from again

Last week, we outlined the first 4 of the 5 steps in negotiating with ticket scalpers. This week, the money shot.

THE CLOSE

5. Wait for ONE scalper to approach you. (Never deal with scalpers in pairs, for the same reason you don’t want to deal with two grizzly bears.) He’ll initiate conversation.

And again, these prices are germane to this example only – tomorrow night’s Bon Jovi show in Des Moines. Adjust accordingly for whichever NBA playoff game or Wiggles show you want to attend.

Him: “You buying? Who’s buying?”
You: “Show me what you got.”

He’ll show you the tickets, with cost price displayed. Let’s assume they’re the coveted floor seats you want.

Him: “You can have the pair for $300.”
You: “You can have $250.”

(NOTE: So how can scalpers make money if they’re selling to you for less than cost?

Volume. Most of their sales earn them money by profiting off unsuspecting people who are convinced that tickets for this show aren’t available. After all, there are multitudes walking into the arena at this point. Surely the tickets are all gone, right?

We’ve witnessed hopelessly clueless ticket buyers paying a premium to a scalper when equally good seats were sitting 20 feet away at the venue’s own ticket window. The perception of scarcity trumps the reality of seats still being available.

Besides, how the scalpers make money isn’t your concern. Like we preach about car salesmen, they’ll make their money. Just let it be off the suckers, and not off you. Besides, by coming in late and offering the scalper a $10 loss, you’re saving him from a $260 loss.)

(SECOND NOTE: Don’t say “Would you take $250?” Nor “How does $250 sound?” You’re using statements here, not questions.)

Remember, you have an enormous advantage here. Once the show begins, your money will retain all of its value. The scalper’s tickets will lose 100% of theirs. At this moment the seats are filling and the last groupie backstage is putting her panties back on. Now, one of two things will happen.

1.    You’ve got a deal.
2.    You don’t.

In scenario 1, the scalper will cut the deal as soon as possible. Before you know it, he’ll have given you the tickets and walked off with your cash. He’ll do this for several reasons. One, time is money and he might have several other tickets to sell to someone else. And if he doesn’t, then that means his workday is now over and there’s no point lingering at the “office”.

In scenario 2, he’ll let you know that your offer is either a) insultingly low, which it could theoretically be if you didn’t do your homework on eBay and Craig’s List, or b) something he might take, but not before trying to squeeze you out of a few bucks more.

If it’s a), then you’ve got information that you didn’t have before. You’ll walk from this person and find another scalper, preferably out of sight of the first, and adjust your offer accordingly. If it’s b), he’ll provide a corroborating argument.

“Come on, this is costing me money. I can give them to you for $x.”

Is $x below your predetermined maximum? Stand firm anyway.

“$250 is the highest I can go.”

Be nonchalant and without saying as much, make it clear that you’d just as soon spend the night at the sports bar across the street than listen to Richie Sambora’s talkbox.

WALK AWAY. Which remains one of the smartest things you can do when a deal isn’t to your liking.

Give the scalper a few seconds to chase after you and accept your offer. (If it’s really that great of a deal, there’s a good chance another buyer will swoop in. So again, give the scalper a few seconds. Nothing more. If it really is a price you can live with, immediately return and bump your offer up. Splitting the difference can usually work here. But don’t get caught in the tango of incrementally converging on a price. Get it done in no more than 3 steps. His offer, your counteroffer, and whatever you agree on if it’s neither of the first two.

One more thing. Strategic cash locations:

Carry none of your ticket-buying money in your wallet.

Hundreds go in the front right pocket, front left if you’re lefthanded. Carry no more hundreds than it would take to cover your predetermined limit. Your self-imposed $330 “limit” can rapidly become $400 if the scalper sees too much green and “can’t make change.” They can always make change. Their lives are conducted in nothing but cash.

Twenties in the other front pocket.

Fives in the back. At least three of them. No tens.

That way, you’ve got enough to cover every possible five-dollar increment, and you don’t have to worry about showing more than you’re willing to pay.

You’re welcome. Now get out there, take advantage of a lowlife, and enjoy the show.

**This post is featured in the Carnival of of Wealth #38**

and

**The Totally Money Carnival #19: Oreo Edition**