Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

But what if stocks had not just a rough year or two, but a dismal stretch for over a decade

(https://humbledollar.com/2023/07/courage-required/)
William Bernstein | Jul 22, 2023
EVEN AFTER BEAR markets in 2020 and 2022, investors’ appetite for stocks remains as robust as ever. But what if stocks had not just a rough year or two, but a dismal stretch that lasted more than a decade? Below is an excerpt from the second edition of my book The Four Pillars of Investing, which was published earlier this month.

In August 1979, BusinessWeek ran a cover story with the headline “The Death of Equities,” and few had trouble believing it. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which had toyed with the 1,000 level in January 1973, was now trading at 875 six-and-a-half years later. Worse, inflation was running at almost 9%. A dollar invested in the stock market in 1973 purchased just 71 cents of consumer goods, even allowing for reinvested dividends.

According to the article, “The masses long ago switched from stocks to investments having higher yields and more protection from inflation. Now the pension funds—the market’s last hope—have won permission to quit stocks and bonds for real estate, futures, gold, and even diamonds. The death of equities looks like an almost permanent condition—reversible someday, but not soon.”

Contrast today’s universal acceptance of stock investing with the sentiment described in the BusinessWeek article, when diamonds, gold and real estate were all the rage. The price of the yellow metal had risen from $35 an ounce in 1968 to more than $500 in 1979 and would peak at more than $800 the following year, equal to roughly $3,000 in today’s dollars. Still, there are similarities between the 1970s and today. Now the wise and lucky own houses in cities with desirable real estate. Back then, those who had purchased their houses for a song in the 1950s and 1960s were by 1980 sitting on real capital wealth beyond their wildest dreams. Stocks and bonds? “Paper assets,” sneered the conventional wisdom.
«1

Comments

  • edited July 2023
    It’s already happened. The S&P lost money over the first decade of the 2000s, but you would have done reasonably well if diversified in the right areas, namely value stocks, REITs, small caps, bonds, etc.
  • As my old man used to tell me, “ it’s easy to know afterward.”
  • edited July 2023
    ”investors’ appetite for stocks remains as robust as ever.”

    Doesn’t really deserve a response. Article exhibits gross oversimplification. “Stocks” can mean anything from the cap-weighted / tech-heavy S&P 500 to frontier markets like Laos or Nigeria. I suspect they mean the S&P. Woe is he who thinks the S&P 500 or U.S. large caps stocks the only things worth investing in. I guess such people deserve whatever they get.

    @Tarwheel says it well above.
  • The SP500 is the most recognized index that represents stocks and over decades it has done better than most other stocks, including thousands of managed funds and professional managers that worked very hard to beat it.
    Diversifying did not help much either, and I'm talking meaningfully about extra performance. There is a good reason why Bogle build the Vanguard Empire, it was based mainly on VOO or VTI for stocks. Buffet tells the same story.

    The SP500 lost money in 10 years during 2000-2010, mainly because of the excessive performance of 1995-2000 when the SP500 made 250% in 5 years which is 28+% average annually (link).

    Can the SP500 go sideways for years? Of course, it can. Are you going to switch to the right categories?
  • edited July 2023
    I’ve tried to avoid the S&P as much as possible over the years (unless things were really depressed). But don’t typically share my investments. You can’t avoid the S&P completely if you’re in domestic equity funds. BTW - That’s not a market call. Just a desire to try to avoid any potential herd mentality, which tends to affect the major U.S. indexes to a greater degree. I hope everybody, including you FD, make lots of money with whatever they’re invested in.

    Not picking on you. Just tired of every Tom, Dick and Harry talking or writing about ”the stock market” as if it were all one big single entity. Kripes. How about some attention to specifics when so writing? There are of course many many different stock markets.
  • @hank-    Yes!!

    Stocks for rifles, stock for soup, and stocks for punishing wiseass troublemakers come to mind.
  • "You can’t avoid the S&P completely if you’re in domestic equity funds."

    Seek and ye shall find: VEXAX / VXF invests in the S&P 500 Completion Index. Whether completely avoiding stocks in the S&P 500 is a good idea or not is a different question.
    S&P Completion Index comprises all members of the S&P TMI Index except for the current constituents of the S&P 500®.
    https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/equity/sp-completion-index-ci

    https://www.morningstar.ca/ca/news/191057/this-etf-and-the-sp-500-make-a-good-pair.aspx
  • edited July 2023
    "You can’t avoid the S&P completely if you’re in domestic equity funds."

    Well … I didn’t mean that quite literally … No intent here to avoid them completely. For example, DODBX likely has some exposure to the S&P. That alone wouldn’t deter me from owning it. I don’t think they’re especially enamored by it either, having held a small (2-3%) short position on the S&P within the past couple years. And they may well be hedging S&P exposure with some other holdings.

    What would be helpful would be an app or website that would analyze a given fund and sort out for simplicity the % of assets it currently has in components of the S&P 500.
  • edited July 2023
    Completion index is an interesting idea but the problem is that they have lot of garbage - 35-40% unprofitable companies.

    There are several:

    For SP500, completion indexes are VEXAX/ VXF, FSMAX, USMIX. They use different definitions of total stock markets.

    BTW, R1000/IWB has completion index R2000/IWM, with total market being R3000.
  • edited July 2023
    hank said:


    What would be helpful would be an app or website that would analyze a given fund and sort out for simplicity the % of assets it currently has in components of the S&P 500.

    You could at least sort out the top five holdings of etf's--for free-- here: https://www.etfrc.com/funds/overlap.php. The original example gives you spy and qqq to begin with. It also give top ten under and over weights.

    A free membership gets you the complete list. I haven't tried it out yet.
  • Etfrc.com also tells you the stocks a given ETF is underweight with respect to another fund. Overlap is expressed as a number of similar stocks as well as the percentage of the two fund's similar assets. I like the site.
  • edited July 2023
    In the last 20+ years, I read/heard many times about other indexes, they come and go but VOO or VTI are the golden standard. The way these two are calculated is another plus.

    Goldman: Stock valuations are justified, even in the face of rising rates (link). Very Typical to get these predictions after a rally. Just as we got similar views at the end of 2022, when VALUE was better than growth, and many "experts" predicted that VALUE supposes to be better...just to find out in 2023 that growth hugely led.
  • edited July 2023
    Gosh. I finally agree with FD on something. Few “experts” predicted current bull market in advance.

    Today I cancelled a subscription to a newsletter that’s been so upside down the past year it ain’t funny. Told folks to sell / reduce exposure to stocks just before the late ‘22 & early ‘23 rally. Than changed that to a buy recommendation just before everything dipped. Than said sell again before things really took off for the sky. Now he says buy!

    I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck ya know!

    Good thread.
  • hank said:


    Today I cancelled a subscription to a newsletter that’s been so upside down the past year it ain’t funny. Told folks to sell / reduce exposure to stocks just before the late ‘22 & early ‘23 rally. Than changed that to a buy recommendation just before everything dipped. Than said sell again before things really took off for the sky. Now he says buy!

    I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck ya know!

    Good thread.

    Why not keep the newsletter and just fade the recommendations? IE, do the opposite of what they're advising? :)
  • edited July 2023
    rforno said:

    Why not keep the newsletter and just fade the recommendations? IE, do the opposite of what they're advising? :)

    That’s too funny. I’d rather have back the 50% of the original 2-year subscription fee they’ve promised to send. You can buy a deck of fortune telling Tarot Cards a lot cheaper.

    Not a bad idea, however.

  • edited July 2023
    Hank, I keep a library of "experts" (and most are very famous) predictions for decades and it's not pretty. Only fools try predicting the future, but that's what keeps the media going.
    I don't know why you are surprised that we agree on something. Over the years I got thousands of private emails where I helped these people with any questions from small to a full portfolio, all for FREE, based on THEIR risk, goals, and want. I don't promote or discuss my unique system with them, actually, I tell them not to use it.
  • ”I don't promote or discuss my unique system with them, actually, I tell them not to use it.”

    Ditto.
  • edited July 2023
    @FD1000, you sure make a case for income investing. ;-p

    Isn't one's portfolio to draw from? If so what matter does it make if the market is not good? Is the goal to only grow a portfolio and never use it until you die?
  • edited July 2023
    I never promoted income based portfolio. I say look at categories/stocks and select the best risk-adjusted ones. This can be growth stocks or income or others. Never starts your selection by looking only at higher-income stocks.
    Drawing from a portfolio doesn't justify owning income stocks because total performance matters more. Just because ATT+IBM paid a lot more income in 2010, if you own them instead of MSFT, you make a huge mistake.

    What's going to be next? I don't have an idea. I know what worked for me, but I'm not going to discuss it, looks like no one is interested to know it.
  • edited July 2023
    FD1000 said:

    ..........
    What's going to be next? I don't have an idea. I know what worked for me, but I'm not going to discuss it, looks like no one is interested to know it.

    I don't know what is next either. When faced with the dilemma of stocks not doing well I would decide what to do next at that time. I know that I can survive on my portfolio income. I do not do that now but I could. I also know if I had to consume principal, if things got really bad, I would (skinflint mode).

    The S&P 500 yield was aaout 1.6% during 2000-2010. The 10 year treasury was yielding an average of 4% during the same time frame. I think I could have lived on the income of a 50-50 portfolio during that period.
  • edited July 2023
    Surviving only on income isn't a good option if your portfolio loses money or doesn't make enough, hence total return is everything. If your portfolio is big enough, you will survive anyway.

    In the last 5 years, PDI paid about 50% of income in the last 5 years but was up less than 4%. So, 50% income sounds great but less than 4% is a bad performance, especially when the no-brainer SPY made 74%.
  • Sure, that may be true @FD1000, but you only know that after the fact. Some people are simply not comfortable holding stocks and some don't see any reason to hold bonds. Since many are not market mavens and may or may not be confused or unsure of what proportions make the most sense I contend that surviving on income is a valid option if that is what makes them the most comfortable come hell or high water. That's okay.

    I hold a good chunk of PDI, thankfully above water. It's a matter of buying it at the right time under the right conditions. I use the generous monthly distributions to feed equity positions in the S&P500 and the QQQ's. Is my total return being met even though I hold that loser PDI? Not looking for an answer, to each their own as even you have acknowledged.
  • edited July 2023
    I never thought it made much difference. Your portfolio rises. It falls. Money is money no matter the source. There might be tax considerations for some, making money obtained from one source cheaper for them than another … And I totally agree with @Mark that it’s whatever makes someone comfortable and able to stay in the game. I’d guess we all have some idiosyncrasies that give us confidence to stay the course. ”Time in the market” is very important. So, whatever it takes to keep you in the game. Having said that, an income stream is probably a lot more predictable and important to you if you need it to live on.

    The DJI is setting some records for consecutive “up” days. Amazing.
  • edited July 2023
    hank said:

    [snip]
    And I totally agree with @Mark that it’s whatever makes someone comfortable and able to stay in the game. I’d guess we all have some idiosyncrasies that give us confidence to stay the course. ”Time in the market” is very important. So, whatever it takes to keep you in the game.
    [snip]


    Exactly.
    Create a good investment plan you can adhere to (seek assistance if needed) regardless of market conditions.
    Risk capacity, risk tolerance, investing experience, goals, and preferences should be considered.
    Investment plans should be tailored to each unique individual.
  • edited July 2023
    Using Backtest, if one started with $1m in 2000 using 50/50 SPY/VBMFX (BND was not in existence) and took all income, rebalanced yearly, one ended up with slightly over $1m in 2010 and a decent income stream (positive TR). It's all we have to foretell the future. A couple of mistakes trading in 10 years to make a good TR could have been serious.
  • @Gary1952, helpful analysis. +1
  • @Gary, what was the total of CG's & dividends over that time period ? I'm thinking no reinvestment took place ?
    Thanks , Derf
    PS Now I'm wondering how this works
    out over ten years if one started in
    2021
  • edited July 2023
    Derf said:

    @Gary, what was the total of CG's & dividends over that time period ? I'm thinking no reinvestment took place ?
    Thanks , Derf
    PS Now I'm wondering how this works
    out over ten years if one started in
    2021

    No reinvestment and the income was about $30k per year average. I am not sure how to show the results here. Starting on 2021 is not possible for 10 years into the future.

    I hear how bad returns were 2000-2010. I was an accumulator then so I did OK buying shares. But as a retiree you still did OK.
  • It's 1999. You just bought Kiplingers mutual fund roundup at a local new stand. You've got 10K to invest. And you're under 30 with no kids. What do you buy?

    Are you all excited about indexing? Tech? Bio-Tech? Did your parents, or grand parents, give you any advice? Have you read any books about investing? Malakiel? Maybe you picked up an AAII pamphlet at a used bookstore? Adam Smith/George Goodman? Assume a can opener.
  • edited July 2023
    Applying 5% withdrawals - With COLA and Without COLA

    Lump-sum $1,000,000

    Period 1/1/2000 - 6/30/23

    All distributions reinvested.

    Monthly withdrawals $4167/mo initial + COLA (or $50,000/yr initial + COLA); also a column for without COLA (in the PV Run With COLA, just change Inflation-Adjusted to NO).

    Final Values

    Portfolio, With COLA, Without COLA

    50% SPY + 50% VBMFX, 226,523, 940,574

    VBINX 60-40, 174,397, 935,570

    VWELX 62-38, 1,554,586 2,354,730

    PV Run With COLA

Sign In or Register to comment.