The Lazy Way to Investment Success Print
Tuesday, 2nd June 2009 (by J.D.)This article is about Investing, Money Hacks
While researching investment strategies for my retirement savings, I’ve been reading a lot of books. There are hundreds of authors offering thousands of tips for turning a small pile of gold into a big pile of gold. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell whose advice to heed.
To be honest, I find the simplest investment strategies most appealing. I just finished reading Paul Farrell’s The Lazy Person’s Guide to Investing, for example, and I found myself drawn to the “lazy portfolios” he describes. Lazy portfolios are collections of index funds. Because these portfolios are balanced — they contain stocks and bonds — they mitigate risk while providing excellent returns. Best of all, they take very little time to maintain.
Five lazy portfolios
It turns out that some of my favorite financial writers are also huge fans of lazy portfolios. In fact, many of these writers have designed portfolios of their own. Here are some of the more prominent examples:
The Couch Potato Portfolio from Scott Burns
This two-fund portfolio from financial columnist Scott Burns may be the simplest way to achieve balance. It’s an even split between stocks and bonds, and should appeal to those investors who are both lazy and risk-averse.
The Three-Fund Portfolio from Andrew Tobias
- 33.3% — Vanguard Total Stock Market Index (VTSMX)
- 33.3% — Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities (VIPSX)
- 33.3% — Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX)
This three-fund portfolio from Andrew Tobias is exactly the same as Scott Burns’ Margarita Portfolio. It introduces foreign stocks to provide additional diversification.
The No-Brainer Portfolio from William Bernstein
- 25% — Vanguard 500 Index (VFINX)
- 25% — Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX)
- 25% — Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX)
- 25% — Vanguard Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX)
William Bernstein is a retired neurologist who has turned his attention to financial matters. He wrote The Four Pillars of Investing, which is one of the best books on investing I’ve ever read (my review). In that book, he offers a variety of possible investment portfolios. This “no-brainer” collection of index funds keeps things simple.
The Coffeehouse Portfolio from Bill Schultheis
- 40% — Vanguard Total Bond Index (VBMFX)
- 10% — Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX)
- 10% — Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX)
- 10% — Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX)
- 10% — Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX)
- 10% — Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index (VISVX)
- 10% — Vanguard Small-Cap Index (NAESX)
The author of The Coffeehouse Investor believes that the secret to financial success is mastering the basics: saving, asset allocation, and matching the market. The latter can be done through a lazy portfolio. (Schultheis recently shared a guest post at Get Rich Slowly.)
The Perfect Portfolio from Frank Armstrong
- 31% — Vanguard Total International Stock Index (VGTSX)
- 30% — Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index (VBISX)
- 9.25% — Vanguard Small-Cap Value Index (VISVX)
- 9.25% — Vanguard Value Index (VIVAX)
- 8% — Vanguard REIT Index (VGSIX)
- 6.25% — Vanguard Small-Cap Growth Index (VISGX)
- 6.25% — Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX)
Frank Armstrong III is president of a financial planning firm in Florida. He shared this portfolio with MSN Money.
Single-fund solutions
Building a portfolio of index funds may be lazy, but it’s not for everyone. Some investors crave greater complexity or more control — or they believe they can outperform the market on their own. Others have no interest in building portfolios (even of just three or four funds) or are unable to afford the minimum investments. For this last group of people, there a range of single-fund solutions.
Many mutual fund companies now offer target-date funds, which attempt to create a diversified portfolio appropriate for a specific age group. Born around 1970? You may want to consider a fund like Fidelity Freedom 2035, which automatically adjusts its investment structure as time goes on. (You might also consider building your own target-date fund).
There are other single-fund solutions, too, including these:
- Vanguard STAR Fund (VGSTX)
- T. Rowe Price Personal Strategy Balanced (TRPBX)
- Fidelity Four-in-One Index (FFNOX)
Actually, the bulk of my retirement savings is currently in that last Fidelity fund. I’ve been too lazy to create a more detailed asset allocation. (And I do need to make some changes. FFNOX allocates 85% to stocks, and that’s too much risk for me.)
Final notes
If you adopt one of these lazy portfolios, remember to rebalance the funds every year. Over time, they’ll get out of balance. Your Couch Potato Portfolio may have started with a 50/50 split in January 2008, but it was likely very different in January 2009. Rebalancing controls risk.
For more information on lazy portfolios, check out some of these articles at other sites:
- The Bogleheads wiki has summarized several different lazy portfolios.
- The Kirk Report has a category devoted to lazy portfolios.
- MP Dunleavey at MSN Money has some simple solutions for fearful new investors.
- For a long, thoughtful article about lazy portfolios, check out The ultimate buy-and-hold strategy from Paul Merriman.
- At Marketwatch, Paul Farrell has a collection of articles about lazy portfolios, including one a story about using Fidelity funds to create lazy portfolios. (This is of interest to me since my investment accounts are with Fidelity. And since Fidelity is the biggest 401(k) manager, it may be of interest to you.)
Lazy portfolios appeal to me. The more involved I become with my day-to-day investment decisions, the more mistakes I make. I could save myself a lot of grief by putting my money into a lazy portfolio and then forgetting about it.
Are you a lazy investor? If so, what does your portfolio look like? How do you decide which funds to buy? How often do you check how well your funds are performing? Any advice for those of us who are considering this strategy?
Photo by superbomba.

RSS Feeds
Facebook
Twitter

June 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 am
Nice collection of lazy porftolios! I think a lot of times beginners feel that going with one of these is a cop out. That they should be picking their own stocks and being more involved. But in reality this is the best way for most investors. None of us have the time or the patience to really have a more active portfolio. There is no magic potion, but lazy portfolios of index funds are about as close as you’ll get because they’re actually doable and they work.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
Also, the Three-Fund Portfolio is almost identical to the second grader’s portfolio.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:41 am
When you’re investing in a taxable portfolio, remember two things: First, consider all investments you have to avoid doubling up. For example, if you’re collecting simple pension or annuity income, count that as bonds and keep the rest of your portfolio tilted away from bonds to compensate. Second, consider ETFs to avoid annual taxes on capital gains distributions. If, however, you’re inside a tax-advantaged vehicle (401k, TSP, etc.) no-load index funds (matching the lazy ideas in this post) should be fine. I agree that picking individual stocks is not a long-term strategy for most people. Even solid stocks eventually slide (GM, for example) so you cannot just buy and hold. Diversification through indexes is best for most investors.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
My portfolio is very lazy - mostly exchange traded funds with a few dividends stocks on top.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:43 am
When I retire (soon), I think I am rolling over my TSp(federal 401K) into an external plan and will then rebalance with all my other investments. Of course, I hope to have more time in retirement to think about my investments(my only stock outside of a fund is Starbucks) but I like these suggestions!
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
Another asset allocation post, another post which doesn’t do justice to international, and totally ignores EM. Seriously, are you guys really so sure that the US equity market is going to outperform all other world markets that you are so overweight in it and are willing to bet your personal financial future on it?
http://investmentscientist.com/2009/05/07/lessons-from-harvard-timely-bet-on-emerging-markets/
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
Not a fan of this approach generally but I am clearly biased because of my profession so take what I have to say with a big dose of salt.
I believe that the market is so volatile that such an approach could lead to disappointing results.
Also, I’m not a fan of bonds at all right now.
On top of that, you are young so equity is probably what you need even though it will be a bumpy ride.
FWIW.
Neal
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:54 am
I’m for a “lazy” style investing strategy also because you don’t worry about the investment so much. When you are constantly worrying about a particular company, you get emotional and can make bad decisions. When you are more generally investing in the stock market in something like an index fund, you just have to let the economy run it’s course. You would be less likely to move your funds elsewhere. Problems arise when you get scared and make investment decisions based on those fears.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
These lazy portfolios are definitely appealing — but unfortunately many people are in a way forced to hold a significant portion of their investments in company-sponsored 401k or 403b plans — mine is with a firm with high fees, and I have few funds to choose from. Unfortunately this makes being able to use heuristics for asset allocation quite difficult. Of course when I leave my job I will roll everything into an IRA. But while I’m employed I feel trapped. Anyone have any recommendations on dealing with this?
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:07 am
Why no comparison on how these blends have performed over the past 10 years?
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:07 am
Agree with Frugal Bachelor.
I agree with the premise of lazy investing, but I think the asset allocations are all wrong. I’d put more in the Emergine Markets, they’re essentially small big caps.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:24 am
Nice post.
These are all valid approaches, but don’t forget to rebalance at least quarterly. The percentage holdings will change in time– have the discipline to stick to the plan and reset them to the appropriate numbers.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:29 am
Nearly every Index Fund that I research has an extremely large initial investment. Any strategies for someone like myself that doesn’t have 10,000 to drop into an index fund?
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:29 am
I enjoy reading your articles on investing, I agree the four pillars of investing was a great novel, though I only skimmed through it. I will most likely use this information when investing on my own and will consider these funds.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:37 am
Great outline and I love the breakdown of different types of portfolio’s for different people. I wrote about Lazy Investing on my blog here: http://www.twentysomethingsense.com/2009/01/investing-the-lazy-way.html
The bottom-line for me is that if you are just going to “toss your money over the wall” - make sure that its at least put somewhere that is diversified and minimizes fees!!
Again, outstanding article and breakdown - love it.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:39 am
@Bon: Why don’t you put in the minimum for a match with your company and go ahead and START that IRA? Do a cost-analysis comparison on having the funds taxed now (to add them to the IRA) and the amount you spend already on the high-fees for the current account.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
Just wanted to let you know that I’m a long time reader and beneficiary of your knowledge and this site.
I realized that I’ve been viewing your site in Firefox while using the Ad-Block plugin, and wanted to let you know that I’ve disabled it for your site so that you can start counting my impressions and clicks as part of your earnings. Thanks for all of the great work and keep it coming!
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:41 am
I’m with Jeremy (#12). Most of the index funds require at least 10K and if you find one that allows less than that they typically charge annual fees to be below that balance. Fidelity Four-in-One Index (FFNOX) does allow you to put in 2500 min as part of an IRA but it charges a fee. Any other good options?
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:43 am
If you don’t have enough to start off with multiple funds due to the minimums check out the Vanguard STAR Fund (VGSTX) https://personal.vanguard.com/us/FundsSnapshot?FundId=0056&FundIntExt=INT
It has a $1000 minimum and is basically a blend of other Vanguard Funds, essentially a one-stop lazy portfolio. Once you build it up to enough you could split it up into separate funds based on one of the above portfolios.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:47 am
I am a real fan of the concept, but I hate calling them “lazy.” This *IS* the way to invest. “Lazy” implies that it is somehow a lesser deviation from the correct behavior. But this is how many financial planners, academics, finance authors and journalists actually invest.
Select an asset allocation that’s appropriate to your own priorities. Implement it using low-cost, index funds. Maintain it through rebalancing. And, don’t mess with it unless your priorities change. SOmetimes the easiest answer is the best answer.
As a financial planner myself, I disagree with Neil’s suggestion that the market is so volatile that such an approach could lead to disappointing results. Perhaps the market may lead to disappointing results, but that is not the fault of the approach. The idea that active/tactical approaches can do better is actually more likely to lead to disappointing results. That is just a mathematical fact.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 am
My RothIRA looks a lot like the Couch Potato Portfolio with the exception of allocation percentages.
@bon (Comment #9), If you are unhappy with your company’s program make sure they know you are and why. You should be only investing the minimum to get your company match at this point and investing the rest of your retirement savings in an IRA, traditional or Roth, with a firm you are comfortable with.
@DDFD (Comment #11) I’m lazy and only rebalance once a year.
@Jeremy (Comment #12) Vanguard has a $3k minimum for most of it’s funds. Others will let you start with less if you have automatic investments set up. You may also want to look into ETFs, although you will pay a broker fee on them, the initial investment can be considerably less.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:54 am
General Question…. People keep talking about rebalancing. Isn’t it easier (if you are still investing) to just add money so that your portfolio stays balanced, instead of selling and buying?
Just buy whatever is lower?
I know this only applies to the people who haven’t retired.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am
On the investment minimums for index funds, there are several reasonable, diversified options from places like Fidelity or Vanguard. If you don’t yet have the couple thousand needed, save in a high yield direct online savings account until you do.
When you’re just starting out, you balance will be much more impacted by your own contributions than market returns. Your ideal allocation may not be available with only a few thousand dollars, but the difference in potential return percentages may only equate to a few dollars at that point.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:01 am
How about the ultimate “Lazy Fund” either Vanguard or Fidelity’s Balanced Index funds… They keep the 60\40 split and do the re balancing for you. You just have to keep putting the money in.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 am
I am definitely a lazy investor. I’ve been doing the 25% on 4 funds approach for the past 20 years and it’s proven very successful. As I near retirement age, though, I need to come up with another strategy.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 am
@Waves (#21)
Yes, it is easier to rebalance by just adding money to the funds in which you’re short. If that works for you, then do it. It’s not feasible in all cases, though, so I like to think of rebalancing in general terms. There are several ways to do it. It’s just important that you get there somehow.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:26 am
I’m also a fan of index funds, although it was only recently that i took concerted efforts to transform more of my total portfolio into more index funds.
this is a great comparison, but you’ve not indicated what age range these might be suitable for. If you’re in your 20s, you can afford to be much more aggressive on the stock end while if in your 50s, not so much.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:33 am
As nice as it sounds to just dump money into these index funds, the companies in these indexes (Exxon, McDonalds, Starbucks, Shell, Novartis) have horrible effects on society. Should we really all rush out and put all of our investment money into these companies for the rest of our lives? If we do, I worry about the ramifications for the environment, our society, and our health.
I recommend putting the effort in to find some investments that are good for the world and not just your retirement account. It can be tough (very few companies are 100% good) but there’s a big difference between a wind energy firm like Vestas and a slimy oil company like Exxon.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 am
Thanks for these portfolios. My wife wants me to open her up a ROTH IRA, and I told her we should do it with Vanguard to get the best index funds. I have an IRA with sharebuilder and I use all ETF’s that follow similar indexes, but I have a little more risk built in for higher returns. She, however, is not a risk taker, so I think the “no-brainer” portfolio will be a good one for her.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:39 am
What do you think of date targeted funds? They are usually named “retirement” funds, but there is nothing I’ve seen that indicates you can’t use it for a taxed account.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
I’d like a post dedicated to emerging markets inside retirement portfolios.
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:51 am
Considering that my IRA is totally Fidelity Four-in-One, I’m interested to see what you decide to do with yours!
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 am
I need to think of a catchy name and start my own lazy portfolio. Those names are all pretty lame :).
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 am
There are also very nicely crafted ETFs for those who cant afford to get into a Vanguard Mutual Fund (I think minimum first investments is 3000).
Check out iShares S&P Moderate Allocation (AOM)
TOP 10 HOLDINGS ( 99.91% OF TOTAL ASSETS)
Company % Assets
iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond 25.39
iShares Barclays Short Treasury Bond 23.32
iShares Barclays TIPS Bond 11.92
iShares Cohen & Steers Realty Majors 2.91
iShares MSCI EAFE Index 11.46
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index 1.24
iShares S&P 500 Index 18.3
iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index 3.24
iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Index 2.13
They even have target date porfolio so they do the rebalancing for you according to you age
example:
(notice the heavy weight of domestic large cap equity and bonds)
iShares S&P Target Date 2020 (TZG)
iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond 33.79
iShares Barclays Short Treasury Bond 6.06
iShares Barclays TIPS Bond 2.59
iShares Cohen & Steers Realty Majors 0.89
iShares MSCI EAFE Index 10.81
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index 2.43
iShares S&P 500 Index 36.74
iShares S&P MidCap 400 Index 4.1
iShares S&P SmallCap 600 Index 2.54
The only downside to these products is that they are faily new so the liquidity (popularity) is not so high yet exept for a couple of them. I dont expect any of them to trade below NAV becuase of the low liquidity but if you find one at a discount snatch it! its a bargain! on the other hand dont buy at a premium either! To find out the real-time NAV visit ishares.com and look for something like this ^TZG-IV (this is the one for the 2020 portfolio above) and type it into finance.yahoo.com to get the number
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Watch out for FFNOX, the fee is a little larger than just having the individual index funds, not much but non-zero. You are basically paying them to rebalance for you.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
I like the idea of Lazy Portfolios. The problem I have with all of these, however, is that asset allocation doesn’t change as your time horizon changes.
A young person who invests in the “Couch Potato” portfolio will not generate the kind of returns he will need to retire someday. Conversely, a retired person will likely be overexposed with the same portfolio.
If your Target Retirement Fund of choice doesn’t suit you, at least consider modifying the above portfolios to be more age appropriate.
June 2nd, 2009 at 9:59 am
I’d like to see some of these guys chime in on adding a green fund to their portfolios. I’m working to diversify my holdings right now and am writing about which strategies and funds I’ve been researching. There are a lot of options out there from the very small and specific to the the very broad and diversified. I think this will be a good industry to add for those that like to diversify with industry specific funds.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:23 am
Why don’t folks just go with Vanguard target retirement funds? My retirement money is stashed there. Appropriate domestic/international/bond mix that rebalances for you over time. People make things way too complicated. Since I’ve switched, I haven’t thought about my investments since.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
This may be a stupid question, however I’d like to know if there is a difference in buying it from Vanguard as opposed to sharebuilder or etrade etc? I know there is the brokerage cost, however do you also pay something like that when you setup an account with Vanguard? Or, is it out of convenience and having your investments in one place (etrade, sharebuilder etc)? Thanks!
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:32 am
This is an interesting idea, tried and true lazy portfolios. I think building on ideas that have been shown to work is the key to innovative success. Great Job.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Okay J.D. you know why I keep coming back to visit this site?
The readers here are intelligent and think for themselves, and if they disagree with you, or believe your infomation to be lacking they tell you, and most of them will offer information to back up their argument. (Example #6, #12, and #27.)
Some other sites I check out with large followings seem to have a cult like following with a bunch of sycophants who murmur in unison agreeing to everything that is said, with no dessention as if the words of the blogger are gospel.
Great posts and even better readers, that’s why your site is still relevant to those of us who can think for ourselves.
P.S. I hate your new text box for comments, there isn’t a spell check and you can’t copy and paste the text to another program,(i.e. Microsoft Word) to see if everything is spelled correctly.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Nice collection of funds. I notice the heavy focus on index funds and I’ve seen that around the web a lot lately. While the idea of index funds does appeal to me, all this agreement makes me a little antsy. Do you know of any writers you like who don’t believe in investing in index funds as a strategy? I’d like to read some opposing opinions before I jump in with both feet.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am
All ETFs. I’m in my mid-20s so my bond to stock allocation is aggressive at the moment.
20% BND - Vanguard Total Bond Market
20% VTI - Vanguard Total Stock Market
10% VGK - Vanguard European
10% VNQ - Vanguard REIT
10% VB - Vanguard Small-Cap
10% VO - Vanguard Mid-Cap
10% VPL - Vanguard Pacific
10% VWO - Vanguard Emerging Markets
At some point I may replace the Total Stock Market with the Vanguard 500. I prefer the ETFs for easier tracking / trading. And with certain brokerages the transaction fees are lower (e.g. Schwab).
The lazy portfolio works great for me. I think I would be too tempted to speculate if I didn’t have a framework such as this in place.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
J.D, thanks so much for including the Fidelity option - all of my retirement funds are with Fidelity, and we had never seen a “lazy portfolio” specific to them.
I’ve printed it out, and will be re-assessing soon. I have way too much of my $$ in cash right now.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
@sandi_k (#43)
You might want to borrow that “Lazy Person’s Guide to Investing” from the library. It offers some Fidelity-based lazy portfolios…
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
I am definitely a lazy investor. My 401k is in targeted risk funds - half “aggressive” and half “growth”. It rebalances automatically every quarter. I’m considering opening a Roth IRA with T Rowe Price’s target date fund. I have a regular IRA which I opened at 25 to roll over my 401k from my first job, and haven’t touched it since - except to roll over my 401k from my 2nd job. It’s in a few funds - one large cap, one small-mid, and one international - but I don’t know which ones they are or how they stack up. I’ve considered getting rid of it and getting some of the funds I’ve read about here, but a) don’t want to think about it b) don’t want to sell low and c) my advisor there is great at answering questions.
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
target funds FTLW (for the lazy win lol)
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The #1 problem with passive [lazy] investing is that most people haven’t taught themselves to deal with bear markets. It’s hard to have confidence in an investing style that is called “lazy!”
The data [Dalbar Inc., Vanguard, etc.] all point out the same effect. People pull out massive amounts of $$ during a bear market effectively selling low after buying high. This holds true whether it is an active or indexed mutual fund!
I’m sure many of those folks told themselves they could withstand seeing their stock portfolio going down 20-30-40%, but in the end couldn’t!
Now on the plus side, if you are starting to invest now, stocks are relatively cheap!
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
This is a great list, thank you very much, J.D. Just reading your posts about funds and comparing them to my 403B options through Prudential made me realize that my fund choices through work doesn’t include even one Index Fund. No Vanguard at all. Some Fidelity funds, but only target funds that have fees of 1.25% and higher. What a rip off. I complained to HR, but it seems somebody on the board picked these funds. I tried to opt out of my 403 B account and go with TIAA-CREF, but the TIAA CREF account reps say you can’t do it, even though Andrew Tobias says you can.
I’m going to see about opening my IRA with Vanguard. Thanks again!
Lisa in Louisiana and http://www.moneyinreallife.com
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Or in other words…diversify!
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
OK, so I just spent an hour on the Fidelity site, and moved over all my funds, as well as re-directing all new elections.
My target:
55% Fidelity Spartan Total Market Index
25% Fidelity Spartan International Index
10% Fidelity Emerging Markets
10% Fidelity Inflation Protected Bonds
My former elections were mainly target funds, with some emerging markets and bonds added in. I like the new portfolio - much easier to see the asset allocation with just four funds.
J.D., thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll check it out.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I know what you mean by ‘lazy’ in this context, but I’ve never been a big fan of the word when applied to investing. How often does laziness lead to success at anything else? Why would it be different with investing?
Personally, I think the more ‘work’ people can do to learn about investing and make informed decisions, the better they will do. Simply planting money in a certain spot and sitting back for 50 years isn’t likely to turn out so well. Not that J.D. is advocating something so simplistic, but I see many people with that mentality.
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I honestly don’t see how you, in your position as a responsible blogger, suggest that people invest in funds and then forget about it.
That didn’t work so well last year, and there are more bear markets in everyone’s future.
Investors should want to reduce risk - at least that seems natural to me. The simplest way to do that is to own collars (an option strategy). But there are alternatives. Learning how options work so you can decide if path towards financial security.
Not for the very lazy investor. But for the intelligent investor who wants less risk.
The Rookie’s Guide to Options
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Matthew (#27),
From what I understand, the Stock Exchange is a secondary market. Exxon gets none of my money if I buy Exxon stock. Now, I may have part “ownership” of Exxon if I buy it (as in one tiny percentage of a percentage of one percent), so maybe that would bother someone. . .
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Mark (#52) wrote: I honestly don’t see how you, in your position as a responsible blogger, suggest that people invest in funds and then forget about it. That didn’t work so well last year, and there are more bear markets in everyone’s future.
Of course there are more bear markets in the future. And if you believe that you can time them, then by all means do so. But from the books and articles I’ve read, a diversified portfolio composed of bond and stock index funds can and does provide excellent returns through all market conditions. Not everyone has the time or inclination to monitor the market. And, in fact, research demonstrates that when people pay too much attention to their portfolios, they underperform the market. I feel very comfortable suggesting that lazy portfolios might be appropriate for some investors — even for me!
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Great post! The “Lazy” portfolios are certainly a viable investment alternative, although usually more effective when utilized in conjunction with a few other strategies such as CD laddering, etc.
Regarding a few of the examples above (Coffeehouse and No-Brainer): 20-25% in Small Caps and 8-10% in REITs seem high. 15% max in Small Caps and 5% in REITs would be more prudent based on normal asset allocations, but personal situations vary. Maybe a higher dividend producing equities component?
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Agree. I would NEVER try to time the markets. Nor is there any reason to be an active trader. But I believe in being protected at all times.
You can buy a simple investment (or a few of them) such as the S&P 500 index, the Russell 2,000, etc. The buy puts for proection and sell calls - limiting profits, but paying for the puts.
Result - protection against a significant loss - and limited profits. That’s a great combination for me. You can trade these collars once per year, so it’s not active investing.
Of course, one can indeed be lazy and hope the next 50 years is a repeat of the last 50. I prefer insurance.
Good luck.
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“The data [Dalbar Inc., Vanguard, etc.] all point out the same effect. People pull out massive amounts of $$ during a bear market effectively selling low after buying high.”
How can you have a bear market without people pulling money out?
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
@Mark Wolfinger,
No one has ever claimed that buy and hold indexing protects value all of the time and in every market environment. Saying that it didn’t work last year is just a silly argument. There is only harm in a market decline if you need to sell and raise cash; otherwise, you can forget about it, ride it out.
Insuring with options has costs, so if you don’t need the money in a market decline, why pay for insurance you don’t actually need? You’re essentially talking about wearing your rain coat when you’re not even planning to leave the house. It may make you feel good, but you’re not getting wet anyway.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Justin (#53),
At the very least, when you buy index funds that contain these horrible companies like Exxon you push the price of that stock up. The employees and the executives at Exxon own tons of Exxon stock, of course, so when you push the price up you are making these people rich. Why do we want to make Exxon employees rich? They’re taking the natural environment (which should be shared equally by everybody) and destroying it for their personal short-term profits.
Don’t be confused by the fact that a lot of these brokerage firms are trying to push you to buy into the S&P500. You’re investing in multinational companies like Exxon and Starbucks that are destroying the world that you, your family, your friends, and your future descendants will have to live with.
June 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
@ Matthew
Matthew, I admire the fact that you follow your ideals when investing. Just realize that not all of us feel the way you do.
I, for one, am thankful that Exxon exists so I can drive my car to work everyday. And I enjoy my cup of coffee in the morning. I don’t see the great evil in these companies providing services that people want at a price people are willing to pay.
Are they perfect? Definitely not. But I vastly prefer the construct of capitalistic competition to that of monopolistic socialism. At least you have the option of investing your money in more socially responsible companies. If the natural environment were “shared equally by everybody” you would most assuredly not have alternatives if it was not being treated how you desire.
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:07 pm
those looking for Emerging Markets will get this in Vanguards fund of funds, Total International Index fund. Currently 21% Emerging Markets.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
“How can you have a bear market without people pulling money out?”
Every trade has two parties, doesn’t it? So there is always someone buying when people are selling, even when a person is naked shorting a stock.
The point is that this strategy only works as long as people are able both functionally and emotionally able to stay long [invested]. The vast majority of mutual fund investors aren’t able to do this when stocks start going down. Of course the inverse is also true, people tend to buy stock mutual funds when the market goes up exhibiting what has been called irrational exuberance. Hence people who purchase mutual funds tend to buy high and sell low so they underperform the market by a significant amount. As to whether it happens to any individual, it’s a guess at best. So when people talk about risk, they rarely discuss the real risks involved in investing in the market!
Just my opinion!
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
@Mathew
There is nothing wrong with adding your values into investing. Keep it up. There are fund families for people who have similar value systems. Hope you find one that fits your belief system.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I’m so lazy that I am going to rush out right now and start researching Lazy Portfolios.
Hahahaha
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:00 pm
@dylan,
I’m willing to pay for protection by limiting my upside gains. There is no other cost when choosing an appropriate collar.
Thanks for the discussion.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
@dave shafer
“The point is that this strategy only works as long as people are able both functionally and emotionally able to stay long [invested].”
Sure, not selling at the bottom is crucial. But why suffer through that bottom? Why not avoid all debacles in exchange for limited profits? The profits are not trivial, just less than they would be during surging years. The collared investor actually earns more money most of the time.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
My current AA of my traditional IRA is:
35% Vanguard Total Stock Market
25% Vangaurd Total Intl Stock Mkt Index
10% Vanguard REIT Index
20% Vanguard Total Bond Market Index
10% Vanguard TIPS
I am 42. As I age, the top 3 funds will shrink and the bottom 2 will grow.
Taking a finance course in college converted me to index investing. Learning even the basics of Modern Portfolio Theory is enough to convince anyone.
In my Roth I have a target retirement fund. My plan is that in retirement I will live on withdrawals from my traditional IRA, and the Roth is a source for major home maintenance expenses and vehicle replacement.
In my employer’s plan where I am stuck with high-cost options, I just do the best I can do. Someday that money will land at Vanguard too.
A good rule for rebalancing is anytime a fund is + or - 5% of desired allocation, you sell what is too big and buy what is too small. New money of course always goes to the spot which needs it most (to be at target allocation). Twice during this downturn I have sold bonds and bought stocks. Now I am almost to the point that I will have to sell stocks and buy bonds. You improve your returns by doing this, and you avoid emotional reactions to market volatility.
Regards.
June 2nd, 2009 at 7:48 pm
“Every trade has two parties, doesn’t it? So there is always someone buying when people are selling, even when a person is naked shorting a stock.”
As more people want to sell, prices go down to match limited buyers to many sellers. So as more people wish to sell, prices drop and we have a bear. And the data shows people sell during a bear. That’s just not that interesting I think. Of course that buyer may turn out to be seller if the market doesn’t recover as soon as he hoped so he may or may not do well “buying low”.
But yes, if you have a strategy you must stick to it.
But how do you know that the people selling into the bear were the lazy investors? They could be active investors getting out when the getting is good according to whatever system they have.
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“I’m willing to pay for protection by limiting my upside gains. There is no other cost when choosing an appropriate collar.”
Mark, is someone giving you the option for free? I think that’s pretty unlikely.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:24 am
Maybe Harry Browne’s permanent portfolio can also be considered a lazy portfolio, albeit a rather special one.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:32 am
“But how do you know that the people selling into the bear were the lazy investors? They could be active investors getting out when the getting is good according to whatever system they have.”
I don’t. Neither do you.
It always amazes me that people who like to use averages never take into consideration the real average returns people get as opposed to the hypothetical returns one can get from any particular strategy!
But that is a very human thought pattern.
Lazy investors live in Lake Webogan where every one is above average.
Good luck to all in their investing!
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:48 am
I put everything I can into VTTHX, Vanguard’s 2035 target retirement fund. It’s not my intended retirement date, but its allocation curve is a little closer to my preferences. I have smaller amounts in other accounts that don’t offer Vanguard funds. That includes FCNTX, Fidelity’s popular actively managed Contrafund. Not my style, but I don’t mind letting them play with a small part of my portfolio.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:55 am
@Mark Wolfinger (#56):
“You can buy a simple investment (or a few of them) such as the S&P 500 index, the Russell 2,000, etc. The buy puts for proection and sell calls - limiting profits, but paying for the puts.”
Wow Mark, that sounds like the perfect strategy. But it seems quite complicated. If only there were a book to explain it all in simple terms!
Oh wait, here are 3:
“The Rookie’s Guide to Options: The Beginner’s Handbook of Trading Equity Options” - Mark D. Wolfinger
“The Short Book on Options: A Conservative Strategy for the Buy and Hold Investor” - Mark D. Wolfinger
“Create Your Own Hedge Fund: Increase Profits and Reduce Risks with ETFs and Options” - Mark D. Wolfinger
And they’re all written by you. How convenient.
Conflict of interest much? A little disclosure would’ve been nice.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 am
@ Jason (#37)
Why don’t folks just go with Vanguard target retirement funds? My retirement money is stashed there. Appropriate domestic/international/bond mix that rebalances for you over time. People make things way too complicated. Since I’ve switched, I haven’t thought about my investments since.
I don’t know about Vanguard’s target funds, but the one I have available in my 401k was not be allocated the way I think it should be for my target date. Two years ago when I first invested in it, it was drastically underperforming the funds that were focused on small cap, emerging markets, and international, so since I have 30 years plus to go I started my own lazy portfolio (before I knew it was called that ;-)). It’s allocated like the No-Brainer above - only in the equivalent funds available to my account.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 am
All Vanguard unless otherwise noted:
Index 500 15%
Small cap Index 10%
REIT Index 5%
Meridian Value 5%
Total Int’l 5%
Int’l Value 5%
CA Int term Bond 13%
Short Term Inv Grade Bond 5%
Total Bond Index 20%
Hi Yield Bond 2%
Money Mkt 15%
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:59 am
“A fool and his money are soon parted.” - Thomas Tusser
Anyone who doesn’t have a large, and I mean LARGE, sum of money to invest and the time to research the stock market would be best served by a lazy approach. There are many former “day traders” out there who lost everything thinking they could beat the market. Many of them from before the current market slump.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
In answer to the question posed at the end of this article, “hell yes!” I am a lazy investor!
ING Direct’s ShareBuilder has index funds (which I use in a Roth IRA) that “strategically allocate” your contributions based on a timeframe (short term = safe investment, middle = somewhat conservative, long term = growth & risk)
They split up the portfolios into a mix of domestic stocks and bonds, foreign stock, money market, etc (for instance the growth fund is largely domestic & foreign stocks). Whatever contributions I make are automatically split up.
Yes ING has custodial fees on the account (negligible) but their customer service and easy of investing makes it worth a few dollars every month.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
I am a severe critic of the Lazy Investing approach, at least in its conventional form.
I see the appeal. There is indeed a huge amount of unnecessary complexity in much of what we hear about investing. Avoiding needless complexity is a perfectly sensible goal.
And there is no need to pick individual stocks. Index funds provide huge diversification at low cost. They are a great option for those of us who have other things we want to do with our free time than research stocks.
There’s even a sense in which I advocate a Lazy Investing approach myself. I advocate Valuation-Informed Indexing, which is an indexing strategy in which you lower your stock allocation at times of insanely high prices and increase it at times of insanely low prices.
The problem with the other Lazy Investing approaches is that they do not call for changing one’s stock allocation in response to big price swings. When you fail to adjust your stock allocation, you permit your risk level to go wildly off the mark from what you had intended it to be and from what is right for you. That means that you end up suffering huge losses and eventually feel pressed to abandon stocks altogether.
The particular form of laziness that causes people not to want to consider stock prices when setting their allocations is a form of laziness that generates huge amounts of stress in the long run. Valuation-Informed Indexing is a low-stress “lazy” approach. There’s nothing appealing in my eyes to being worried that my retirement plan is not going to work out because I was too “lazy” to make the adjustments in my allocation needed to keep my risk profile roughly stable.
How often do you need to change your allocation to achieve a low-stress approach to laziness? About once every 10 years on average. But the one change in 10 years means the difference between an approach that works in the real world and one that does not. I don’t believe in being so lazy that I am not willing to take that one critical step toward achieving my goal of long-term investing success.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:37 am
Rob Bennett (#78) wrote: The problem with the other Lazy Investing approaches is that they do not call for changing one’s stock allocation in response to big price swings.
Rob, I’m not sure why you make this claim. These lazy portfolios do call for re-balancing, as do most of the other similar portfolios I’ve seen. If a huge price swing occurs, the portfolio will become too heavily weighted in one asset or another. Periodic adjustments correct for this.
I can’t think of a lazy portfolio that doesn’t require require regular re-balancing. It’s a fundamental tenet of the “genre”.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Rob, I’m not sure why you make this claim. These lazy portfolios do call for re-balancing
Thanks for your response. J.D.
You are of course correct that the Lazy Investing approaches all call for rebalancing.
I make the claim because the aim of rebalancing is to stay at the same stock allocation. That doesn’t do the trick. To remain at the same risk level, (this is what I say you must do in order to “Stay the Course” in a meaningful way), you must change your allocation in response to big price swings.
Say that you are an investor seeking a risk level of about “6″ and you determine that a 60 percent stock allocations yields that risk level at a time of moderate prices. So you go with a 60 percent stock allocation. Then valuations increase enough so that a 60 percent allocation is now a risk level of “9.” With Valuation-informed Indexing, you would then lower your stock allocation to perhaps 30 percent, the stock allocation that provides a “6″ risk level at the new valuation level.
Investors have a choice. They can stick with the same risk level at all valuation levels or they can stick with the same stock allocation at all valuation levels. They cannot do both. The other lazy approaches argue for sticking with the same stock allocation and permitting the risk level to go wildly wrong. The idea with Valuation-Informed Indexing is to make the occasional allocation changes needed to keep one’s risk level roughly constant.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:59 am
“Valuation-informed Indexing” sounds like another way to say “market timing.”
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:32 am
@Dylan: LOL! I was thinking the exact same thing.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:44 am
“How often do you need to change your allocation to achieve a low-stress approach to laziness? About once every 10 years on average. But the one change in 10 years means the difference between an approach that works in the real world and one that does not. I don’t believe in being so lazy that I am not willing to take that one critical step toward achieving my goal of long-term investing success.”
I note that Rob has made that claim countless times before in his voluminous postings to various online discussion boards and blogs. I also note that he has never provided a side-by-side comparison of returns for his strategy versus any of the Lazy Portfolio alternatives. Odds are very slim that he’ll chose this moment to provide evidence to back up his oft-repeated claims.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“Valuation-informed Indexing” sounds like another way to say “market timing.”
That’s fair, Dylan.
There are two kinds of market timing, short-term market timing (changing your stock allocation with the expectation that you will see good results within a year or so) and long-term market timing (changing your stock allocation with the understanding that it often takes five years or even longer to begin seeing produce good results). The academic studies show us two things: (1) short-term timing never works; and (2) long-term timing always works. So the claim that “timing always works” is every bit as accurate as the marketing slogan saying that “timing never works.” The reason why The Stock-Selling Industry put all its money into promotion of the “timing never works” claim is that that’s what sells at times of insanely high stock prices (when the Get Rich Quick impulse within all of us is desperate for some rationalization not to act on the common-sense understanding that one must keep one’s risk level roughly constant to have a realistic hope of long-term success).
Since the huge price crash we have seen a lot more articles questioning the merits of Passive Investing, which is the model responsible for most of the Lazy Investing approaches. My hope is that some responsible people will step forward and that we will be able to get the word out to millions of middle-class investors in coming days as to what really works for investors seeking a realistic chance at long-term success. I think it would be fair to say that the fate of the U.S. economy hangs in the balance.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
That Guy,
Expense ratios and custodial fees are not the same thing. ING funds have very high expense ratios. Paying an extra 1%+ per year is not “negligible”, it is a huge bite out of your nest egg, and it takes another bite from the same dollars year after year after year.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I also note that he has never provided a side-by-side comparison of returns for his strategy versus any of the Lazy Portfolio alternatives.
I provide a calculator at my site (”The Investor’s Scenario Surfer”) that permits anyone who is interested in doing so to run as many comparisons of a Passive indexing strategy with a Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy as he cares to look at. The bottom line is that valuation-informed strategies beat passive strategies in nine of out ten of the 30-year returns sequences that are consistent with those we have seen in the historical record. It is not too uncommon to see a portfolio balance for the valuation-informed strategy that is double the size of the passive portfolio.
The reason is the magic of compounding returns. A Passive strategy can do as well as a Valuation-Informed strategy for a good number of years. But sooner or later the Valuation-Informed strategy always goes ahead. Once that happens, compounding takes over and the differential grows larger and larger and larger over the years. Many people have a hard time accepting how powerful a force the compounding returns phenomenon is. But it is a real thing. The long-term investor should want to have the compounding returns phenomenon working for him, in my view.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Oh for Goodness Sakes.
Yet another potentially useful thread diverted into the Rob Bennett Vanity Show.
You know, if the fellow had anything worth saying, I would not mind his nearly insufferably large ego. Unfortunately, he has no experience, no training, and nothing new to say.
As it is, as soon as Rob Bennett arrives, all reasonable discussion can be presumed to be over. And no, it is not due to anyone else but you, Mr. Bennett, and you alone. Grow up, please.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
@Rob Bennett,
“The academic studies show us two things: (1) short-term timing never works; and (2) long-term timing always works.”
If you understood how markets work, you should understand the flaw in your statement.
I do get what you are trying to advocate. It’s nothing novel. People have been trying to mine historical data for clues about how to beat the markets since existence of historical data. The bottom line is that we all can’t be above average, and any market timing strategy that can persist relies on the faulty premise that it is truly superior but will never become mainstream.
I saw your Web site, and can quickly see how invested you are in this Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy, so I don’t expect anything I could say to change your mind. So, I’ll just agree to disagree on which strategy is better.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I looked at the calculator as you suggested. It’s, uh, quite remarkable. One could spend a great deal of time attempting to make use of your creation. Time spent most unproductively. Is there any particular reason you do not care to provide a simple table of the past returns for your strategy? One can go to The Coffeehouse Investor and find a simple table listing its past annual returns. Same for any of Vanguard’s “Lazy-style” funds such as Balanced Index, Wellington or Star. Same for any of the other Lazy Portfolios. Your approach requires one to negtiate a nearly indeciferable calculator. Keeping things opaque apparently enables you the luxury of making statements to the effect that passive strategies have “never worked” in the real world. A simple side-by-side comparison of the returns for your stategy with “Lazy” alternatives would clearly show whether your strategy had merit. Your calculator assures that no one will be able to make such an easy comparison. But enough time wasted in a futile attempt to have you show any evidence of how your system has performed in the past. One doesn’t have to do much research to learn that debating you is a fool’s errand. Good day.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The bottom line is that we all can’t be above average, and any market timing strategy that can persist relies on the faulty premise that it is truly superior but will never become mainstream.
Valuation-Informed Indexing certainly does not rest on that premise. It’s precisely the opposite. Valuation-Informed Indexing works best when everyone understands the need to change stock allocations in response to big price changes. A key premise is that investing is primarily an emotional endeavor and we all are inclined to do what we see everyone else doing. The only way we can be sure to invest rationally (that is, in a valuation-informed way) is to see lots of others people doing the same. I view the stock market as a common resource, like the environment. My belief is that we all should be trying to protect it from the destruction that comes in times of insane overvaluation so that it will be around to help us achieve our retirement goals.
The mistake you are making (in my view!) is in thinking that it takes some special skill to beat the market. It does not. All it takes is a little bit of common sense. It is not at all hard to understand why valuations would affect long-term returns. The price we pay for everything else we buy affects the value proposition that we obtain from those things. The odd thing would be if price did not affect the long-term value proposition of stocks.
What trips people up is that people see how intellectually smart the “experts” are and figure that they must be on top of things. No! Intellectual smarts is often a negative when it comes to stock investing. The most important thing is getting your emotions under control. The “experts” are at a huge disadvantage here because their intellectual skills give them super powers when it comes to rationalizing away evidence that high valuations mean danger for the stock investor. It is the investor who is able to hold onto his common sense when 90 percent of the “experts” are promoting Passive Investing who has the edge.
Markets are not rational. The key error made by the Passives is thinking that they are. If markets were rational, the valuation levels we saw from 1995 through 2008 would be a physical impossibility. If markets were rational, stock prices could never go to three times fair value, as they did at the top of the bubble.
Passives often say “oh, if there were some advantage to engaging in long-term timing, we would all be doing it.” IF we were rational, that would indeed be so. But we’re not! That’s the entire point! If we were rational, overvaluation would not even exist. If we were rational, there would be no such thing as drunk driving. Does it make sense to let your friend drive drunk because you like to think that he is rational and therefore you see no need to protect him from the consequences of irrational behavior? Not in my eyes. I don’t let my friends drive drunk and I try to talk my friends out of investing passively too.
I’ll just agree to disagree on which strategy is better.
That’s of course fine, Dylan. Thanks for the helpful back-and-forth.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
A simple side-by-side comparison of the returns for your stategy with “Lazy” alternatives would clearly show whether your strategy had merit.
No, it wouldn’t, Carlyle.
I mentioned above that Passive often goes ahead for short periods of time. The time-periods in which Passives go ahead are time-periods of immense overvaluation. It’s no coincidence that the Lazy Portfolios have become immensely popular during the time of the most out-of-control overvaluation we have ever seen in the history of the U.S. market.
You’re asking me to focus in on a few years when the market was as irrational as it has ever been in history and compare a rational strategy with an irrational strategy (I mean no personal offense to any Passives, but I think it is fair to say that thinking that stocks are the only asset class on Planet Earth for which price does not affect the value proposition is indeed irrational) and see which one does better. Obviously the irrational strategy is going to do better at times of irrational prices. What you want to be looking at is the long-term, the sorts of time-periods in which your strategy is going to need to function in in the real world. You need to be looking at 30-year time-periods.
That’s why the calculator shows results over 30-year time-periods. That’s the appropriate test. Using the appropriate test, Valuation-Informed Indexing comes out ahead in about 90 percent of the tests done (there are some odd returns sequences where Passive can come out ahead, but counting on a one-in-ten shot coming through is gambling, not investing).
Ignoring valuations does not destroy investors in the short term. That’s why Lazy Portfolios can do well in the short term. For long-term success, you need to take valuations into consideration when setting your stock allocation. That’s why I recommend that people seeking to compare the Lazy approaches with the valuation-informed approach (which is plenty lazy enough, in my mind, but not so lazy as to not generate good results in the real world) look at how the two approaches compare in 30-year returns sequences.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
The bottom line is that we all can’t be above average,
We can’t all be above average. But if we become educated about how stock investing works, we can move the average up far higher than what it has been in a time-period when we were not making informed choices.
There have been four times in U.S. history (from 1900 forward) when stock prices have gone to insanely high price levels. The average price drop in the years following is 68 percent. There has been been a major economic crisis on each of those four occasions. There has never in that time-period been a major economic crisis that did not follow a time of insanely high stock prices.
Persuading millions of middle-class investors that it was not necessary for them to adjust their stock allocations in response to huge price changes was an act of national economic suicide. The Passive Investing Mistake was the greatest mistake ever made in the history of personal finance. We are in the early days of learning the consequences of that mistake today.
There is no law of the universe that says we need to do this to ourselves over and over again. If we taught people the realities of stock investing, market prices would be self-correcting. If we let people know that they MUST lower their stock allocations when prices get to insanely dangerous price levels, there would never again be a huge bull and there would never again be a huge bear and there might never again be a huge economic crisis.
When we invest rationally, we all enjoy the fruits of that decision because we all have a more rational market in which to invest our retirement money and a richer economy to work in and buy things in. When we collectively go nuts (as we did when we told millions of people that there was no need to lower their stock allocations when prices went to three times fair value), we ALL pay the price, Rationals and Passives, New Schoolers and Old Schoolers.
Irrational exuberance comes at a big price. We all should have an interest in trying to get the U.S. economy back on track. This is not a game. This is the real thing.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Carlyle: “A simple side-by-side comparison of the returns for your stategy with “Lazy” alternatives would clearly show whether your strategy had merit. ”
Rob Bennett: “No, it wouldn’t, Carlyle. I mentioned above that Passive often goes ahead for short periods of time.”
So you’re saying that we wouldn’t like your system as much if you gave use the data instead of just sweeping marketing statements.
Anyone who has a truly better system could provide details and performance results. I can track the returns of indexes, mutual funds, newsletters and documented portfolios and methods, but I’ve seen several attempts to put your many vague paragraphs into testable formulas and portfolios and each has been somewhat different and they generally underperformed the market when tested. A few years ago you even agreed with a poster that he had put your system into simple testable words and then he tested it in a few hours over the history of the US stock market and it underperformed.
So here we are today and nothing has changed except perhaps that you have become even more vague.
So what’s the deal here? Do you intend to charge people money for your system and then send them a piece of paper that says that your system is to convince people to pay you to tell them your system? That’s a pretty old system.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Mr. Bennett, Vanguard’s Wellington Fund was established on 7/1/1929. Is that sufficient time to be considered long-term in your estimation? Annualized returns are presented for the fund and its unmanaged comparison index at Vanguard.com dating back through 1999. Earlier annualized performance figures for the fund and its unmanaged comparison index can be found at SEC Info for earlier annualized periods. Rather than referring readers to your calculator (which appears at first glance to utilize hypothetical returns and return sequences), it would be much more helpful if you could post a simple table of returns for your valuation-based model versus the Wellington Fund and/or its unmanaged comparison idex. That’s considered standard form in backtesting proposed investment strategies.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Wow this Rob Bennett guy is something else.
You know I actually don’t doubt his basic premise, at all. If one could accurately, every decade or so, sell at the high point or even somewhat close to it, and then buy back in at the low point, the returns would be astonishing.
Well duh! It’s only obvious that an active strategy, that actually worked, would beat the tar out of a passive strategy.
To his credit he argues this basic point rather well, but it’s not exactly a hard thing to argue as the facts would support it.
The problem is I’ve read all these dozens of comments, even looked at his site and calculators, and never once does he provide any specific underlying architecture, formula, or methodology that’s unambiguous and simple to follow as he claims it is. Sure he refers to the price to earning ratio (a real accounting ratio) as some kind of metric, but not yet have I seen where does he say how investors should research what this ratio is at any given instant in time and what specific, concrete, acceptable parameters are.
Is a P/E of 10 the time to buy in or get out? He never seems to say.
What’s more, he seems to be rooted in the assumption that the basic behavior of stock prices won’t ever change in the future. Maybe it will become the norm that P/E ratios for a given stock will be much higher in 15 years than they are now. Maybe it will be the opposite.
I’d argue that any given stock will of course fluctuate in its P/E ratio over time, but will tend towards its actual value so buyers should just dollar cost average it out since there’s no way of knowing the highs and lows ahead of time, but that seems to be the very idea he’s against because he claims to know how to buy low and sell high.
But the problem is how, and he never seems to really answer that question. He shows you how much money you’d make if you managed to do that, but that’s not telling you how to do it.
Even if you’re using the composite of all stocks, IE an index fund, instead of individual stocks to do this, the problem is the same, how do you know so well in advance when to buy and sell?
He claims “long term timing” (whatever THAT is as he never seems to define it except in general vagaries of 7 to 13 year intervals between trades) always works but never demonstrates why or how.
Furthermore I see nothing fundamentally different between this idea and Graham’s. The passive investing methodology was invented as a reaction against the failure of the average person to be able to use that method, not the other way around as he spins it.
He rants against passive investing like it’s the dominant style everyone follows. That’s simply completely untrue. Most people try to trade and beat the market averages. Most people don’t even own an index fund. It’s just one of several models that are followed today and singling it out to contrast it against his vague ideas is a false dichotomy to try to make his ideas look so much better.
Finally, Buffett’s comments about diversification as protection against ignorance take nothing away from the passive strategy. I fully admit I am ignorant of what economic conditions on the whole planet earth are going to be for the rest of my life at every given point. That’s the underlying assumption in my own ideas about investing.
Also Buffett’s comment on index funds included a statement something like “If you don’t bring anything to the table, why do you expect anything above an average return?” That’s exactly the phenomenon the index investor is counting on, read Bogle’s The Little Book of Common Sense Investing. As I said before there’s no doubt that an active strategy that worked would beat a passive strategy’s returns, but the problem is Bennett has not shown me or anyone else exactly how to use this strategy.
It’s one thing to state basic ideas like buy low and sell high, and quite another to actually be able to implement them effectively. I personally have watched many many people try to do this very thing and they all gravitate to the mean, with some becoming very rich and some going completely broke.
I personally cannot risk the latter, I will take the average and call it a day. I believe it to be a fool’s errand to think anyone is smart enough to comprehend the literally millions of variables that will affect the financial markets over the next few decades.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 pm
but I’ve seen several attempts to put your many vague paragraphs into testable formulas and portfolios and each has been somewhat different and they generally underperformed the market when tested.
Gibberish.
The historical stock-return data is public information.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
it would be much more helpful if you could post a simple table of returns for your valuation-based model versus the Wellington Fund and/or its unmanaged comparison idex.
Valuations affect long-term returns. That means that valuations affect risk. That means that taking valuations into account is the same thing as taking risk into account. And that failing to take valuations into account is the same thing as failing to take risk into account.
It is not possible for the rational human mind to imagine a scenario in which it would be a bad idea to take risk into account when setting one’s stock allocation.
If you look on a year-by-year basis at the allocation decisions made by the Wellington fund managers and you find any in which they made poor allocation decisions and test what would happen if those decisions were changed to reasonable decisions, you obviously are going to see a better risk-adjusted result. What the heck would you expect to see?
And that’s of course what you see when you look at what happens when you invest in a broad index in a valuation-informed way.
Taking the factors that affect stock returns into account when setting your stock allocation is obviously a good idea. There are rare cases (about one in ten) when it produces results inferior to those obtained from a passive strategy. If you are certain that the one-in-ten longshot is going to come through for you, please feel free to go that way. I prefer to do what I can to put the odds in my favor. He who earns the money gets to decide how it will be invested.
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pm
If one could accurately, every decade or so, sell at the high point or even somewhat close to it, and then buy back in at the low point, the returns would be astonishing.
I am not aware of any means of identifying either the high point or the low point. So I find this idea preposterous.
But you knew that, didn’t you, snowballer?
Rob
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
it’s only obvious that an active strategy, that actually worked, would beat the tar out of a passive strategy.
That’s correct.
And the active strategy that works is long-term timing. That doesn’t involve picking highs or lows. It involves taking into consideration the extent to which the long-term value proposition of stocks varies with big changes in valuations and adjusting your stock allocation accordingly.
The academic research showing this dates back nearly 30 years.
Rob