Investors Hurt Themselves in the Long Run By Bringing on Excessive Price Gains in the Short Run

4
Investors Hurt Themselves in the Long Run By Bringing on Excessive Price Gains in the Short Run
SoulMusic / Pixabay

I argued in my article from two weeks ago that Buy-and-Hold remains popular today because the strategy has performed well in the post-Shiller era. From 1981 forward, the S&P 500 has provided an annualized real return of 8.1 percent. I also noted that on the one occasion on which shocking losses caused a number of Buy-and-Holders to begin to lose confidence in the strategy (the days following the 2008 price crash), prices quickly recovered. The return for the past 10 years has been 11.2 percent. The other side of the story is that the annualized real return for the past 20 years is only 3.7 percent, well below the average stock market return of 6.5 percent real.

Most investors could not cite these numbers. Most form their opinion as to whether the strategy is working or not by forming an impression of whether or not their portfolio is growing over time by the amount that they need it to grow by to finance their retirement. Most have probably noticed that for the past two decades stocks have been providing sub-par returns. But they have also noticed that for the past 10 years and for the past 40 years returns have been outstanding. So the overall impression is that Buy-and-Hold gets the job done and then some.

Get The Full Series in PDF

Get the entire 10-part series on Charlie Munger in PDF. Save it to your desktop, read it on your tablet, or email to your colleagues.

Q3 2019 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

Q2 2022 Hedge Fund Letters Database Now Live!

Hedge funds HFMQ2 2022 hedge fund letters database is now up. See what stocks top hedge funds are selling, what they are buying, what positions they are hiring for, what their investment process is, their returns and much more! This page is updated frequently, VERY FREQUENTLY, daily, or sometimes multiple times a day. As we get new Read More

But, if Shiller is right that high stock prices are caused by irrational exuberance, prices will be returning to fair-value levels in the not-too-distant future. That would mean a price drop of 50 percent or more. At the end of earlier bull/bear cycles, the CAPE level dropped to “8.” That would be a price drop of more than 70 percent. And that price drop would likely remain in place far longer than the one we saw in 2008. Will such devastating losses cause the general impression of the efficacy of the Buy-and-Hold strategy to change?

I believe that they will.

The difference between Valuation-Informed Indexing and Buy-and-Hold is that Valuation-Informed Indexing takes the long view. Prices always return to fair-value levels. There has never yet been an exception to this rule. So Valuation-Informed Indexers do not count price increases that take prices beyond fair-value levels as real. In the short term, Buy-and-Hold appears better because it permits investors to indulge their fantasy belief that price gains resulting from overvaluation are every bit as solid as price gains resulting from economic developments. In the long term, only economic gains count. Buy-and-Hold makes effective financial planning impossible because it confuses investors as to the value of their portfolio.

When people say that they like Buy-and-Hold, what they are really saying is that they like owning a share of the powerful U.S. economic growth engine. It is that growth engine that is responsible for the 6.5 percent real returns enjoyed by stock investors. The Buy-and-Hold opposition to market timing adds nothing to the equation. Price indifference causes super high returns for a time and then the super low returns that always follow as the market works its way back to reasonable price levels. Both the super-high-return time-periods and the super-low-return time-periods cause huge inefficiencies both for millions of individual investors and for the economy as a whole.

Can I afford two weeks of vacation this year or only one? Should I buy a new car or get by a bit longer with the one I already own? Should I encourage my child to attend a state university or tell her to feel free to attend a more expenssive out-of-state one? Investors ask themselves questions of this sort on an almost weekly basis. To analyze these questions properly, they of course need to know how much they have in savings. It is of course impossible to know for so long as we live in a world in which stocks are often priced at two times fair value or more, as they have been for much of the past 23 years.

And the huge upward and downward price swings that are characteristic of a stock market in which most investors are following Buy-and-Hold strategies cause major distortions. Businesses incur the costs of expansions because the numbers support the idea and then see the expansion fail because stock prices fall hard and cause consumer spending to dry up.

Wouldn’t it be better if we could all possess a better idea of the real and lasting value of our stock portfolios? We could have that if we would just acknowledge that price gains caused by irrational exuberance never last. There’s all the difference in the world between economic-based stock gains and investor-emotion-based stock gains. If we would encourage investors to appreciate the difference between the two, many would do so and price volatility would be dramatically diminished.

I believe that the next price crash will cause investors to question the merit of the Buy-and-Hold concept. We gain nothing by letting prices rise to unsustainable levels and then shock us with the dramatic collapses that always follow such price rises. Practicing price discipline when buying stocks is a more realistic and more efficient approach.

Rob’s bio is here.

Updated on

Rob Bennett’s A Rich Life blog aims to put the “personal” back into “personal finance” - he focuses on the role played by emotion in saving and investing decisions. Rob developed the Passion Saving approach to money management; Passion Savers save not to finance their old-age retirements but to enjoy more freedom and opportunity in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s - because they pursue saving goals over which they feel a more intense personal concern, they are more motivated to save effectively. He also developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing investing strategy, a strategy that combines the most powerful insights of Vanguard Founder John Bogle and Yale Professsor Robert Shiller in a simple approach offering higher returns at greatly diminished risk. Tom Gardner, co-founder of the Motley Fool web site, said of Rob’s work: “The elegant simplicty of his ideas warms the heart and startles the brain.”
Previous article How Market Disruption Is Driving Profits [Analysis]
Next article Got a new Apple Watch? Here is everything you need to know

No posts to display

4 COMMENTS

  1. Like you frequently do, you have made a long winded post in attempt to distract readers from the point being made. Try commenting on my post and explain your failure instead of trying to run away.

  2. Shiller published a paper in the Summer of 1996 saying that investors who stuck with their high stock allocations would come to regret it because valuations were so high. We did not see a crash by 2006 but we did see one in late 2008. In early 2009, there really were a lot of investors who expressed regret that they stuck with their high stock allocations. But the Buy-and-Holders said that the thing to do was just to stay the course and prices would head upward again. That’s what happened. People who followed the advice of the Buy-and-Holders at that time are now happy that they did so because stocks have provided very good returns for the past 10 years.

    Does that show that Buy-and-Hold is the way to go? Not in my opinion. Shiller showed that, when prices go above fair-value levels, it is not a rational assessment of economic developments causing that to happen, it is irrational exuberance. It was a collapse of irrational exuberance that explained the 2008 crash and it was a resurgence of irrational exuberance that explained the big price gains of the last 10 years. The trouble is that irrational exuberance always collapses again. So, in the event that Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research is legitimate research, we are likely to see another price crash within the next year or two or three. What will the investors who followed the advice of the Buy-and-Holders in 2009 say then? Lots of them will wish that they had learned more about Shiller’s research.

    With Buy-and-Hold, you never know where you stand. Buy-and-Holders ASSUME that the numbers on their portfolio statements are real. They have never generated any peer-reviewed research showing this to be so, they just assumed it. I acknowledge that the idea has a certain surface plausibility. But Shiller published research showing that it is NOT so. His research shows a strong correlation between the valuation level that applies today and the price level that will apply ten years from today. How is it that the CAPE level is able to tell us what the price level will be 10 years from now? This is possible because irrational exuberance ALWAYS collapses. There has never been a single exception in the historical record. When prices are high, they always go down hard in the long run.

    Shiller’s research lets us know something important about stocks that we did not know before. It lets us know the true value of our portfolio (the value adjusted for the effect of the irrational exuberance present in the current-day price). I like knowing the true value of my portfolio. It is a huge help in trying to plan my financial future. And I have heard from thousands of investors (and a good number of experts in the field) who feel the same way. The Buy-and-Holders don’t like Shiller’s Nobel-prize-winning research one tiny bit; they like believing that the numbers on their portfolio statement are real. But that’s not what the last 39 years of peer-reviewed research in this field tells us about this important question.

    I wish you the best of luck with your investment strategy even though I do not personally see it as the way to go, Sammy.

    Rob

  3. In 2002, you detailed your “retirement plan” in which you got out of the stock market, and continue to be as of today, according to your posts. In 2005, you provided an update in which your spending had gone up at a higher than expected rate. You at stated you were returning 3.5% real and that the market returns close to 7%. You stated that you were not worried because with your VII timing strategy, you would return more than the market average and then your finances would be fine. Here we are almost 15 years after the 2005 update. You did not get back in the market to get those higher returns. As of midnight tonight, a decade has passed without that market crash that you said would have happened long ago. Early in the decade, people kept pointing out your failed predictions, so you said that if the crash did not happen by 2015, it was right to question the VII strategy. Tomorrow, we enter 2020. Your plan clearly failed and you have acknowledged that you have to get a job again as your retirement plan failed. In a preposterous attempt to save face, you claim that you really haven’t failed because all these people will want to pay you $500 million for advice on your VII strategy, that has caused you a retirement failure. It should not surprise you that no one wants to follow your plan.

  4. In 2002, you detailed your “retirement plan” in which you got out of the stock market, and continue to be as of today, according to your posts. In 2005, you provided an update in which your spending had gone up at a higher than expected rate. You at stated you were returning 3.5% real and that the market returns close to 7%. You stated that you were not worried because with your VII timing strategy, you would return more than the market average and then your finances would be fine. Here we are almost 15 years after the 2005 update. You did not get back in the market to get those higher returns. As of midnight tonight, a decade has passed without that market crash that you said would have happened long ago. Early in the decade, people kept pointing out your failed predictions, so you said that if the crash did not happen by 2015, it was right to question the VII strategy. Tomorrow, we enter 2020. Your plan clearly failed and you have acknowledged that you have to get a job again as your retirement plan failed. In a preposterous attempt to save face, you claim that you really haven’t failed because all these people will want to pay you $500 million for advice on your VII strategy, that has caused you a retirement failure. It should not surprise you that no one wants to follow your plan.

Comments are closed.