Core Investing Beliefs Part 2: Managing an Investment Portfolio

In the last post, we talked about our first core investing belief, that asset allocation is the most important decision in investment management.  This post introduces our second core investing belief, that changing financial markets require continuous monitoring and tactical flexibility.

This philosophy is contrary to the typical buy-and-hold approach that investors have been persuaded to embrace.  Many people are convinced the proper way to invest is to simply leave their money in the market and hope for a decent return.  We believe there is a better way!  We feel investors should emulate the large, institutional investors by taking a more sophisticated, tactical approach to investing. 

At Willamette Investment Advisors, we maintain a forward-looking investment process that is focused on long-term trends in the financial markets.  So, depending on what is taking place in the financial markets, we adjust our clients’ mix of investments to both mitigate risk and take advantage of investment opportunities.

With record low interest rates and extreme stock market volatility, how are your investments positioned for what lies ahead?  Give us a call; we’d love to discuss it with you.

Core Investing Beliefs Part 1

We have 2 primary investment beliefs:

1)   That asset allocation is the most important decision in investment management.

2)   That changing financial markets require continuous monitoring and tactical flexibility.

This post focuses on asset allocation and we’ll address the second core belief in the next post.

Asset Allocation is simply the term we use in the financial industry to describe how your money is invested in all of the various investment options available, and in what proportion.  For example, if you have a financial advisor making the asset allocation decisions for you, they are deciding how much you should be investing in US Large company stocks, how much in bonds, international stocks, etc.

An important study by two Nobel Prize winning researchers highlights the importance of asset allocation in investment returns.  They found that over 90% of the variance in an investment portfolio is determined by how the assets are allocated.  Other factors such as stock selection and timing, while still important to consider, only represent a small portion of an investor’s return. 

For example, back in 1999 when the stock market was up over 50%, it didn’t matter if you owned Microsoft, General Electric, or IBM, you still made a lot of money.  But, in the crash of 2000/2001, owners of those investments lost money while even a mediocre bond fund had a positive return.  So, rather than spending the majority of your time deciding between two similar stock investments, it is much more important to figure out whether you should invest 30% or 60% of your portfolio in stocks (or any stocks at all for that matter).

We help our clients with these important asset allocation decisions and closely monitor and adjust their asset allocation as the financial markets change.

New Location

We are excited to announce we have moved to a new office location. 

Our new office is in a more visible and well-travelled location on the corner of 9th Street and Oak Avenue, just south of Walnut Boulevard in Corvallis.  The new address is 520 NW Oak Ave, Suite A, Corvallis, Oregon, 97330. 

If you are in search of a financial advisor to discuss your retirement plan or other investments, give us a call or stop by our new office!

Inflation or Deflation: Watching for Warning Signs

There’s been much debate in investing circles over the last year about whether inflation or deflation represents a more likely threat to the future of the U.S. economy. With a recovery that’s still tentative compared to previous recessions, measures designed to stimulate the economy or cut spending to rein in the budget deficit provoke warnings about their potential to create one or the other.

The case for inflation

As the economy has begun to recover, worries about the potential for future inflation have become widespread. The Fed has undertaken extraordinary measures to make sure there is plenty of money in circulation, but some experts worry that the increased money supply will eventually cut the dollar’s purchasing power, especially if interest rates are kept at historically low levels for too long. They cite the easy availability of money as contributing to the late-1990s tech bubble and the mid-2000s housing bubble, and fear that another could be on the way.

The Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy committee maintains that inflation currently is too weak to support normal economic growth, let alone launch an inflationary spiral. However, those who see inflation in our future watch for warning signs such as increased Treasury yields, particularly on longer-term bonds. Higher yields when bonds are auctioned suggest that investors are increasingly wary of tying up their money for long periods at a fixed interest rate if they feel that inflation is going to erode the buying power of those fixed payments over time. Wholesale prices also are watched closely; higher prices at the wholesale level can be a precursor of higher prices at retail (that is, if retailers are able to pass those costs along to buyers, which is not always the case).

The case for deflation

At first blush, the falling prices that characterize deflation don’t sound like such a bad thing. Who wouldn’t like to be able to buy things for less than they cost now, especially when times are tough? The problem is that those falling prices can harm the economy in several ways, as Americans were reminded during the recent recession. When prices are dropping, people tend to postpone purchases, hoping to pay less in the future (consider what’s happened with real estate since 2007). Delayed spending puts pressure on corporate profit margins and companies tend to cut spending themselves, creating financial difficulties for companies that rely on business spending. Cutbacks begin to ripple through the economy.

Deflation typically affects not only prices but wages; scarce jobs can lead to pay cuts even for those who stay employed. And lower incomes can start a new round of cost-cutting by both consumers and business. If this process sounds familiar, it’s because for much of 2009, the U.S. experienced negative annual inflation rates for the first time since 1955.

Though consumers have loosened their purse strings in recent months, deflationistas argue that if another financial crisis were to reduce credit availability, or if high ongoing unemployment once again begins to weigh on consumers’ willingness and ability to spend, the threat of deflation could return. Those concerned about the possibility of a new round of deflation at some point keep an eye on consumer spending, the state of the credit and housing markets, and the stability of banks and other financial institutions.

Seeing shades of gray

Inflation and deflation aren’t necessarily an either-or proposition. It’s possible to have inflation in some areas and deflation in others; anyone who has watched food prices or health-care costs increase while their paycheck stayed the same and the value of their house declined can vouch for that.

From an investing standpoint, inflation isn’t black-and-white, either. Some industries and asset classes benefit from inflationary forces, while companies that are highly dependent on both commodity prices and cheap labor can be more challenged by rising prices

The Math of Losses

Everyone knows the stock market has its ups and downs, but just what’s involved in recovering from a serious down?  If you lose 10% one year but your portfolio returns 10% the next year, are you even again?

The short answer:  no.  The math of recovering from a loss isn’t quite that symmetrical.  You have to gain more than you lost to recoup all your losses.  To understand why, let’s look at a hypothetical example.  Say you have a $100,000 portfolio.  In Year 1, you suffer a 10% loss and are down $10,000.  That leaves your portfolio worth only $90,000.

In Year 2, the market rebounds and your portfolio rises by 10%.  However, that 10% increase is based on a $90,000 portfolio, not $100,000.  That means a 10% return adds only $9,000 to your portfolio not $10,000, leaving you still down $1,000 from where you started.  You would actually have to earn a return of a little over 11% to get back to your original $100,000.

The bigger the loss, the bigger that rebound needs to be to get you even.  For example, if that $100,000 portfolio had taken a 40% hit, as many did in 2008, you’d need almost a 67% increase to offset that $40,000 loss.  That could take several years even if stocks perform well.

The challenge is compounded by investor psychology.  Adjusting your asset allocation to aim for a higher return is one way to try to recoup losses faster.  However, many investors find it difficult to take on additional risk after having watched their investments take a hit.  And there’s no guarantee that more risk will necessarily produce the desired result—at least not within the desired time frame.

The lopsided nature of recovery from market losses underscores why risk management is such a key component of successful portfolio management.  Being realistic about the level of risk your portfolio involves and how much time you have to come back from potential downturns may help you increase both your emotional and financial resilience.




Securities and advisory services offered through KMS Financial Services, Inc. member FINRA/SIPC.
This site is for informational purposes only and is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any securities or investment advisory services which may be referenced herein. We may only offer services in states in which we have been properly registered or are exempt from registration. Therefore some of the services mentioned may not be available in your state, and if not, the information is not intended for you.