≡ Menu

The equity risk premium and YOU

Photo of Lars Kroijer hedge fund manager turned passive index investing author

This post on the equity risk premium is from former hedge fund manager turned author Lars Kroijer, an occasional contributor to Monevator. He also wrote Investing Demystified.

We’ve previously seen how the equity risk premium was 4.3% during the period 1900-2014.

All very interesting – but what’s it got to do with you?

Well, I’d argue we have good reason to expect global equities to outperform UK and US government bonds by a similar magnitude of 4-5% in the future, too.

This means you can plug this sort of real return figure – say 4% – into your compound interest calculators and other such tools when working out how equities fit into your investment strategy.

It’s a practical way of dealing with the uncertainty of shares.

A real return, but not a certain one

Now, some people do criticise this approach.

They argue that using historical returns to predict future returns will lead you to expect higher returns at peak markets, and lower returns at market lows.

And to be sure, historical returns from UK equities looked a lot better on 1 June 2007 – before shares crashed in the financial crisis – than on 1 March 2009, in the depths of the aftermath.

Even worse, perhaps it was because you were attracted by the high historical returns you saw in the data in mid-2007 that you decided to invest in equities – retrospectively right at a market peak.

Combining high historical returns with low expected risk made equity markets look most attractive, just when in hindsight they weren’t.

I understand this criticism but – aside from the general unavailability of crystal balls to predict short-term stock market crashes – I think the length of data mitigates it, at least when we’re involved in long-term planning, not market timing.

With hundreds of years of data across many geographies – incorporating spectacular rises, huge falls, and everything in between – I think historical data is the best guide to the kind of risk and return we can expect from the equity markets going forward.

A more practical complaint is that in the past investors couldn’t actually buy the whole world of equities.

One of the leading index providers, MSCI, only started tracking a ‘world index’ in the late 1960s.

Easily investable products that followed this or similar indices did not arrive for decades after.

So perhaps investor expectations have changed – and the equity risk premium shifted – due it being easier and cheaper to invest in globally diversified equities now than was previously the case?

Time will tell.

Alternative approaches

It’s worth noting there are other ways to derive a figure for your expected returns from equities.

For example, you might look at the dividend yield of the stock markets, or the average P/E ratio.

Combining either of these measures with longer-term earnings growth estimates can yield you an estimate of projected stock market returns.

The problem with these measures is they use quite short-term financial data, and combine it with a highly unpredictable long-term growth rate in order to extrapolate something as uncertain as future stock market returns.

To be honest, I don’t see that as an improvement on looking at historical data.

Other people suggest conducting surveys asking investors what their projections are for the markets, to try to gauge what returns they’re demanding.

While an interesting idea, these surveys are criticized for being heavily sentiment-driven.

They might also tell you more about investors’ desired returns than what they actually expect to earn.

Lars’ predictions

On average I expect to make a 4-5% real return per year above the minimal risk rate (that is, the return I can get from short-term US government bonds) from a broad based world equity portfolio.

This is the figure I’d use in my financial planning when figuring out what I hope to achieve over the long-term.

Of course I do not expect this return to materialize every year.

However if I had to make a guess on the compounding annual rate from global equities going forward, I would plump for this sort of range.

Expected future real returns

World equities 4.5-5.5%
Minimal risk asset 0.5%
—-
Equity risk premium 4-5%

 

Note that while the equity premium here is compared to short-term US bonds, I would expect the same premium to other minimal risk currency government bonds.

This is because the real return expectation of short-term US government bonds is roughly similar to that of other highly rated countries such as the UK, Germany, and Japan.

Apologies in advance

By the way, if you consider these expected returns to be disappointing, I’m sorry.

Writing higher numbers in this article or putting them into a spreadsheet won’t make them true.

Anyway a 4-5% annual return premium to the minimal risk asset if achieved will quickly add up to a lot. You could expect to double your money in real terms roughly every 15 years.

Indeed, some people would suggest that by expecting equity markets to be as favourable in the future as in the past, I’m indulging in wishful thinking!

Why the risk premium exists

It may sit wrong withyou to have something as important as what you can expect to make in the stock market be based on something as unscientific as historical returns – or for that matter my ‘guesstimate’.

Perhaps so, but until someone comes up with a reliably better method of predicting stock market returns it’s the best we have, and in my view a very decent guide.

Also, it’s not superstition we’re dealing with here.

We know that the equity premium should be something – because if there were no expected higher rewards from investing in riskier equities, then we would all simply keep our money in low risk bonds.

Another argument with simplistically predicting a stable risk premium is that we don’t change it much with the world around us.

It doesn’t seem right that the expected returns going forward should be the same in the relatively stable period preceding the deep stock market crash of 2008, say, as during the height of panic in October of that year.

Did someone who contemplated investing in the market in the calm of 2006 really expect to be rewarded with the same return as someone who stepped in during the despair and frenzy of October 2008?

Very probably not; someone willing to invest at a moment of high panic would likely expect to be compensated for taking on that extra risk.

This suggests the equity risk premium is not a constant number, but is somehow dependent on the risk of the market.

At a time of higher expected long-term risk, equity investors will likely be expecting higher long-term returns.

We might therefore think of the 4-5% equity premium I’ve outlined as an expected average based on an average level of risk.

Putting the risk premium into practice

In the interest of trying to make something as complicated as the global financial markets into something almost provocatively simple, here is a chart showing what we can expect in terms of returns after inflation.

Our expected return increases with risk.

The equity risk premium in graphical terms.

The graph shows how as risk increases, so does our expected return.

So if you’re an investor who wants to achieve returns in excess of the minimal risk return, you can invest in a broad portfolio of world equities.

In my opinion you can reasonably expect over the long-term to make a real return of 4-5% per year above the rate of minimal risk government bonds, which I expect to be about 0.5% per year.

However you can also expect your annual return to vary significantly, with a standard deviation of about 20% per year.

If that sounds too risky to you, you can combine an investment in shares with an investment in minimal risk government bonds to find your preferred level of risk (that is, volatility).

Minimal risk Low risk Medium risk High risk
100% Bonds 75% Bonds 50% Bonds 0% Bonds
0% Equities 25% Equities 50% Equities 100% Equities

By varying the ratio of equities to bonds, you can blend your portfolio to suit your best guess of your individual risk tolerance.

Adding a greater percentage of bonds reduces the volatility in your portfolio, at the expense of reducing your returns.

Simple is best

I believe by following such a strategy you will do better over the long term than the vast majority of investors who pay large fees needlessly to earn consequently poorer investment returns.

Such a strategy can be enabled by combining just two index tracking securities – one tracking your minimal risk asset, and one tracking the world equity markets.

If this seems just too simple then remember your simple portfolio hides a lot of complexity below the surface.

Your world equity tracker is giving you exposure to a large number of often well-known companies, operating in many currencies all over the world. From just your two securities you are therefore getting amazing diversification, along with a minimal risk security in the shape of government bonds that give you the greatest amount of security possible.

An excellent portfolio made up of just two securities… Who said investing had to be complicated?

Lars Kroijer’s book Investing Demystified is available from Amazon. He is donating all his profits from his book to medical research. He also wrote Confessions of a Hedge Fund Manager.

{ 21 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

One of my richest friends got a huge headstart in life in the form of money running into the millions.

I’ve never heard him explicitly acknowledge his good fortune in this respect, and I don’t really expect him to bang on about it.

It’s obvious someone who starts life with millions is better off than the vast majority who don’t.

Assuming you’re able-bodied, do you constantly acknowledge your precious inheritance of four working limbs?

Do you fall to your knees at the end of a jog or even a walk to the shops and thank the heavens for your good fortune?

Or is it so obviously a boon that it’s not worth remarking on?

Don’t get me wrong – long-term readers may recall I believe in high inheritance taxes and curbing inter-generational wealth transfers to whatever extent is practical (and, on the other side, in taxing earned income less heavily).

But if you’re born into money, I can understand it’s your reality.

Why bemoan it?

Born into more than just money

What’s interesting is that while my friend doesn’t talk much about the material boost money has given him – or even about the profitable business risks I am certain it’s enabled him to take – he does often cite the financial example of his parents and grandparents as precious.

He’s a strong investor in his own right, and he often credits that to seeing and hearing how the previous generations compounded their money.

And he’ll cite aphorisms and habits picked up from his parents concerning the “stewardship” of wealth.

Corny? I don’t think so.

If you consider how often lottery winners or sports stars go from millionaire status to bankrupt, you’ll see that such an upbringing is indeed a valuable inheritance.

Somehow I suspect my friend’s grandparents weren’t teaching him that the best thing to do with your spare cash is to prop up a failing sports team, invest in a luxury nightclub, or only buy sports cars when they’re brand new and you already have two in the garage.

Common sense investing advice

I was thinking about all this as I read a blog post by US investment professional David Merkel on managing your own financial path into and through retirement.

The article doesn’t say anything earth-shattering, and I don’t agree with all of it. (He talks more about active investing and assessing businesses than most people need to bother with these days).

But it does come across as solid grandfatherly advice that might substitute for the fireside chat that perhaps you never had.

Tellingly, Merkel also acknowledges the downsides of being of grandfatherly vintage:

Retirees need a defender or two against slick guys who will try to cheat them when they are older.  Those who have assets are a prime target for scams.

Most of these come dressed in suits: brokers and other investment salesmen with plausible ways to make assets stretch further.

But there are other scams as well – retirees should run everything significant past a smart younger person who is skeptical, and knows how to say no when it is necessary.

This is so true, as anyone who listens to the unending tales of Home Counties 70-somethings getting ripped-off on Radio 4’s MoneyBox will know.

[continue reading…]

{ 15 comments }
A photo of Martin Lewis, who is giving millions to charity in a very smart fashion

I sometimes wonder how much money Monevator has saved people by warning them off high cost investing.

Our popular broker comparison table might account for millions saved on its own.

Egotistical? Perhaps, but given our lack of serious financial rewards to-date from blogging, we’ll take whatever motivation we can get!

On that note I was chuffed to to hear about the journey of Monevator reader The Rhino:

If I had to pinpoint the start of it, it was that portfolio post on Monevator. To cut a long story short, education is possible as I am an example of it.

Fast forward 5/6 years and I have a set-up where my salary typically only represents about 10% of my income and is pretty much optional.

The amount of stress that removes from operations at ‘The Rhino Plc’ (yes I am one of those saddos who views themselves as a business) is significant and can be thought of as the gift that keeps on giving..

So chapeau to all at Monevator. I don’t know for how many, but certainly for some, its educational value has been immense.

This is seriously inspiring – not just for me, but I hope also for any readers who are just starting to get to grips with their own investing adventure.

Expert execution

Still, whatever difference Monevator has made surely pales into insignificance compared to the billions the British public has saved thanks to Martin Lewis, founder of MoneySavingExpert (MSE).

Lewis is a familiar figure these days thanks to his TV shows and his portrait being stuck all over his website. His site was already getting a thumping 1.5 million visitors a day in 2013, and given how it seems to have thrived since he sold it to Money Super Market, I expect it’s even more popular now.

So while I’m still looking for ad revenue like a child rattling around coppers in his piggy bank, Lewis processes to his office each day in a gilded carriage pulled by pandas.

And you know what?

I don’t begrudge him a penny.

Firstly, I know how hard it is to build up an independent website.

More people will visit MSE by the time you finish reading this paragraph than will ever read this article. To have created such a powerful media property from scratch is incredible, and I take my hat off to him.

Secondly, while I’m aghast at the stratospheric heights being reached by executive pay and was pointing out the banking emperors had no clothes long before it was fashionable to do so, I greatly admire entrepreneurs. As far as I’m concerned they fully deserve their rewards.

The incentives that turns a few rare risk takers into multi-millionaires are part of the scaffolding of capitalism that drives our economy and improves our lives – the complete opposite of the overpaid rent-capturing executives who’ve gamed the system and gnaw away at its credentials.

So well done Lewis for passionately executing on his good idea, and for making as much as £87m from its eventual sale, including £25m this summer and a final £19m earnout just last week.

Which brings me to the third reason I don’t begrudge Lewis his fortune…

He’s giving a big chunk of it away.

In the most recent announcement, Lewis said:

On the back of receiving this payment the charity, Citizens Advice, will receive another £1m.

Also from my existing charity fund, both the Trussell Trust and the Personal Finance Education Group will get £500,000 to fund their important work in financial triage and education.

It follows the pledge Lewis made when he first sold MSE that charities would receive £10m from the proceeds.

Since then the share price of Money Super Market has risen further, which has boosted the value of Lewis’ share donations.

Charities have already received around £4 million. Lewis calculates there’s another £16.5m to come.

Money Giving Expert

Carp if you want to that you’d give away millions too if only you had millions in the first place, but I’m impressed with Lewis’ generosity.

We all like to think we’d be more charitable “if only…” but would we?

I have my doubts.

Doesn’t the long history of the rich getting richer prove how hard it is to say enough is enough?

I read hundreds of financial press releases every week. Lewis’ charity pledge sticks out like an ATM in the Arctic.

As for needing to be wealthy already, I was reading the other day about a couple who live on 6% of their income so they can give the rest away. Extreme – and not for me – but eye-opening.

Here are three lessons I take from Lewis’ donations.

1. It’s easier to go without something you haven’t got

There are doubtless financial angles as to why Lewis declared his charity donations upfront when he sold MSE, and also when he received more money last week.

Perhaps it’s more tax efficient? If so, I’d expect no less of the man. He’s the Money Saving Expert, not the Moolah Splurging Moron.

But whatever the financial motivations, immediately giving away the money is also psychologically astute – and instructive to anyone trying to get control of their finances.

You see, it’s very hard to give up substantial money once you’ve got used to having it.

We know from the disposition effect in behaviorial economics how much people hate losses.

Or think of all the people who stay in jobs that they hate – even when they could change career or downsize and retire – just because they can’t face losing that big salary.

By giving some of his fortune away before he’s had a chance to marvel Gollum-like at it in his bank account, I suspect Lewis knows he’s making things less emotionally painful for himself.

It wasn’t ever his to lose – not when it’s earmarked for something else.

We can use this trick, too, when trying to save more money:

  • Pay yourself first by spiriting away a chunk of your monthly salary to savings the moment it hits your bank account, and then live on what remains.
  • Set up your investing to run automatically. You won’t miss what you don’t see.
  • If you get a bonus, bank it.
  • If you get a raise, try saving half of it.

All this helps curb lifestyle inflation, where a higher salary just leads to higher spending that keeps your finances standing still, without making you any happier.

Controlling such inflation might mean you avoid wasting your raise taking Uber everywhere, instead of taking the tube.

For Lewis, giving away £10m might have put a private helicopter off the agenda.

Either way, setting it aside first stops it feeling like a loss, and so helps further your higher aims.

2. Giving makes you feel good

I am lauding Lewis quite a bit in this post, so let’s set the record straight.

Martin Lewis is selfish, and he’s interested in his own happiness.

Confused?

Well, many studies have proven that giving things away makes us happy.

In one example, University of Columbia scientists said they:

…wanted to test our theory that how people spend their money is at least as important as how much money they earn.

[They learned that] regardless of how much income each person made, those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not.

In another study, researchers scanning the brain found that even people forced to pay for the public good saw their neurons light up, but that:

…neural activity further increases when people make transfers voluntarily.

Both pure altruism and warm-glow motives appear to determine the hedonic consequences of financial transfers to the public good.

And in 2014, Harvard researchers chimed in:

…studies show that people who spend money on others report greater happiness.

The benefits of such prosocial spending emerge among adults around the world, and the warm glow of giving can be detected even in toddlers.

Giving is a feelgood drug, albeit a potentially expensive one.

3. Going full circle

Finally, it’s notable how Lewis has very particular aims with his donations, which are strongly linked to the educational zeal that brought him success with MSE.

Explaining why he’s donating money to Citizens Advice, Lewis writes:

I love the CAB, its voluntary ethos and the great work it does. Yet also because its debt counselling funding had just been cut by the Government at such a crucial time in the recession. It should not be for private individuals to make up this gap – but it was needed and I wanted to expose that.

Plus few people realise the CAB is a charity, even those who use its services.

So many who’ve been helped don’t consider giving back when things are better. This needs to change as the organisation desperately needs support.

Or consider another project he’s supporting, The Trussell Trust, which combines food banks with financial advice.

There are myriad excellent causes in the world, and lots of us reach for the obvious ones like curing cancer or heart disease when we want to do our bit.

Obviously I wouldn’t argue against supporting that great work!

However I do suspect that for those of us who’ve taken a greater interest in our finances – even if at a more modest level than Martin Lewis – there’s something to be said for thinking about what is closest to your heart, and to your success, when deciding where to direct your giving.

Wealthy donors are sometimes lampooned when they fund a library to be built on their old college campus.

They couldn’t get the tutors or the girls to pay attention when they were there, but now their name will be on everyone’s lips!

Well, perhaps there’s a bit of that, but I also think it’s a case of wanting to stitch a life story together.

Similarly, I have no evidence but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Lewis had the thrust of these charitable donations in mind long before he sold his website, perhaps even back when he was still pulling all-nighters to make it a success.

Very driven people often see a larger goal beyond themselves, and they can use that vision to help get past their more mundane targets, too.

Many personal finance gurus will tell you that if you aim to give away 10% of your income every year, you’ll get it back with interest.

I haven’t tried anything so concrete, but writing this post I am wondering if I should.

How do you feel about giving? Do you find it a present day motivation or something for the future? Or do you feel you do enough with taxes or bringing up a family, perhaps? Let us know below. No judging!

{ 40 comments }

What is the equity risk premium?

Photo of Lars Kroijer hedge fund manager turned passive index investing author

This post on the equity risky premium is from former hedge fund manager turned author Lars Kroijer, an occasional contributor to Monevator. He also wrote Investing Demystified.

How much should we expect to make when we put our money into shares – preferably by investing globally with a world tracker fund?

In my opinion, our expectation should be driven by our view of the equity risk premium.

And what is the equity risk premium?

The equity risk premium is a measure of how much extra return investors in the stock market expect to be paid for taking on the additional risk of investing in shares, compared to if they’d invested instead in the minimal risk asset.

The minimal risk assets in the UK and US are those countries’ domestic government bonds.

Shares are much more risky than UK and US government bonds, but everything has a price.

That price is the equity risk premium.

What is the equity risk premium, in numbers?

When we look to the equity risk premium as passive investors – or as I like to say, as rational investors – we’re not trying to predict whether the prospects for the markets are particularly good or bad right now.

The equity risk premium simply acknowledges that historically, investors have demanded a premium for investing in risky equities, as opposed to instead investing in less risky assets.

By using the equity risk premium in our calculations, we’re saying we presume investors will expect to be paid a similar premium for investing in equities going forward to what they’ve demanded in the past (unless the risk of those markets has changed substantially compared to the past).

How much is that premium?

The size of the equity risk premium is subject to much debate, but something in the order of 4-5% is what you’ll typically see quoted.

If you study the performance of the global equity market over the past hundred years or so, the average annual compounding rate of return over that period is within this range.

Real returns 1900–2015

World equities 5.2%
Short-term US government bonds 0.9%
Equity risk premium 4.3%

Source: Credit Suisse Yearbook 2015

Of course it’s impossible to know if the markets since 1900 were particularly attractive or poor for equity holders, compared to what the future has in store.

The equity risk premium is not a law of nature, and it will change over time as the data changes.

When I published my book, for instance, the same calculation we’ve just done produced a slightly higher equity risk premium of 4.5%, using returns over the period 1900 to 2011.

There is also some evidence that the risk premium changes with the level of risk (or volatility) in the markets – that is, that those brave enough to enter the markets at times of maximum turmoil and risk are rewarded with higher expected returns.

In general academics say there aren’t enough datapoints to make this argument convincingly, but the evidence does point in that direction.

Could the equity risk premium be different in the future?

The equity risk premium is simply an expectation of future returns.

There are various ways to calculate it, but here we’ve simply based it on what stock markets have achieved in the past – including all the booms and bear markets along the way.

To be sure, economists and finance experts disagree strongly on what we should expect going forward.

And some do consider this kind of projecting by looking in the rear-view mirror approach to be wrong.

But I disagree.

In my view the long and volatile history of equity market returns gives a good idea of the kind of returns we can expect going forward, provided we don’t try to be too precise.

Equity market investors have previously demanded a 4-5% return premium for taking on the kinds of risks equities entail, and assuming that those risks remain roughly similar to what they were in the past, it’s reasonable to assume a similar return expectation from here.

So I think there’s a good probability that going forward investors will demand a similar 4-5% return premium for a similar kind of risk.

Next week we’ll look at what the equity risk premium means for your portfolio. I’ve turned off reader comments for this first article, so we can have the discussion in one place then.

Lars Kroijer’s book is Investing Demystified. Lars is donating all his profits from his book to medical research. He also wrote Confessions of a Hedge Fund Manager.

{ 0 comments }