≡ Menu

The Slow and Steady passive portfolio update: Q4 2014

The portfolio is up 10.43% on the year.

Our Slow & Steady model portfolio is now four years old. I doubt The Investor or I ever really imagined we’d see the day.

And how it’s grown! In four years our little snowball has swollen 24.92%.

That’s £3,651 in cash terms and an annualised gain of 9.49%.

This compares with the FTSE All-Share’s annualised growth of 9.8% over the same period.

Our portfolio has lagged the All-Share partly because of our allocation to government bonds. But please remember that we don’t hope to beat any particular stock market index over the long-term. This portfolio is designed to give us a strong chance of a good result, not an outside chance at the best result.

The very best asset class is unknowable 20 years in advance whereas good is good enough.

Also, most people can’t handle the volatility of an all-equity portfolio. They are helped by the stabilizing benefits of bonds in bad years for shares, even if bonds prove to deliver lower returns than equities over the long-term, as they have in the past.

That said, our portfolio has trounced the FTSE All-Share in the past year, growing by 10.43% versus the latter’s 1.18%.

Our geographic diversification and the healthy dollop of UK government bonds has kept us in the hunt.

The portfolio’s benchmark-busting performance was led by:

  • The US galloping ahead 20%
  • UK gilts put on 14%
  • Emerging Markets spurted by nearly 9%
  • Pacific Rim increased by 6%

Note, there’s nothing clever about this. We just stuck to the asset allocation we laid down in 2011.

The Slow & Steady portfolio is Monevator’s model passive investing portfolio. You can read the origin story and catch up on all the previous passive portfolio posts here.

Here’s the portfolio lowdown in mighty spreadsheet-o-vision:

The portfolio is up!

This snapshot is a correction of the original piece. (Click to make bigger).

New year, new you

So if things are going so well, why am I not happy?

January’s always a good month for making changes and I think the portfolio could be better diversified.

Our current set-up was the best we could do with commonly available index funds in 2011, but things have moved on for UK passive investors.

We’ve now got some good options that cover a broader range of asset classes:

  • Global property – which tends to enjoy relatively low levels of correlation with equities.
  • Inflation-linked government bonds – should stand us in good stead when inflation is high and growth low.
  • Global small-cap – our existing equity funds are dominated by large firms. A small cap fund gives us exposure to a group of equities that might behave differently, even though the small cap premium is contested.

I’m going to add all these to the model portfolio. We like to keep things simple though, so to prevent it from becoming unmanageable we’ll replace our existing US, Europe, Japan and Pacific holdings with a single ‘Developed World ex-UK’ fund. This single fund maintains exposure to all four regions but rolls them into one faff-less vehicle.

Here’s a handy table to summarise the changes:

Old portfolio Asset allocation (%) New portfolio Asset allocation (%)
Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust 15 Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust 10
BlackRock Emerging Markets Equity Tracker Fund D 10 BlackRock Emerging Markets Equity Tracker Fund D 10
BlackRock US Equity Tracker Fund D 25 Vanguard Developed World ex-UK Index Fund 38
BlackRock Pacific ex Japan Equity Tracker Fund D 6 Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund 7
BlackRock Japan Equity Tracker Fund D 6 BlackRock Global Property Securities Equity Tracker Fund D 7
BlackRock Continental European Equity Tracker Fund D 12 Vanguard UK Inflation-Linked Gilt Index Fund 14
Vanguard UK Government Bond Index Fund 26 Vanguard UK Government Bond Index Fund 14

The total weighted OCF of the new portfolio is 0.18%

That compares to 0.16% for the old version.

We don’t incur any dealing costs for the switches because the portfolio is notionally held with Charles Stanley Direct who don’t charge for fund trades.

In reality you would face some risk of being out of the market for a day or two, but you can’t know if it’ll be positive or negative in advance. I ignore it here.

Reasoning

It’s important to remember that I’m not doing fiddling with our allocations because I think this new combination will outdo the old one in the next year.

Rather, this is a strategic change that spreads our risk and hopefully means the portfolio is better buffered against whatever the future has in store.

Previously we only had exposure to world equities and conventional bonds.

Now we’re exposed to property, small cap, and inflation-linked bonds as well as world equities and conventional bonds.

That’s five layers of diversification instead of two.

As ever, we use index funds to achieve our goals because the evidence shows that low-cost investments will, on average, give us the best return over time.

Risk management

The inflation-linked gilt fund comprises 50% of our 28% bond allocation. That bond allocation itself swells 2% every year as we’re lowering our exposure to volatile equities in line with our shrinking time horizon.

We’ve now got 16 years left on the Slow & Steady clock.

Meanwhile, to make room for the global property and small cap funds, I have carved a slug out of our equity allocation.

I want to give each of these diversifying assets a meaningful but not dominant role in the portfolio. So they get 7% each of the total, which amounts to 10% of our 72% equity allocation.

To make room, I’ve lopped big slices off the UK and Developed World allocations.

A purist’s asset allocation would heed the wisdom of the crowd – buying assets in line with global capital distributions.

UK equities are worth about 7% of the global market so by rights should have a 5% share of our equity allocation. We’ve always held a larger dollop in our home country though, partly because it slightly reduces our exposure to currency risk and partly because like most investors we suffer from home bias.

A desire to correct that bias accounts for the large chop in UK equities with this reshuffle – from 15% to 10% overall – but I’m not so rational as to drive it right down to 5%.

The Emerging Markets cut stays at 10%, which is now a 14% slice of our equity allocation and commensurate with the developing world’s greater role in the global economy.

So that’s the asset allocation logic in a large and hairy nutshell.

My actual index fund choices are either the only or the cheapest available in each category.

Incoming!

Q4 is income bonanza time. Our funds paid out £148.11 in dividends and interest, which we’ve promptly fed back into the growth machine courtesy of our automated accumulation vehicles.

Here’s how the income adds up:

  • US equity tracker: £31.49
  • European equity tracker: £38.82
  • Japan equity tracker: £7.95 (Go Japan!)
  • Pacific equity tracker: £17.40
  • Emerging markets equity tracker: £30.67
  • UK Government bond index: £21.77

Total dividends: £148.11

Finally, we need to lift our investment contribution in line with inflation.

Inflation erodes the value of money as surely as the wind and rain wears away rock. We up our ante by 2% to stay level with the latest RPI advances.

That means we now need to throw £867 into the pot every quarter instead of £850.

Let’s round that up to £870.

New transactions

That new £870 is divided between our funds in line with our asset allocation.

Here’s how it breaks down, along with the rest of the dozey-doe required to reshuffle our portfolio.

UK equity

Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust – OCF 0.08%
Fund identifier: GB00B3X7QG63

Rebalancing sale: £630.90
Sell 4.12 units @ £153.03

Target allocation: 10%

N.B. Vanguard merged our old fund – the Vanguard FTSE UK Equity Index Fund into the Vanguard FTSE UK All-Share Index Trust on November 1.

North American equities

BlackRock US Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.17%
Fund identifier: GB00B5VRGY09

Sell: £4,996.13

Replaced by:

Vanguard FTSE Developed World ex-UK Equity Index Fund – OCF 0.15%
Fund identifier: GB00B59G4Q73

New purchase: £7,289.80
Buy 33.69 units @ £216.35

Target allocation: 38%

Japanese equities

BlackRock Japan Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.17%
Fund identifier: GB00B6QQ9X96

Sell: £1,041.27

Replaced by:

Vanguard Global Small-Cap Index Fund – OCF 0.38%
Fund identifier: IE00B3X1NT05

New purchase: £1,342.86
Buy 7.5 units @ £178.59

Target allocation: 7%

Pacific equities excluding Japan

BlackRock Pacific ex Japan Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.19%
Fund identifier: GB00B849FB47

Sell: £1,077.30

Replaced by:

BlackRock Global Property Securities Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.23%
Fund identifier: GB00B5BFJG71

New purchase: £1,342.86
Buy 894.05 units @ £1.50

Target allocation: 7%

European equities excluding UK

BlackRock Continental European Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.18%
Fund identifier: GB00B83MH186

Sell: £2,008.79

Replaced by:

Vanguard UK Inflation-Linked Gilt Index Fund – OCF 0.15%
Fund identifier: GB00B45Q9038

New purchase: £2,685.72
Buy 17.98 units @ £149.39

Target allocation: 14%

Emerging market equities

BlackRock Emerging Markets Equity Tracker Fund D – OCF 0.26%
Fund identifier: GB00B84DY642

New purchase: £109.69
Buy 96.3 units @ £1.13

Target allocation: 10%

UK Gilts

Vanguard UK Government Bond Index – OCF 0.15%
Fund identifier: IE00B1S75374

Rebalancing sale: £2,147.76
Sell 14.93 units @ £143.88

Target allocation: 14%

New investment = £870

Trading cost = £0

Platform fee = 0.25% per annum

This model portfolio is notionally held with Charles Stanley Direct. You can use its monthly investment option to invest from £50 per fund. Just cancel the option after you’ve traded if you don’t want to make the same investment next month.

Take a look at our online broker table for other good platform options. Look at flat fee brokers if your portfolio is worth substantially more than £20,000.

Average portfolio OCF = 0.18%

If all this seems too much like hard work then you can always buy a diversified portfolio using an all-in-one fund like Vanguard’s LifeStrategy series.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

{ 60 comments }

Weekend reading: 2015, and 15 years of a lousy FTSE 100

Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

Many economists claim that all investors are rational and that all known facts are incorporated into prices.

I think differently.

That doesn’t mean it’s easy to beat the market – quite the opposite, it’s demonstrably incredibly difficult and most people shouldn’t try – but that’s another matter.

A suitably advanced alien onlooker or an all-seeing God could tell you how many people are standing on one leg on the planet Earth right now.

It’s a knowable fact, but you or I would just be guessing.

Faulty logic

People who write about investing (myself included, no doubt) detract even more credibility from the rational market school of thinking.

Frequently you’ll read statements that are just plain silly.

For instance, I regularly hear US ‘experts’ proclaim that the rise in popularity of index funds and ETFs in the past few years is due to the steady rise in the value of the stock market.

But that’s just a US perspective, with its main markets hitting all-time highs on a regular basis in 2014.

The growth of indexing has been just as visible in the UK.

Yet our leading market – the FTSE 100, down again in 2014 – is still below its peak achieved in 1999.

The active edge that isn’t

On the same note, we often hear some of those US pundits proclaim that people will abandon index funds for active funds when a bear market strikes.

Articles like this recent anti-indexing one in Market Watch claim that “stock pickers have an edge in a downturn”.

Are we really going to have to spend another year debunking this stuff?

Firstly, the market consists entirely of stock pickers and passive funds (the latter being by definition neutral)

So for every active stock picker who wins there must be a stock picker who loses.

The claimed “edge” is therefore a mathematical impossibility.

Secondly, you might ask why indexing is growing in popularity in the UK, where as I say our leading index is yet to recover from the past two bear markets?

The answer might be that at least some of those who tried active funds have discovered they were scant protection from the bear market in 2008 and 2009.

Market ups and downs are unknowable, but costs are nailed-on.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

Not quite a road to nowhere

Anyway, while the woeful headline performance of the FTSE 100 over the past 15 years seems about as good an advert for tracking an index as North Korea’s economy is for collectivism, it’s not been quite as bad as all that.

Why?

Dividends, dear boy, dividends.

Hargreaves Lansdown notes that:

‘It is easy to look at the level of the FTSE 100 and to conclude the market has gone nowhere for 15 years, but even someone who invested £10,000 in the UK market at the worst possible time would now be sitting on £17,206 with dividends rolled up.

That said, it has been a white knuckle ride at times, encompassing the tech crash, the global financial crisis and two bull markets. But despite all that, the equity market has delivered significant returns ahead of inflation for long term investors.’

The other thing to stress is a properly diversified passive investor would only have a portion of their assets in UK equities.

You’ll have made good elsewhere while the FTSE 100 has wobbled nowhere, just as the US markets will likely one day disappoint and the FTSE 100 prosper.

What nobody should be doing is looking for silver bullets.

As Ben Carson writes:

“There are no shortcuts to the process. It’s never going to be easy. No one is ever going to be able to guarantee you an extremely high return number year in and year out. The markets just don’t work that way.

But some people really want to believe that it’s possible. They want the Holy Grail of investing with all of the upside but none of the downside.”

[continue reading…]

{ 29 comments }

Weekend reading: Our top 10 articles of 2014

Weekend reading

Hope you’re enjoying the break? It does seems to have been a good year for some strategic calendar leverage.

A friend tried to explain to me how with judicious timing and a couple of convenient office parties he was aiming to take three weeks off by using just two days annual leave. As a professional non-jobber I dozed off and don’t recall the details, but I admired the spirit.

For my part, I’m going for a week off Monevator, and hence I wrote this post last Saturday and set it to publish automatically.

Fingers crossed it’s not now wildly inappropriate. If the aliens have invaded or a Tsunami has washed away Norfolk then hey ho, stiff upper lip and all that.

Here are ten 14 of my favourite articles from Monevator in 2014.

I hope you missed one, or else you’re pleased to re-read another.

If not, well, 2015 is imminent, and that means you’ve got a brand new clutch of exciting articles about expense ratios and withholding taxes to look forward to.

Erm…

[continue reading…]

{ 4 comments }

Why the return premiums flatter to deceive

I have written a great deal on the return premiums – styling them as the superheroes of passive investing with the potential to kick the ass of the market.

The problem is, like all superheroes the return premiums have a dark side – tragic flaws that cause them to underperform or even fail to show up just when you need them most.

Consider this an anti-hero article designed to show just how much Kryptonite there is out there that can transform the passive investing equivalent of a comic book fantasy into just another chump in pants.

Looks good on paper

On paper, the best of the return premiums (also known as risk factors) have been shown to deliver market-beating returns of 4% per year.

That’s Mr Fantastic. But it’s not possible in the real world that you and I live in.

Why?

Because those returns are generated in academic simulations that:

  • Short equities
  • Ignore costs
  • Ignore taxes

The academics aren’t really cheating – at least not in the way that car makers cook up amazing fuel efficiency stats by testing their cars in labs rather than on roads and by removing wing mirrors and sealing up the door cracks.

The disconnect occurs because academic interest lies in understanding financial theory rather than producing practical products. (They can get hired for that later!)

Why funds fail to capture the full return premium

The long and the short of it

The return premiums identified by academics are delivered by long-short portfolios. These theoretical portfolios buy equities with positive characteristics and short-sell those with negative features.

For example, the value premium can be defined as the annual average return on equities with high book-market ratios minus the annual average return on equities with low book-market ratios.

The problem is that UK investors can only buy trackers that invest in long-only portfolios.

As a general rule of thumb, you can assume that such a long-only approach will only capture 50% of the premium1.

So our hoped-for premium is cut in half at a stroke:

4% x 0.5 = 2%

Your real world fund also comes with costs that don’t trouble Ivory Tower boffins. A factor-based tracker might charge you anywhere from 0.3% to 0.8% a year, and this too must be deducted from a premium’s theoretical returns.

2% – 0.5% = 1.5% left of our premium.

Higher costs are common to factor-based trackers because capturing a premium may require a high turnover of holdings (for example in the case of momentum) or investing in small and illiquid securities (in the case of the size premium) that are saddled with higher spreads.

Worst still, the bulk of a premium may exist in equities that are ill-served by commercially available products.

For example, there’s evidence that large value US equities only beat the S&P 500 by 0.5% a year, whereas small value trounced it by 3.8% a year. Yet many value funds are concentrated in large value equities meaning that your factor fund may only collect the merest smidgeon of the premium.

0.5% x 0.5 (long only loss) – 0.2 (cost of large value fund over a regular large cap fund) = a miserable 0.05% left of the premium.

It’s scarcely worth the bother.

The size premium is particularly susceptible to hollowing out, given the Wild West that exists in small cap definitions.

MorningStar’s fund compare tool can help you spot the difference and find out what you’re actually buying into.

No more heroes anymore

The final return premium hazard to watch out for is essentially one of self-harm.

The very emergence of mass-market funds – enabling us to buy into a premium – can flood the space with cash, raise valuations, and lead to low future returns as assets become overpriced.

Rick Ferri, for example, now advises investors to expect a future return on the small value premium of just 1%.

That’s a note of caution you’d do well to extend to other return premiums like profitability and momentum.

Indeed, the paper Does Academic Research Destroy Stock Return Predictability? estimates that returns decline by 35% on average once a market anomaly is ‘discovered’.

So by all means pursue the premium path if you fancy a crack at outsized returns, but be aware that their superpowers might have waned.

Expect George Clooney Batman as opposed to Christian Bale Batman and you stand less chance of disappointment.

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. The reality is more nuanced, depending on the premium, as this paper explains. []
{ 18 comments }