≡ Menu
Weekend reading

Some good reads from around the Web.

I once asked readers to admit they were nostalgic for the turbulent days of 2008 and 2009, when banks were going bust and stock markets were a bargain.

The post was slightly tongue-in-cheek, with my idea being to remind readers that the bad days don’t last forever, even if the headlines take a while to change.

There is a reason to lament more stable times, though, and that’s that buying cheap is the best guide you’ll get to good future returns from equities.

And cheapness tends to come hand-in-hand with fear and turmoil.

Spain is still partying like it’s 2009

Given how I supposedly love cheap markets and can look through bad headlines and gyrating share prices, I have asked myself if I should be putting more money to work in Europe – and in particular Spain.

While the economic slowdown has dragged on everywhere in the Western world, Spain feels like the clock stopped three years ago.

It’s several years ago that the US and UK authorities forced a bailout of their banking systems. Spain is still doing it. Last week saw its fourth attempt to shore its banks, after the all-but nationalisation of one of the biggest domestic lenders, Bankia.

And while Obama may be tearing his hair out about stubbornly high unemployment in the US, compared to Spain’s 24% rate, the US rate of around 8% seems a boon. UK GDP is dipping, but it’s diving again in Spain.

The credit crisis that nearly froze international trade and finance is still spluttering in Spain, too, albeit more evident in the very high yields on Spanish government bonds. The government’s move on Bankia was partly a response to rising fears among Spanish savers over the safety of their money.

Costa notta lotta

Given all this – replicated to a greater or lesser extent across peripheral Europe – why would anyone consider investing in Spain?

Because it’s seemingly dirt cheap, of course.

The Spanish market is down roughly 25% on the year, with the index flirting around the level it touched in early 2009.

In contrast US markets were recently making new highs. Even after its recent falls, the UK’s FTSE 100 is up over 50%.

This weakness is reflected in a very low P/E rating for the Spanish market of around 7.5, according to FT data. That compares to over 10 in the UK (still not exactly expensive) and around 14 in the US.

You might think that a low P/E is warranted, given Spain smells about as healthy as a morgue during a mortician’s strike. As a fan of the country and a semi-regular visitor, I don’t disagree it’s tough there.

My Spanish friends confirm the country is in a right mess. The structural problems behind youth unemployment are almost worse than the headline figures. Much of what makes Spain so great – such as its hedonistic lifestyle and its family-focused culture – is partly to blame for its woes. Then you have issues like an entire generation raised on consumer credit, who make British 20-somethings look like a legion of proto-Warren Buffetts.

The root and consequence of Spain’s problems is a crazy property boom that took people out of real jobs, took money away from productive investment – and that incidentally acted as a cesspit for much of the easy money that flowed here in Britain 5-10 years ago, too.

It’s very difficult to gauge how much of this has been unwound, but again the hidden cost (graduates who eschewed careers to work on building sites, for instance) could be even worse.

But there’s a but as big as any you’ll see at any Greek wedding.

Spain is international, too

The leading companies in Spain are as multinational ours or Germany’s, and more so than America’s. Even the big banks like Santander make the bulk of their money overseas.

It’s therefore somewhat irrational for shares in Spain to be particularly hard hit by the problems at home. They will certainly suffer in a worst-case scenario for Europe, but arguably the more highly-rated US ones will do at least as badly if the global economy turns south as a result.

Some of the discount is warranted because the big financial companies have a life-threatening Spanish asset base, even if they theoretically have plenty of productive assets overseas.

We all know now that a bank can be wiped out if a minority of its assets flounder. The surviving Spanish banks (most of the little ones have gone) have been setting aside money to reflect their shaky property loans, but nobody knows how much is enough.

You might also argue that there’s a certain markdown that’s justified because of the chaos that ejection from the Eurozone could cause.

But perhaps the biggest fear in a country that was a dictatorship in living memory is a return to those truly bad days. If Spain turned into a basket case like Argentina, we could see one of those once-in-a-century blow-ups that makes looking at the historical returns from international markets so revealing.

I don’t think that’s likely, and I believe Europe can cope with its problems – at least to an extent that will eventually justify much higher share prices.

In fact, some of the solutions to Europe’s woes such as restructuring in the South and higher spending by Germany could be a positive boon for corporates.

However so far I can’t bring myself to go overweight on Europe, even though I’m not a pure passive investor and I think the markets look cheap. I have considered buying shares in the likes of Santander and Telefonica, but instead I’ve restricted myself to tilting some of my index fund allocations more in Europe’s direction.

[continue reading…]

{ 20 comments }
These are unusual times, when shares seem as risky as ever, but so do the alternatives.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned I’d stopped putting new money into shares around Christmas, and that I’d become more defensive in the active part of my portfolio.

I was also wondering where to stash the cash I’d raised from CGT defusing and a (still) imminent windfall lump sum.

Was there a good alternative to another Pavlovian lunge for equities?

It proved a lucky time to get reflective, given the subsequent market falls. I don’t claim to be able to call the market, but I do keep an eye on it, and now two years in a row I’ve been fortunate to see shares slip just after I’ve gotten slightly less gung-ho about valuations.

It all helps, but I don’t think I’ve developed an unflappable sense of market timing – amusing though it would be to claim as much in 100-pixel high letters on Seeking Alpha.

(Here’s my market call: Sooner or later the FTSE All-Share is going to be a lot higher, and likely on a loftier P/E rating. I don’t know when, and nor does anyone else. I invest in anticipation).

Besides, I was really just tinkering at the edges.

I have been extremely long the stock market since 2009 1 because to me equities seemed cheap compared to the alternatives, which mostly look about as appealing as drowning your sorrows with a Slush Puppy on the Titanic.

I didn’t set out to become quite so overweight in equities, nor for my lob-sided bet to last so long. I had hitherto always retained a big cash cushion, at least.

Then again, I never imagined interest rates would be held at 300-year lows for three years, even as inflation topped 5%. These are unusual times, and my actions have been adaptive (and not particularly astute – I’d have made money with a lot less volatility if I’d held a sensible amount of government bonds throughout, instead of dumping them too early on fears of a bubble).

I don’t recommend this lack of diversification, although equally I don’t think it’s a terrible idea in your 20s and 30s if you can take the gyrations (and assuming you’ve an emergency fund, and that equity markets look cheapish).

In my circumstances and with my unusual temperament it suits, but even I don’t want to be like this forever.

What I currently like apart from shares

When shares seem to be leaving the bargain basement, it’s commonsense for even an ultra-aggressive investor to consider shoring up on diversification.

But how? A few readers asked me as much via email.

I couldn’t tell them and I can’t tell you what you should do to follow me for two good reasons:

1) This is an educational website, not the diary of a guru. Read and ponder but don’t copy. Most readers will be best off with at least 90% of their money invested passively, rebalancing mechanically, not speculating.

2) The stock market fell, and so I’ve reinvested most of the free cash back into equities anyway!

With the FTSE now around 5,500 and the UK market on a P/E of 10 or so, I’m not quite so concerned about lightening up any further. I never thought UK shares looked dear, and now they’re cheaper again. Europe looks a steal.

Long may it last! The last thing I want is for the stock market to go up while I’m earning money and buying shares, especially when cash and bonds are paying a pittance. I owe a Greek politician a few Euros (or some drachma, soon enough).

Nevertheless, here are some of the choices I made or considered on the road to staying close to where I started, just in case you find them interesting.

Gilts

Dismissed as too expensive. I’ve been wrong about this before. The Accumulator has made a good case for holding your nose and government bonds regardless.

Index-linked NS&I certificates

I’d love more of these tax-free beauties, but as I warned when they last showed their face, they’ve proven more fleeting than an English summer. In current conditions I would buy these whenever they’re offered.

Cash savings account

The worst of times. You can get 3.5% in an ISA, but my annual allowance always goes immediately into the stocks and shares flavour.

Outside of an ISA, you can get over 4% if you lock your money away. But it’s taxed (and harder than on dividends or capital gains) so the net rate is unattractive. For emergencies only.

Peer-to-peer revisited

I’ve been a tad more active with Zopa recently: I got money away in the prime three-year market at on average close to 7% earlier this year.

Long-time readers may remember when I was spooked by a rash of bad debts. Apparently the Zopa risk machine was on the blink for a week in 2008; that clustering didn’t escalate, after all.

Furthermore, Zopa has made itself more attractive with the introduction of a Rapid Return facility enabling lenders to potentially close out most or all their loans – an option originally only given to borrowers. It’s not perfect or free, but it’s better than nothing.

I’ve also realised that as an early adopter I’m paying a lower fee of 0.5%, versus 1% for new members. I do like a perk!

On the other hand, Zopa long ago removed the one-year terms I used to prefer (and it is fiddling again with the length of terms).

Zopa has been running for about seven years now, and I feel that (as best we can tell from the outside) it’s proven it’s not going to blow up overnight. I’ll probably put more cash into Zopa in the months ahead, and may investigate other peer-to-peer platforms.

Remember though that being a Zopa lender is not the same thing as opening a cash savings account –the loans you make to individuals are more akin to a corporate bond, and you get no compensation from the FSA if a loan goes bad.

I may be over-cautious, but for this reason I don’t think I’ll ever go crazy here (so no more than around 5% of my net worth).

Corporate bonds

I feel investment grade corporates only look at all good value currently because gilts are so expensive. As for higher-yielders, junk bonds in the US just hit an all-time low.

If junk bond buyers are right about the prospects of the companies issuing their junk bonds, then I’d rather be in the shares.

Quixotically enough, I did put an order in for a slug of the latest Tesco Personal Finance corporate bond, which is paying 5% and runs for 8.5 years. This looks attractive to me, but for a specialist view check out the write-up on the excellent Fixed Income Investor.

It’s free 2 to buy into these at launch, which helps. With no dealing costs or spreads I wouldn’t mind investing in a few such offerings from various top-tier companies at 5% or more and holding to maturity, to create a slightly risky mini-portfolio.

Lloyds preference shares

I sold my 2010 tranche of these non-payers; I own some beaten-up Lloyds shares, too, unfortunately, and wanted to cut exposure. I got out at just over breakeven (no thanks to the huge spread).

I would have done better to hold given that I bought back in earlier this year, and again more recently.

Lloyds’ recent results confirmed its intention to resume payment on these securities, and sure enough the LLPC shares I own just went ex-dividend.

I’m hopeful I’ve locked in a long-term yield of over 10% on purchase here, with the potential of capital gains to come, and all in an ISA. I’ve bought a meaningful amount, but I suspect I’ll wish I’d bought more.

They’re much riskier than traditional fixed interest and shouldn’t be considered an equivalent, but the potential rewards are far higher, too.

Tilt towards more defensive shares

Over the past couple of years, I’ve churned a particular portion of my active portfolio like a hedge fund manager rolling in a bathtub of his client’s money.

In this account, I’ve gradually favoured more defensive shares as the market rises – generally ones that pay a decent dividend – then switched back later into either an ETF or else risky shares on big dips.

In the turmoil of late 2011 I switched out of the likes of Unilever into riskier fair, for instance, then earlier this year I switched back.

That sounds more elegant than the reality.

I only do all this trading because I’m so overweight the stock market overall: I am prepared to pay for (the illusion of) more control. It’s not ideal on either a cost or returns basis, but because markets have gone sideways, I feel it’s paid off – not least because I’ve slept better at night.

Note though that the majority of my individual share portfolio wasn’t touched in the past year, except to defuse capital gains.

Gold / other commodities

Considered and rejected. I do retain a little physical gold with Bullion Vault, partly as an experiment, but it’s not a very meaningful amount.

I’ve actually softened my views on gold over the past few years. I do still think it’s a barbarous relic, as Keynes wrote, but I’ve decided at heart we’re all barbarians so gold will have its moments. I’ve no idea how to value it though.

This leaves me to look at charts, cross my fingers, and hope. I may start to trickle money in if it gets below $1,500. I’d only be looking to build a 1-3% position.

I’ve occasionally looked at various ways to buy into timber, which is a great long-term asset in a funk due to the US construction slump. Some trusts look very cheap in terms of the discount to their net assets, but the managers extract a pretty pound of flesh in fees.

Currently on the back burner, but timber may get some windfall cash.

‘Special situations’

These are a couple of shares that I’ve bought because I think something unusual is on offer that’s not closely correlated with the wider stock market.

US residential property

I would love to buy into the US housing market directly. I think it looks cheap, especially off the beaten track.

I’m too scared to fly to Florida to buy a couple of ‘condos’ with ‘no money down’, mainly because I’m afraid I’d get arrested for asking for that in the wrong place…

US listed REITs or housebuilders are an option, but we’re back to equity risk.

I’ve an American friend who I trust and respect, and who I’d consider buying with. But he’s a cautious fellow, and isn’t biting!

To be honest, this is flight-of-fancy stuff. I’m no natural landlord, and I still don’t own a UK home, with all the tax advantages, as I fear they’re still too expensive.

However if I were writing this blog as a native of most of America, I’d be out shopping for a house tomorrow.

  1. At one point in early 2009 I was selling physical possessions to buy shares![]
  2. My broker gets a half percent kickback from Tesco.[]
{ 13 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

Lee and Rob, two up-and-coming personal finance bloggers in the UK, are calling for better financial education in schools.

Over on Five Pence Piece, Lee writes:

Right now students leave the family unit to enter further or university education – or the even more daunting world of work – with only the vaguest hint of how to manage their money, wages, taxes and bills.

The little that is taught is about the math and not about the personal responsibility, the benefits of being financially astute and the dangers of not. It does not present the knowledge in a fun and ‘wow’ style; it’s just all about the numbers in the maths lesson.

Rob continues the theme on his own blog:

I was never taught anything about personal finance and to be honest with you I wish someone had at least taught me how to fill in a tax form or taught me my responsibilities with capital gains tax.  These are all things I had to teach myself when I didn’t see why they weren’t taught at school.

The two would like other personal finance bloggers to share their own views on educating youngsters in the ways of debt, APRs, and interest only mortgages.

I’m happy to highlight their campaign. But I’m not sure they’d want me on their team!

I’m skeptical of school-taught education, to be honest, especially pseudo-practical knowledge that is theoretical until you’re faced with buying your first house, say, or taking out car insurance.

I’ve seen plenty of people’s eyes glaze over as I’ve tried to explain how mortgage repayments work over the years. I don’t think little Johnny gives a monkey’s.

But to not be totally negative (who could argue with the aims?) I would certainly teach kids about compound interest, perhaps by alluding to the still-magical £1 million figure. That could capture the imagination.

Beyond that, I’d probably try to find something that appealed to the here and now, rather than to their future selves.

Lessons in the second series of The Wire gripped the young proto-gangsters with the economics of a corner drug dealing spot, but I’d hope things are not so bleak yet in the UK.

Perhaps using the personal finances of a top-flight footballer or a reality TV winner might do the trick?

The bottom line is our education system is teaching kids to start working life mired in debt by going to university without evaluating the return, so I don’t think Rob and Lee should hold their breath.

[continue reading…]

{ 17 comments }

Companies have good and bad years, which temporarily elevate or depress their earnings 1 and so skew their P/E ratios.

When added to the vagaries of forecasting, this prompts some investors, led by 1930s legends Graham and Dodd, to instead compare prices with average earnings across multiple years (taking into account inflation) to derive a cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (also known as CAPE).

By comparing a company’s current multiple-year P/E ratio to its historical average, you can then try to decide whether the shares are cheap without being misled by short-term blips.

Ten years seems to be the most favoured timescale, though some people work with five or even three-year histories.

Newsflash: Company earnings oscillate

What a company earns in any particular year is dependent on many different factors. These range from how well it executes its business plan and the trading conditions in its sector to the performance of rivals, the mid-life crisis potential of the MD, and even dumb luck.

But nearly all companies’ earnings are also affected by the ups and downs of the business cycle.

Stock market indices are just a collection of listed companies. When you add up a weighted average of the earnings generated in a single year by all the companies in a particular index, individual factors such as management skill or new product developments just disappear into the noise.

On this aggregate view, the earnings total varies mostly with the wider economic cycle, since nearly all companies are affected by it to some extent.

Earnings are cyclical: Over a period of years, the total earnings from all companies in an index will tend to rise during economic expansion, and fall sharply in slowdowns or recessions. For successful companies, the trend will be upwards over the decades. But most will suffer setbacks en-route.

If companies are cyclical, so are stock markets

Because earnings are cyclical, we might decide to calculate a rolling P/E for the whole market based on an average of multiple years of earnings, just as Graham and Dodd did for companies.

The resultant cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio is most often calculated over ten-year periods. It’s often known as PE10 as a result, which is less of a mouthful!

PE10 is also dubbed the Shiller PE, in honour of the US academic Robert Shiller, who popularized PE10 when he used it to predict the stock market crash of 2000 on the basis of an elevated P/E ratio versus ten-year earnings.

But whatever you choose to call it and however many years you look at, the idea is the same – to try to see if a market looks good value compared to history, perhaps also by considering where you think we are in the economic cycle.

(The start of) the trouble with PE10

I want to stress immediately that in that last throwaway comment is one of the big problems with PE10: It’s rarely clear what the economy will do in the next year.

  • For example, it’s often joked that economists predicted 12 of the last six recessions.
  • As for growth, Western markets took far longer than expected to emerge from the global slump of 2008.

In the absence of a functioning crystal ball, we are left with forecasts, best guesses, and playing the odds if we want to try to time our entry and exit into the stock market by the PE10 measure.

Given that capitalist economies have historically tended to expand for more years than they’ve contracted, you might decide to assume any current expansion will continue into the near future.

But be under no illusions. Boom and bust will never be abolished, and some years you’ll find an apparently healthy economy collapses out of the blue, taking company earnings with it.

Sourcing PE10

I’m not going to tell you how to calculate an accurate cyclically-adjusted PE ratio.

I’ve never personally done the maths, and others have explained in great detail how they calculate PE10 if you’re keen and something of a maths masochist.

Unfortunately for lazy souls like me though, PE10 data is hard to come by for almost all markets, as far as I’m aware.

The exception is for the S&P 500 in the US, where many people track the PE10 ratio. There’s even a regularly updated graph plotting PE10 for the US index:

PE10 for the S&P 500. Yes, most of the falls look obvious in retrospect, but they're not so clear at the time. (Chart from multpl.com)

You sometimes see investment banks quoting PE10 ratios for the UK market, but I don’t know of a go-to source. Macro hedge funds and the like compute this sort of data for themselves, but they don’t make it publically available.

Richard Beddard of iii provides a somewhat jerry-rigged version of PE10 for the FTSE All-Share index. Another UK blogger used to offer self-calculated updates of a shortish-run PE10 ratio for the UK. Sadly his last post on the matter was in summer 2011. 2

If you know of other sources, please do share in the comments below.

Not the droid you’re looking for

I wouldn’t get too caught up on seeking a spurious level of accuracy when looking at PE10, anyway.

A figure from a reliable-sounding authority quoted in the press is good enough for me for six months or so, assuming no major earnings shocks in the interim.

That’s because I doubt that PE10 is the fine-tuned timing tool that certain of its adherents claim it is. I therefore don’t need it to three decimal places.

Just as one year’s earnings are a unique event, so are the past ten years. A longer-term timescale is usually better in the mean-reverting world of investment, but there’s no magical reason why looking at ten-year data suddenly becomes extremely accurate for forecasting.

As I write in 2012, for instance, the ten-year history includes two big earnings collapses, one of which was the largest since the Second World War. That’s unusual, and the ten-year history might therefore be unduly depressed, in turn over-inflating the PE10 ratio. I think the next ten years could be better.

On the other hand, perhaps earnings over the past ten years were illusory, having been fueled by credit expansion in the first half of the decade that led to unsustainable consumer spending and indebtedness. If so, then to what extent we still need to work off the excess remains to be seen.

Moreover, many companies took on too much debt in the go-go years. The PE10 ratio looks at market capitalisation not enterprise value (the latter would factor company debt in the numerator, the ‘P’ part of the ratio), so it doesn’t tell you anything about changes in balance sheets.

Again, this is another hindrance to the usefulness of looking at ten-year figures.

To counter that point in turn, some of the most indebted companies went bust or were radically devalued in the slump (property companies, for instance). Perhaps ongoing earnings will be of a higher and more sustainable quality, justifying a higher PE10 ratio?

I could go on. The point is that contrary to what some imply, PE10 will not see you dive effortlessly in and out of the market like a seagull stealing chips.

Even Professor Shiller concluded his original paper with humility, warning that PE10’s apparent predictive abilities might just be a coincidence. 3

More concerns about PE10

My point here isn’t to tell you the market is cheap or expensive. It’s to warn you that cyclically-adjusted PEs may be a useful tool, but I don’t think they’re the silver bullet they’re sometimes touted as.

PE10 became much more popular in the choppy post-2000 investing climate, not least in the light of Shiller’s seemingly vindicated prediction. Understandably (if optimistically) people looked for ways to better time their entry into the stock market, and to get a sense of when to take money off the table.

There has been some research suggesting a valuation-based timing strategy might improve risk-adjusted returns compared to fixed asset allocations, but the margin seems slender to me.

Other respected voices have flatly dismissed PE10. Passive investing guru Rick Ferri says times have changed:

“Shiller’s method is fine in a bear market when people feel compelled to justify low prices, and had it existed, PE10 may have worked okay prior to 1950 when dividends were high and earnings payouts were also high.

If you look at a [chart] of real earnings growth and real price growth there wasn’t much from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s. But there was dividends.

After 1950 […] fewer companies paid dividends (only about 30% of companies pay dividends today), and the dividend payout ratio is also low (about 35% today).

Since the 1960s people have expected earnings growth due to earnings reinvestment and stock buybacks, and they got it. So, today, PEs should go higher than the 125 year ‘average’ PE 10 when the economy begins to recover.”

Taking another tack, my blogging friend Mike at Oblivious Investor has pointed out that if PE10 worked in the past, then it probably won’t in the future. This is because such inefficiencies tend to be ironed out once they become well-known.

As for me, I think valuations do matter to future returns, and PE10 gives us another way of measuring them.

But I also think that the average person – and quite possibly everyone else, discounting for luck – is poorly placed to make a finely graduated call based on it.

In the March 2009 stock market lows, for example, what looked a high PE10 ratio compared to the bear market bottom of the 1970s was frequently given as a reason to steer clear of US equities.

The US market went on to double within less than three years!

For those who do want maths to tell them what the market will do in the future, the excellent Moneychimp offers a simple calculator that uses PE10 to estimate future returns for the US market, and also to adjust for dividends.

It’s a bit larky, which is how you should treat PE10 in my opinion.

A useful measure, in perspective

Personally I keep an eye on both simple and cyclically-adjusted P/E ratios. But I don’t take either too seriously.

Making up some numbers for a fictitious market for illustration: I wouldn’t sweat it if a market was on a PE10 of say 20 versus its historical average PE10 level of 15. But if its PE10 got towards 25 for any extended time in this illustrative instance, I’d consider that fair warning.

Your own mileage may vary. Passive investors are strongly advised to ignore the whole sideshow in favour of fixed allocations and mechanical rebalancing, except perhaps at times of seemingly extreme over-valuation – the year 2000, say, not the hindsight overvaluation of 2007.

And those don’t come along very often.

  1. A quick reminder: Earnings in this context are basically the same as profits. Dividing the share price of a company by its earnings per share in a particular year gives you its P/E ratio.[]
  2. The blogger remains a Monevator reader however and sometimes does requests, if you ask nicely.[]
  3. He wrote that in 1996 and his prediction pretty much proved right, though, so he might be more strident now.[]
{ 9 comments }