Felder Report references Buffett Strategy, suggests investors are overextended

[haha]

https://www.thefelderreport.com/2016...-and-analysis/

Now to clothe this naked link, he gives data and charts to suggest that equity markets in US are as overextended as AT many other peaks.

I understand that many here will disagree, and have their data. This is just interesting to me, and also my opinion.

Ha

[bmcgonig]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha https://www.thefelderreport.com/2016...-and-analysis/ Now to clothe this naked link, he gives data and charts to suggest that equity markets in US are as overextended as AT many other peaks. I understand that many here will disagree, and have their data. This is just interesting to me, and also my opinion. Ha

I like Felder and the other guy Jeff at "Dash of Insight". It will be interesting to see how Jeff responds. Definitely a bull versus bear.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[Totoro]

I wish Hussman would make that chart in real terms.

Between 1974 and 1983 you had roughly 9% inflation, now we are at 1%. I am not really impressed with a 10% return on stocks if inflation eats my breakfast, dinner and lunch.

And I also wonder what it would like at the MSCI World index level.

I also think the US market will get a beating soon. Just don't know when. I was hoping it would happen this year (with that interesting January start). I am a tad more optimistic than Hussman though, because I'm assuming lowish inflation (around 2%) is here to stay.

[Gone4Good]

Completely agree as articulated in the other recent thread on predicting future returns.

During that discussion, though, I got to thinking about whether we're at the ultimate market peak here or not. Nobody knows, of course, otherwise investing would be easy. But it seems to me that we're at least as likely to have the top come off this market as we are to have the bottom fall out.

The current economic expansion has just entered its 8th year, which is long by historic standards but not unprecedented. As of yet, though, there's been little sign that the economy is overheating. Meanwhile a ton of cash is sitting on the sidelines (especially in the form of excess bank reserves). If the economy moves into a higher gear, we could easily see some pretty explosive short-term growth before the Fed eventually stomps it out.

Holding equities at overvalued levels hoping they'll still go higher might accurately be called a bubble strategy. But the last two expansions both ended with them. This one might too.

I'm selling and am underweight stocks but not aggressively. I think I'm half-waiting for the market to go parabolic. Maybe it's the Wile E Coyote strategy.

[Gone4Good]

One other point about the article that is particularly relevant to the ER.org community is that retirement models like FIRECalc are completely indifferent to where you start on the above graph.

If FIRECalc tells you you have a 95% chance of success, it doesn't care whether market valuations are currently high or low. Wither TIPS are yielding 0% or 4%. It's all the same to FIRECalc.

Clearly that can't be true.

The problem with FIRECalc's success calculation is that it assumes every historic path of future returns is equally likely at all times. But many of those higher return paths are nearly impossible from where we are right now. What we have is a much smaller data set of much lower potential returns to work with. That smaller data set includes all of the failure scenarios but fewer of the winners. And that means our actual probability of success is lower than what is advertised by standard retirement tools like FIRECalc.

You don't need to believe you can time the market to think starting valuations are relevant to future returns and to plan accordingly.

[cooch96]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good During that discussion, though, I got to thinking about whether we're at the ultimate market peak here or not. Nobody knows, of course, otherwise investing would be easy. But it seems to me that we're at least as likely to have the top come off this market as we are to have the bottom fall out. The current economic expansion has just entered its 8th year, which is long by historic standards but not unprecedented. As of yet, though, there's been little sign that the economy is overheating. Meanwhile a ton of cash is sitting on the sidelines (especially in the form of excess bank reserves). If the economy moves into a higher gear, we could easily see some pretty explosive short-term growth before the Fed eventually stomps it out.

Accounting for inflation, isn't the real ultimate market peak still 2001?

[Senator]

I have no doubt that stocks are over-extended and due for a correction, or consolidation. I also know if I get out, I will likely think the same as they go higher.

If stocks go lower after I am out, I will think they will continue to go lower as they make a turn. And I will continue to wait for the 'great time to buy'. Then, I will gradually move back in, and most of my cash will miss the next run-up.

After all that, I will not make as much than if I stayed 100% in, and I would miss any dividends. I would constantly be looking at the charts, opinions, etc. and stay awake at night.

If I am my own financial adviser, I need to follow the advisers advice. They would say, "Stay the course, 130+ years of history can't be all wrong". Asset allocations and dividend cash flow will take care of any volatility and cash needs, along with other diversified income streams.

In the meantime, I keep buying.

[Lsbcal]

I don't think anyone is going to change other's minds here. We're all too stubborn for that.

Currently at 60/40 having put in the last 5% of equities at the end of March. Count me as another that doesn't think it is time to sell.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good ... If FIRECalc tells you you have a 95% chance of success, it doesn't care whether market valuations are currently high or low. Wither TIPS are yielding 0% or 4%. It's all the same to FIRECalc. Clearly that can't be true. The problem with FIRECalc's success calculation is that it assumes every historic path of future returns is equally likely at all times. ....

I think you are misapplying the info that FIRECalc provides. I don't think it is claiming that the current point in time has 95% success, only that historically, 5 out 100 points in time fail. And those failures were the high valuation points, right before a severe crash, or extended inflation.

I think it's easier to discuss if we back the spending down to just get a 100% success rate. That says that historically, you would succeed regardless of valuations. There is only upside, no downside.

Failure/success for an individual is binary, there is no % to apply. But if you select a plan that historically has 100% success, then you will only fail if the future is worse than any past historical run. Of course, we can't know any of this.

And it is true, because FIRECalc only reports the past, it does not attempt to predict the future.

-ERD50

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I think you are misapplying the info that FIRECalc provides. I don't think it is claiming that the current point in time has 95% success, only that historically, 5 out 100 points in time fail.

Are you quite so sure that a significant number of FIRECalc users aren't also misinterpreting the results in exactly that way? Judging from the general comments here at ER.org I'd say it's likely they are. And if that's true, isn't it useful to point out that the results generated by FIRECalc aren't exactly what they appear at first glance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 If you select a plan that historically has 100% success, then you will only fail if the future is worse than any past historical run.

That sounds impressively rigorous until you note that today's valuations are about as bad as any time in history. See above chart for equities. A chart of historic bond yields says the same thing.

So if you believe valuations matter and if you believe today's valuations are about as bad as anytime in history then one might conclude that the worst returns in history is more of a base case scenario than a downside one. And if you believe that, then FIRECalc lends very little guidance and perhaps a whole lot of overconfidence.

[DrRoy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator I have no doubt that stocks are over-extended and due for a correction, or consolidation. I also know if I get out, I will likely think the same as they go higher. If stocks go lower after I am out, I will think they will continue to go lower as they make a turn. And I will continue to wait for the 'great time to buy'. Then, I will gradually move back in, and most of my cash will miss the next run-up. After all that, I will not make as much than if I stayed 100% in, and I would miss any dividends. I would constantly be looking at the charts, opinions, etc. and stay awake at night. If I am my own financial adviser, I need to follow the advisers advice. They would say, "Stay the course, 130+ years of history can't be all wrong". Asset allocations and dividend cash flow will take care of any volatility and cash needs, along with other diversified income streams.

I do not disagree that equity markets are highly valued. However, as Senator says, market timing is largely a fool's errand. Also, past equity market peaks did not happen with an interest rate environment like we have today, where there are only weak opportunities for return in the fixed income market. In addition, there is not the degree of bullishness and complacency that it typical of equity market peaks. I'm not buying, but I'm not selling either. Just sticking with my AA.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good Are you quite so sure that a significant number of FIRECalc users aren't also misinterpreting the results in exactly that way? Judging from the general comments here at ER.org I'd say it's likely they are. And if that's true, isn't it useful to point out that the results generated by FIRECalc aren't exactly what they appear at first glance? ...

You could very well be right about that (I only hedge that as I don't have any real numbers one way or the other, but I don't doubt it at all).

And yes, it it is useful to point that out. And isn't that what I'm doing - pointing out what FIRECalc can and cannot do?

Quote:

That sounds impressively rigorous until you note that today's valuations are about as bad as any time in history. See above chart for equities. A chart of historic bond yields says the same thing. So if you believe valuations matter and if you believe today's valuations are about as bad as anytime in history then one might conclude that the worst returns in history is more of a base case scenario than a downside one. And if you believe that, then FIRECalc lends very little guidance and perhaps a whole lot of overconfidence.

Valuing the market to try to estimate future returns can be a tricky thing. Regardless, I agree with your concept - if the market is currently at/near a peak, then we are more likely looking at a scenario that resembles the lowest lines on a FIRECalc chart.

That's why I like to start with the 100% success numbers for these discussions. IIRC, something like 3.2% WR is historically safe for an extended retirement (45 years?). Remember, that is a starting WR, adjusted for inflation going forward (not recalculated on future portfolio balances). So yes, if we are in a position similar to 1966, or a few other bad starting years, 3.2% could be marginal, or of course, even fail if things are even worse than history.

So if we don't trust our ability to measure the value of the market, a WR < 3.2% is indicated (at least based on history). How much margin you want to give yourself over that is personal preference, and really is trying to guess the future, which none of us can really do. To an extent, retiring is a leap of faith, and we should take reasonable precautions/preparations - but 'reasonable' is subjective'.

So if people misunderstand that, they should seek enlightenment, for their own good.

An interesting (IMO) aside to this is to apply the "Retire Again & Again" approach to the data. By definition, if you start with a 100% historically safe portfolio for say a 45 year time frame (assume it is 3.2% for now), you can increase your withdraw to 3.2% of any portfolio increase, and use that new increased amount (inflation adjusted) going forward. Since 3.2% succeeds in any time frame, it will succeed at a any point along the way, not just the start. This does the best I've seen of leveling off the portfolio - allowing you to spend down any increases, while maintaining safety for the bad terms.

If you want to call that data-mining, or curve fitting, yes, it pretty much is. But I think it is a valuable insight to what the data is telling us.

Bottom line, it depends how you interpret "95% success". It isn't 95% success at any time you might start. It is just what FIRECalc says it is (that many people may be misinterpreting), success in 95% of the periods in its history. If you start in 1966 with the defaults, your chance of success is 0%.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRoy I do not disagree that equity markets are highly valued. However, as Senator says, market timing is largely a fool's errand. ...

I won't go so far as to call it a 'fool's errand', but I do recall feeling very strongly that the market was over-valued in 1997, after a long string of unprecedented gains.

However (and I'm going by recent memory here), I think the charts I've looked at (in hindsight) showed that if I got out in 1997, I might not even be able to get back in at any point that was lower than my exit, and how would I be able to pick that low point in real time? I'd likely get in again higher than my exit, fearing that this might be as low as it gets.

Ahh, here you go, I just found an S&P index for charting in yahoo that is a 'Total return' (not just S&P NAV) index, and it goes way back...

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5ESP500TR+Interactive#{"customRangeStar t":852098400,"customRangeEnd":1461646800,"range":" custom","allowChartStacking":true}

So you can see that if I got out in June 1997 (edit add - after S&P rose 4.5x in the past 10 years!), I'd be hard pressed to find a re-entry point. In Sept 2002, would I be saying "I knew I was right, when it drops another 10%, I'm getting back in!"? And if I did call the bottom 100% correct from there, all I would have done is been back where I started (I'll ignore inflation, assuming my 'safe' investments kept up).

No, I won't use any 'fool' terms, but I think it looks a lot easier in hindsight than in real time. And I'm too old to find myself left out of the market.

-ERD50

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 So you can see that if I got out in June 1997, I'd be hard pressed to find a re-entry point. In Sept 2002, would I be saying "I knew I was right, when it drops another 10%, I'm getting back in!"? And if I did call the bottom 100% correct from there, all I would have done is been back where I started (I'll ignore inflation, assuming my 'safe' investments kept up).

And I think that probably describes the worst case scenario. But what does that mean in the context of retirement planning?

I reduce, but don't eliminate, my equity exposure in 1997 at a time after stocks have run up considerably. I still have a fully funded retirement plan based on low expectations of future returns. But to my surprise equity returns end up being higher than I planned for, so my fully funded retirement plan is even more flush than I expected.

That's the downside case?

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 No, I won't use any 'fool' terms, but I think it looks a lot easier in hindsight than in real time. And I'm too old to find myself left out of the market. -ERD50

This fool's errand idea is just a handy way to shut down concern about valuations. Remember, the business goal of mutual funds and ETFs is to have steady, high amounts of capital for them to levy their management fees against. Also this idea is very handy for FA's and the entire money management industry. It's hard to get into trouble if your inaction as a manager is to avoid being a fool.

I never did invest in the late 90s mania, because I am not a fund investor and I did not and do not like industries as dynamic as tech. If the market is not stable, which certainly is the case in "tech", then long term investment is very difficult. Essentially impossible for me.

Still, I do buy my groceries with cash, not shares, so what I am most concerned about is losing cash, not being caught out of a market that I consider overvalued. I struggle to understand the concern about "when do I get back in".

Ha

[Lsbcal]

Here is one more market valuation source. Morningstar bases this on discounted cash flow models for many stocks:



They judge the market to be slightly overvalued. If one had used this to get out in 2004, they'd have had a long wait for the day of reckoning. Similar to ERD50's point.

Here is a link to the M* information (includes link to how they do the valuations): Market Fair Value by Sector, Industry, Super-Sector, Index | Morningstar

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good And I think that probably describes the worst case scenario. ...

I don't know if it is worst case, but it was my thinking at the time. That makes it pretty relevant for me at least!

So I think this would be interesting - where are we now on a measure of valuations, and what would be the result of acting on that number in the past?

Quote:

But what does that mean in the context of retirement planning? I reduce, but don't eliminate, my equity exposure in 1997 at a time after stocks have run up considerably. I still have a fully funded retirement plan based on low expectations of future returns. But to my surprise equity returns end up being higher than I planned for, so my fully funded retirement plan is even more flush than I expected. That's the downside case?

Sorry, I'm not following you. If you take some EQ off the table at that time, it is unlikely that you'd get back in at a lower point. So doesn't that hurt you, in relative terms (you might still be OK overall, but less $ is less $).

Are you saying - If I'm right, I win (I saved myself from some downside), but if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter because stocks went up a bunch anyhow and I'm sitting pretty? But what if they just went up average amounts (higher than fixed but less than average EQ), I had a lower return with the lower AA, and I still can't get back in on any lows? Darn unpredictable future!

-ERD50

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Are you saying - If I'm right, I win (I saved myself from some downside), but if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter because stocks went up a bunch anyhow and I'm sitting pretty?

That's exactly right.

A funny thing happens after a big equity market run like we've had. Suddenly my need for large equity market returns goes way down relative to where it was. I'm in a much better position today than I was when I retired in 2010. Why would my ideal AA be the same today as it was then?

And if I haven't yet retired, I might want to consider how much of my recently fattened portfolio I might give back at this late stage in a big bull market rally and perhaps plan accordingly.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha ... Still, I do buy my groceries with cash, not shares, so what I am most concerned about is losing cash, not being caught out of a market that I consider overvalued. I struggle to understand the concern about "when do I get back in". Ha

But your cash comes from the value of your shares (plus any divs - which can cover a conservative spend rate). So the value of your shares does matter (or if you totally rely on divs, you might say share price does not matter at all, but then why get out?).

My point on getting back in - if you get out, but can't get back in at a lower point than you got out, what good did you accomplish by getting out? Sell high, buy higher?

Unless you are talking about permanently getting out, a permanent change to a more conservative AA. And that might be totally appropriate as we age, and our expected time is 20 years or less, or at whatever point a lower AA seems to be statistically better.

-ERD50

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 But your cash comes from the value of your shares (plus any divs - which can cover a conservative spend rate). So the value of your shares does matter (or if you totally rely on divs, you might say share price does not matter at all, but then why get out?). My point on getting back in - if you get out, but can't get back in at a lower point than you got out, what good did you accomplish by getting out? Sell high, buy higher? Unless you are talking about permanently getting out, a permanent change to a more conservative AA. And that might be totally appropriate as we age, and our expected time is 20 years or less, or at whatever point a lower AA seems to be statistically better. -ERD50

I appreciate your excellent analyses. Likely this discussion cannot be resolved, because we see the investment world through totally different glasses. I completely understand what you are saying. I guess my > 30 year successful retirement gives me some confidence in the validity of my approach. I only buy value, and if one invests in individual companies there will always be value. Sometimes it is scarce, sometimes like fall 1974 it's everywhere. When it is there, I will buy some. When it is not, I can wait. In the mid to late 90s I was quite fully invested, jut not in tech or any of the crazy junk. I owned UST, Altria and some other "old economy" stocks. Which was really stocks with cash flow, not eyeballs or clicks.

Also, over time I collect some older investments that would be too tax-expensive for me to sell, so I will likely never be totally out of equities. This is situational, not a plan. If these seemed fantastically over-valued I likely would sell, but only then. Never underestimate the idiocy of investors!

Ha