On Long Term Bonds

69 replies [Last post]
NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Around 1972 I was introduced to a casual friend's mother.  Her husband had died about six months earlier and she had $200,000 in life insurance proceeds to invest.
She was concerned that it had to last her the rest of her life--she was early 50s.  She also wanted a check every month, so she needed at least six issues.
I asked the home office for help in selecting at least six issues--at least AA rated--with attractive coupons.  They came back with a suggested portfolio that had an average rate of return of just under 6%.  These were thirty year corporate bonds, she did not have tax issues so there was no need for municipals.
I can remember as if it were the other day as she sat there and said, "Are you sure that I'll be getting an average of $1,000 per month? That's more than John's paycheck was."
At that point her son jumped in and said, "Mom, Dad was a good man there is no reason to say that!"
She said she knew he was and she missed him with every fiber of her being--but then she told her son to not deny the truth.
Remember it was 1972, $1,000 a month take home was actually not bad.  New brokers were guaranteed $500.
Anyway, she bought the portfolio as suggested--we kept them in street name and sent her a check every month for 1/12th  of a year's interest.
When I moved to the Regional staff I was not allowed to produce, but my assistant could. She went with me but kept about thirty accounts--two of them were for this woman and her son.  She also had mine and my wife's.
Now go to 1979--six and a half or seven years later.
Sheila got a call from the son asking if he could come speak to me.  She told him he could, then told me that he was coming.  Sometime one must wonder who is the assistant and who is being assisted.
When he came in she brought him to my office.  I looked up and shook his hand and asked him to have a seat.  He asked if  he could close the door--I indicated that he could.  He did, and then sat down again.
He spoke in hushed tones that he did not want to see Sheila go to jail, but that he and his family could not simply ignore what she was doing with their account.
I asked what he meant and he pulled out two statements.  The first one was that first month when his mother first bought the bonds.  They showed that the portfolio was worth $200,000.
He then showed me the current statement which showed that the portfolio was worth about $120,000.  He then changed his tone and said that as much as he liked me and Sheila he was going to put at least one of us in jail if we didn't give back the money.  It was clear that he thought I must have been involved too.
I instantly stood up, grabbed a yellow pad and asked him to join me at the small table in the corner of my office--what you never EVER want to do is defend your point of view or action with a desk between you and the client.  That desk is seen as part of the arrogance, the symbol of power, whatever--it's not good.
So, we're sitting at the small table, knees almost touching.
Now, he's an engineer so he understands numbers.  I started by asking him what mortgage rates were at that time--he said they were about 20% and then muttered something like, "Phucking Carter doesn't...."
I asked what he thought the bonds in his mother's portfolio were paying.  He said about 6%.  I asked if he would buy a 6% that day.  He said no.
Then, almost like the cartoons when the light goes on over the guy's head, he displayed a flicker of understanding.
When I thought he was stabilized I asked if I could take him to lunch.
You know what?  He understood exactly what was happening and assured me that he would explain it to his mother and brother.  But he never did any more business with Shelia--and he had been a guy who traded in and out of stocks every month or so.
He didn't transfer his account--instead he'd call and ask to have the proceeds of a sale sent to him.
I don't know if the older woman is still alive--she'd be in her eighties so she very well may be.  As far as I know she collected that $1,000 per month each and every month until after the millenium when the bonds would have been maturing.
I'll bet she didn't have a really great retirement like she thought she would that day long ago.  The danger of the long term bond market is that the price of bread doesn't stay at a quarter a loaf.
I know the son is alive because we had/have mutual friends.
I wonder what happened to Shelia--she got married and moved away.
The one thing that is certain is that nothing remains the same.

eddjones654's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-03

gee what heart felt story.
Is this an approved cult story as I've heard almost the exact same thing from about 5 visiting vets and 4 GPs.
Step away from the pickle barrel and just get over your past "heroics" and just fade away.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

Thanks for another good post NASD......did you start taking your meds again or something?  We all need to hear these stories from time to time to remind us of why we are needed so desperately.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Indyone wrote:
  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this? 

pssst... "Touch down bonds".....

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.

Malpractice?  You are lucky that you have the benefit of history so that you would not make the same mistake.  Those of us who were offering advice in the late '60s and early '70s did not have the benefit of realizing that interest rates could soar into the double digits.
The industry today is filled with smart ass punks who think they're golden because they have ridden the biggest bull market in history.
Get back with me when you're a real veteran instead of simply older.

babbling looney's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

The industry today is filled with smart ass punks who think they're golden because they have ridden the biggest bull market in history.
Get back with me when you're a real veteran instead of simply older
Ditto that statement.
Nothing personal Indyone. I think you are a level headed and experienced advisor from your posts.  We would never position a client today in the portfolio that NASD said he did back in 1970 because we know from history the pitfalls of that strategy.  In 1970 the idea that rates could get as high as they did was unimaginable. Now we know it is possible.
I get the feeling that some on this board refuse to look at history, think that 10 years ago is the distant past and think that things couldn't possibly be different or get worse in the future.  And I'm not just talking about investing but life in general.  This current generation (people aged 35 and younger) has grown up never knowing real hardship or struggle and have no frame of reference since schools stopped teaching anything vaguely resembling an education starting in the 1970's.
The inability to listen or even attempt to learn from people who have been in the business longer than you have probably been alive is evidenced by the snotty attitude in eddiejones response.  It is also a general cultural disdain of people who are older.  Why bother to learn anything from your Grandfather after all what does he know....he's old and doesn't even own an IPod.
 
Wow I'm cranky today.    I should go beat up on some golf balls.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

babbling looney wrote:
Wow I'm cranky today.    I should go beat up on some golf balls.

A great therapy and pretty inexpensive I use it often. 

eddjones654's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-03

[quote=NASD Newbie
The industry today is filled with smart ass punks who think they're golden because they have ridden the biggest bull market in history.
Get back with me when you're a real veteran instead of simply older.

Although I'm probably not as dated as you gramps as I only started in '85 I seem to be open to new ideas instead of those that are mixed in with kool-aid.
Baldwin United ring a bell? Perhaps that was one of those "highly" rated bonds you sold and might that also be why the son came back to speak with you and NEVER invested with you again?
Might you also be good 'ole JB or $3 mill Bill?

Mike Damone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-01

I actually enjoyed that story and lesson.  Than you for sharing that NASD Newbie.

anabuhabkuss's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-02

So the point of this story is that you do watch cartoons. Got it. I'm going to go play some videogames now and be awesome (maybe do some reflecting on your story).
In all seriousness, thanks though.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.
Malpractice?  You are lucky that you have the benefit of history so that you would not make the same mistake.  Those of us who were offering advice in the late '60s and early '70s did not have the benefit of realizing that interest rates could soar into the double digits.
The industry today is filled with smart ass punks who think they're golden because they have ridden the biggest bull market in history.
Get back with me when you're a real veteran instead of simply older.
Admittedly I wasn't running portfolios in 1970, and such a portfolio probably seems inappropriate to me at least partially because of lessons learned and taught to me when I started investing institutional portfolios in the late 80's, but it's hard to imagine not understanding the effects of even mild inflation and modestly fluctuating interest rates over a thirty-year time horizon.  I'll agree that the industry's brightest could not have foreseen the degree of what happened in the late 70's and early 80's, but again, even modest inflation and interest rate fluctuation would have made this a questionable strategy when you consider that it was set up to put on auto pilot for 30 years.  Sure, I have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but surely diversification wasn't invented after 1970?
...and I would hardly call riding out 2000-2002 the greatest bull market in history, but I survived it by having clients invested relatively conservatively (lots of value stocks and short/intermediate bonds).  I've never invested a client 100% in a single maturity year and I'd like to think I wouldn't have done that 35 years ago.  That being said, don't take my perspective so hard the next time...I was only reacting to how it looks in today's world.
and BL...yes, you are cranky...go hit a bucket of balls

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
...and I would hardly call riding out 2000-2002 the greatest bull market in history,

That was a blip on the radar screen.  As I said if you were not registered before 1975 you have no idea what it's like to be a retail broker.
In the middle of the tech implosion September 11th happened.  The nation rallied around the cause and people took their financial setback in stride.
Check to see what the Dow did between 1968 and 1982---that's a fourteen year period where 50% of what you had in 1968 was gone by 1972, it started to come back and then was gone again.
Fourteen years--as in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen--of nobody being happy.
I have talked with countless people who have no memory of those days who talk about how good they are at managing money.  Hell, a monkey with a pencil could do since 1982--the industry has started to hire functionally illiterate types because it's been so easy for so long.
There are "veterans" with more than twenty years who have never experienced a protracted bear market accompanied by investor who were not willing to excuse the failures because the nation was attacked.
Most of them are jokes.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

OK, NASD...putting up my sword...have a good weekend...

doberman's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-22

Selling 30-year bonds isn't the problem. The problem, unless I missed its previous mention, is selling 30-year bonds without informing the client of potential interest and credit risk. 

Philo Kvetch's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-17

NASD Newbie wrote:
Indyone wrote:
...and I would hardly call riding out 2000-2002 the greatest bull market in history,

That was a blip on the radar screen.  As I said if you were not registered before 1975 you have no idea what it's like to be a retail broker.
In the middle of the tech implosion September 11th happened.  The nation rallied around the cause and people took their financial setback in stride.
Check to see what the Dow did between 1968 and 1982---that's a fourteen year period where 50% of what you had in 1968 was gone by 1972, it started to come back and then was gone again.
Fourteen years--as in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen--of nobody being happy.
I have talked with countless people who have no memory of those days who talk about how good they are at managing money.  Hell, a monkey with a pencil could do since 1982--the industry has started to hire functionally illiterate types because it's been so easy for so long.
There are "veterans" with more than twenty years who have never experienced a protracted bear market accompanied by investor who were not willing to excuse the failures because the nation was attacked.
Most of them are jokes.

That's a specious argument, at best.
First of all, by you're logic, if one wasn't a soldier during the period from 1941-1945, he or she isn't a real soldier.  Ridiculous on the face of it.
Secondly, by your own admission, you were a broker for only 6 years, and at two different firms at that.  That hardly qualifies as experienced by anyone's standard, except by yours.
Last but not least, if the bond story is typical of that remarkable prowess of yours, small wonder you were relegated to middle management.  Quite frankly, I'm amazed that they kept you around at all.  Most probably, you knew where some of the corporate bodies were buried.
Ah well.  Makes no difference to me.  Have a great weekend, all!

The Judge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

NASD Newbie- Actually, I really enjoy most of your posts.  I want to ask you if your real name is Leroy Gross, as your work histry "somewhat" resembles his.
These days, I stick with floaters.  Currently over 4% tax-free and 5.25& taxable wit no additional costs' to clients'.

The Judge's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-06-06

BTW- As an 11 year vet I remember hearing the comparisons- I would say that a 80% Nasdaq correction and a 50% S&P correction qualifies as a tough time.  To say the least.
 

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

The Judge wrote:
NASD Newbie- Actually, I really enjoy most of your posts.  I want to ask you if your real name is Leroy Gross, as your work histry "somewhat" resembles his.
These days, I stick with floaters.  Currently over 4% tax-free and 5.25& taxable wit no additional costs' to clients'.

I think LeRoy is dead--don't know where I heard that, but I did hear it somewhere along the way.  So, no I am not LeRoy Gross although he is, or was, a hero of mine.
He had an acolyte named Alan Snyder--I'm not him either.
The reference to LeRoy conjures up an image.
In the 1970s he was a superstar broker at the firm Reynolds Securities--which was to become the Reynolds in Dean Witter Reynolds.
He used to be a featured guest in training classes.  They'd trot him in to show the rookies how to sell intangibles.  Part of his routine went like this.
He would ask somebody to grab a Manhattan phone book, then choose a name at random and call out the phone number, which he would write on the blackboard.
Then he would ask somebody to name one of the Dow thirty.  He would write that symbol on the board.
Then he would pick up a phone and call the number and sell 200 shares of that stock on the first call--on a speaker phone so everybody in the room could hear the call.
It would leave the trainees mezmerized and in awe.
Sometimes they, the trainees, would figure out that there was no way to know for sure if he called the number on the board or some prearranged shill.
Regardless, it was great showmanship.
Later he became a national spokesman for the firm's options department. He used to ask the audience, "Sir, what's your name?"
Bob Jones
"Well OK, Bob let me ask you.  If you buy a stock and it does not go up do you lose any money?"
Bob would generally indicate that you don't.  LeRoy would boom out
"That's wrong Bob, you lose commissions and you lose opportunity. What you do not want to do is buy a stock that does not move."
I won't go through the entire routine but the bottom line was always, "....you make money if the stock goes up, you make money if the stock stays the same, and you make money if the stock goes down as long as it doesn't go down too much."
The logic behind call writing that became the standard for a generation.  It was not until the market rally in 1983 and beyond that covered call writing lost its luster.  Not because it was not profitable but because it was too conservative in the roaring bull market.
++++++
While I'm telling stories indulge me for another.
There was--I think still is--a guy named Joe Granville.  He was a technician, and a good one at that.  He was also the consumate showman.
He wrote one of those $1,000 per year newsletters and to promote it he would show up in your hometown to do a seminar.  He was a cult type figure circa 1980 because his theme was that you can make money going up and down.  He is known for the phrase "Bulls make money, Bears make money, but Pigs get slaughtered."
He also used to draw the up and down chart pattern and tell the seminar, "If you take that line and stretch it out it there is a lot of profit to be made."
He also did this--if the logistics allowed.  Lots of hotel meeting rooms are situated so that there is a wall of windows overlooking the swimming pool.
If that was possible he would get a bellhop to help him measure the width of the pool then go to a lumber yard and buy a 4X4 and have it cut to fit.  He installed it in the drain gutters of the pool so that it formed a bridge across the pool, but just below the water surface.
Yep, he walked on water as he made his way into the seminar to whoops and cheers of his showmanship.
No doubt there were people who were whispering to each other about how sacreligous it was--but he was a good Jewish kid who wasn't much worried about that.

bankrep1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

NASD Newbie wrote:
Indyone wrote:
...and I would hardly call riding out 2000-2002 the greatest bull market in history,

That was a blip on the radar screen.  As I said if you were not registered before 1975 you have no idea what it's like to be a retail broker.
In the middle of the tech implosion September 11th happened.  The nation rallied around the cause and people took their financial setback in stride.
Check to see what the Dow did between 1968 and 1982---that's a fourteen year period where 50% of what you had in 1968 was gone by 1972, it started to come back and then was gone again.
Fourteen years--as in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen--of nobody being happy.
I have talked with countless people who have no memory of those days who talk about how good they are at managing money.  Hell, a monkey with a pencil could do since 1982--the industry has started to hire functionally illiterate types because it's been so easy for so long.
There are "veterans" with more than twenty years who have never experienced a protracted bear market accompanied by investor who were not willing to excuse the failures because the nation was attacked.
Most of them are jokes.

Sounds like a great argument for the use of a VA with someone's nestegg (IRA), using a GWB rider

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Bankrep1 wrote:
Sounds like a great argument for the use of a VA with someone's nestegg (IRA), using a GWB rider

Imagine.  A bank broker talking up the only thing he has to offer.
VA's even with a guarantee are rarely if ever an appropriate choice for the customer but always a good idea for a salesman who is behind on his mortgage.

bankrep1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

You just stated the markets hacked a portfolio in half for 14 years and implied it could happen again.  Do you really think anybody will stay fully invested over a 14 year decline?
Let's talk about the VA.  Why is it so bad?  I admit there is alot of garbage in the VA world, just like mutual funds some are good some are not.
The VA I use total costs about 1.8% that is with funds, add in a rider your at about 2.25%
Let see, mutual fund 1% + 1% (lot's of people charging more than this) wrap fee = 2% with no guarantee or 2.25% with a guarantee I think most people would pay a .25 for a guarantee.
Why is it bad?  Do you really understand them?  When I started at the wirehouse nobody knew anything about VA's

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

bankrep1 wrote:
When I started at the wirehouse nobody knew anything about VA's

Nonsense, of course wirehouses know about variable annuities.
And they decided that they are rarely, if ever, an appropriate investment vehicle.
What a dumb thing to conclude that a wirehouse broker is not aware of anything that is available.

bankrep1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

I am telling you I worked in an office of 15 guys and none of them got VA's.  They were slowly being introduced by the firm, back then very few guys did mutual funds.  Mostly stocks, UIT's,closed end funds and bonds.
Newbie if you get it, explain to me why they are not a viable option?

Philo Kvetch's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-17

NASD Newbie wrote:
Bankrep1 wrote:
Sounds like a great argument for the use of a VA with someone's nestegg (IRA), using a GWB rider

Imagine.  A bank broker talking up the only thing he has to offer.
VA's even with a guarantee are rarely if ever an appropriate choice for the customer but always a good idea for a salesman who is behind on his mortgage.

Thsi from a self-proclaimed genius who put a widow's entire account into one bond issue and claims that no one knew at the time that a strategy like that could blow up.  (And of course brokers back then were REAL brokers.  Not at all like brokers today.)

scrim67's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-04-28

2.25% total costs for a VA is very reasonable.
scrim

bankrep1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

Hartford or Jackson National both have products that total 2.25%.  Integrity Life also has an ETF based VA, where you can keep the expenses to around 1.5% total, at this time they do not offer living benefits but do offer several death benefits.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Philo Kvetch wrote:
Thsi from a self-proclaimed genius who put a widow's entire account into one bond issue and claims that no one knew at the time that a strategy like that could blow up.  (And of course brokers back then were REAL brokers.  Not at all like brokers today.)

Who was dumb enough to put a widow's entire account into one bond issue?

noggin's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-30

scrim67 wrote:
2.25% total costs for a VA is very reasonable.
scrim

It depends on what the client's needs whether that is reasonable. Why pay the extra cost if it isn't warranted?
 

bankrep1's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-12-02

I think he was saying in the VA realm that the costs were reasonable.  I doubt he was comparing it an index fund.
Noggin I am curious what vehicles do you use for your clients and how are you compensated for your craft?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

mikebutler222 wrote:babbling looney wrote:
Wow I'm cranky today.    I should go beat up on some golf balls.

A great therapy and pretty inexpensive I use it often.  Me too!

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

Indyone wrote:
Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.

Indy, you're a good advisor but, I have to go with NASD on this one. Today we rely on Modern Portfolio Theory to help guide our allocation decisions. Modern Portfolio Theory is just that, modern. I'm one of the non vet vets Newbie refers to, having started in 1983. At that time noone was telling me that putting 100% of one's assets in one maturity was a no no. Asset allocation wasn't around then. The industry was product driven and I for one don't think that's a bad thing. Putting 100% of a client's assets into a porfollio of high quality bonds would be considered a good thing. I think it still is.
Secondly, there were and are client's who want or need all the income a portfolio can deliver. A talk about inflation's effect on buying power falls short when the wolf is at the door. It also falls short today when we look at how the market has done over the past 5 years. With many stock investors still trying to get back to even the concept of the stock market as an inflation hedge has lost some of it's allure. Fact is, the market looks alot better as an inflation hedge on paper than in reality. There are many long stretches, NASD points out one such 14 year period, where the market did nothing but go down and come back to even, or did nothing at all. While the upward trend of the market over time is undeniable, the market as an inflation hedge isn't a sure bet.
Lastly, modern portfolio theory was developed over the nineties and refined from there. It was and is used, and abused as a reason to collect fees in managed programs. It's based on risk/allocation theory that back dates data over a long period of time. Unfortunately, for investors and advisors who have bought into it hook, line and sinker, it's only a theory. The reality is that those who bought MPT as the defense against getting thwacked (NASD, Is thwacked a word?) by the market found out the hard way in 01-03, with their hard earned money, that it does nothing to protect them. Instead of losing money in just one investment, they lost money in a wide variety of investments. Ironically, the only people who didn't lose were those with all their assets in the bond market, even those in just a single maturity of the bond market. Many of the mpt investors wish they could get a do over to buy "dumb old bonds." Who knows were this group will be in 10 years. For now, many are still trying to get back to even. Even tougher when they're paying 1 to 2%  a year off the top for advise that cost them 30 to 70% of their assets.
The market as an inflation hedge seems on it's face to make sense. Yet for the client who needs max income, it's not always the answer.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:
 Unfortunately, for investors and advisors who have bought into it hook, line and sinker, it's only a theory. The reality is that those who bought MPT as the defense against getting thwacked (NASD, Is thwacked a word?) by the market found out the hard way in 01-03, with their hard earned money, that it does nothing to protect them. Instead of losing money in just one investment, they lost money in a wide variety of investments. Ironically, the only people who didn't lose were those with all their assets in the bond market, even those in just a single maturity of the bond market.

Tjc45, I have great respect for your postings and I agree with most everything you'd said in this post, but I have to quibble with the above. I agree MPT is a theory, and anyone who thinks using it means you never have a period where portfolio values decline is a fool, but the bit about 01-03, if applied to even a marginally well balanced MPT model isn't correct. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Fixed Income well out performed every equity component in 2001 and 2002, but it lagged behind greatly in 2003. A balanced MPT portfolio lost a modest amount in 2001 (3-4%) and larger amount in 2002 (8-9%) but had a massive 24-25% positive return in 2003. Balanced MPT portfolios (and granted, the term “balanced” is very open to interpretation) not only did better than single equity and fixed income indexes in relative terms in those years, they did well in absolute terms.
None of the above contradicts your over-all point, which I completely agree with.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

mikebutler222 wrote:
tjc45 wrote:
 Unfortunately, for investors and advisors who have bought into it hook, line and sinker, it's only a theory. The reality is that those who bought MPT as the defense against getting thwacked (NASD, Is thwacked a word?) by the market found out the hard way in 01-03, with their hard earned money, that it does nothing to protect them. Instead of losing money in just one investment, they lost money in a wide variety of investments. Ironically, the only people who didn't lose were those with all their assets in the bond market, even those in just a single maturity of the bond market.

Tjc45, I have great respect for your postings and I agree with most everything you'd said in this post, but I have to quibble with the above. I agree MPT is a theory, and anyone who thinks using it means you never have a period where portfolio values decline is a fool, but the bit about 01-03, if applied to even a marginally well balanced MPT model isn't correct. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Fixed Income well out performed every equity component in 2001 and 2002, but it lagged behind greatly in 2003. A balanced MPT portfolio lost a modest amount in 2001 (3-4%) and larger amount in 2002 (8-9%) but had a massive 24-25% positive return in 2003. Balanced MPT portfolios (and granted, the term “balanced” is very open to interpretation) not only did better than single equity and fixed income indexes in relative terms in those years, they did well in absolute terms.
None of the above contradicts your over-all point, which I completely agree with. MB, I agree with your post. My post is more about talking in absolutes.

Revealer's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-13

tjc45 wrote:Indyone wrote:
Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.

Indy, you're a good advisor but, I have to go with NASD on this one. Today we rely on Modern Portfolio Theory to help guide our allocation decisions. Modern Portfolio Theory is just that, modern. I'm one of the non vet vets Newbie refers to, having started in 1983. At that time noone was telling me that putting 100% of one's assets in one maturity was a no no. Asset allocation wasn't around then. The industry was product driven and I for one don't think that's a bad thing. Putting 100% of a client's assets into a porfollio of high quality bonds would be considered a good thing. I think it still is.
Secondly, there were and are client's who want or need all the income a portfolio can deliver. A talk about inflation's effect on buying power falls short when the wolf is at the door. It also falls short today when we look at how the market has done over the past 5 years. With many stock investors still trying to get back to even the concept of the stock market as an inflation hedge has lost some of it's allure. Fact is, the market looks alot better as an inflation hedge on paper than in reality. There are many long stretches, NASD points out one such 14 year period, where the market did nothing but go down and come back to even, or did nothing at all. While the upward trend of the market over time is undeniable, the market as an inflation hedge isn't a sure bet.
Lastly, modern portfolio theory was developed over the nineties and refined from there. It was and is used, and abused as a reason to collect fees in managed programs. It's based on risk/allocation theory that back dates data over a long period of time. Unfortunately, for investors and advisors who have bought into it hook, line and sinker, it's only a theory. The reality is that those who bought MPT as the defense against getting thwacked (NASD, Is thwacked a word?) by the market found out the hard way in 01-03, with their hard earned money, that it does nothing to protect them. Instead of losing money in just one investment, they lost money in a wide variety of investments. Ironically, the only people who didn't lose were those with all their assets in the bond market, even those in just a single maturity of the bond market. Many of the mpt investors wish they could get a do over to buy "dumb old bonds." Who knows were this group will be in 10 years. For now, many are still trying to get back to even. Even tougher when they're paying 1 to 2%  a year off the top for advise that cost them 30 to 70% of their assets.
The market as an inflation hedge seems on it's face to make sense. Yet for the client who needs max income, it's not always the answer. Sorry guys. "Modern" Portfolio Theory is NOT modern. Doctoral thesis by Harry Markowitz U. of Chicago early 1950's. 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Revealer wrote:tjc45 wrote:Indyone wrote:
Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.

Indy, you're a good advisor but, I have to go with NASD on this one. Today we rely on Modern Portfolio Theory to help guide our allocation decisions. Modern Portfolio Theory is just that, modern. I'm one of the non vet vets Newbie refers to, having started in 1983. At that time noone was telling me that putting 100% of one's assets in one maturity was a no no. Asset allocation wasn't around then. The industry was product driven and I for one don't think that's a bad thing. Putting 100% of a client's assets into a porfollio of high quality bonds would be considered a good thing. I think it still is.
Secondly, there were and are client's who want or need all the income a portfolio can deliver. A talk about inflation's effect on buying power falls short when the wolf is at the door. It also falls short today when we look at how the market has done over the past 5 years. With many stock investors still trying to get back to even the concept of the stock market as an inflation hedge has lost some of it's allure. Fact is, the market looks alot better as an inflation hedge on paper than in reality. There are many long stretches, NASD points out one such 14 year period, where the market did nothing but go down and come back to even, or did nothing at all. While the upward trend of the market over time is undeniable, the market as an inflation hedge isn't a sure bet.
Lastly, modern portfolio theory was developed over the nineties and refined from there. It was and is used, and abused as a reason to collect fees in managed programs. It's based on risk/allocation theory that back dates data over a long period of time. Unfortunately, for investors and advisors who have bought into it hook, line and sinker, it's only a theory. The reality is that those who bought MPT as the defense against getting thwacked (NASD, Is thwacked a word?) by the market found out the hard way in 01-03, with their hard earned money, that it does nothing to protect them. Instead of losing money in just one investment, they lost money in a wide variety of investments. Ironically, the only people who didn't lose were those with all their assets in the bond market, even those in just a single maturity of the bond market. Many of the mpt investors wish they could get a do over to buy "dumb old bonds." Who knows were this group will be in 10 years. For now, many are still trying to get back to even. Even tougher when they're paying 1 to 2%  a year off the top for advise that cost them 30 to 70% of their assets.
The market as an inflation hedge seems on it's face to make sense. Yet for the client who needs max income, it's not always the answer.
Sorry guys. "Modern" Portfolio Theory is NOT modern. Doctoral thesis by Harry Markowitz U. of Chicago early 1950's. 
You're right that MPT began with Markowitz's 1953 (I think) paper, but that was the cornerstone. I don't think anyone would tell you that paper gave investment professionals a process they could institute. There was a great deal of work to be done on that first paper by Marokwitz and other Nobel winners before it was ready for prime time.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

tjc45 wrote:Indyone wrote:
Wow...that's almost an admission of malpractice from my perspective.  I don't know what all you had at your disposal or what this lady would have tolerated risk-wise, but this is an example of something I see alot in local competitor-managed portfolios.  The entire focus is on current income, with no thoughts of inflation hedging, adequate diversification or staggered maturies to protect against interest rate risk.  Edd, why on earth would Jones tell a story like this?  It's certainly not a very flattering picture if you're in the position of recommending such a portfolio.  It sounds almost like the old Boones & Claussens story that American Funds tells to sell being in the market.

Indy, you're a good advisor but, I have to go with NASD on this one. Today we rely on Modern Portfolio Theory to help guide our allocation decisions. Modern Portfolio Theory is just that, modern. I'm one of the non vet vets Newbie refers to, having started in 1983. At that time noone was telling me that putting 100% of one's assets in one maturity was a no no. Asset allocation wasn't around then. The industry was product driven and I for one don't think that's a bad thing. Putting 100% of a client's assets into a porfollio of high quality bonds would be considered a good thing. I think it still is.
Secondly, there were and are client's who want or need all the income a portfolio can deliver. A talk about inflation's effect on buying power falls short when the wolf is at the door. It also falls short today when we look at how the market has done over the past 5 years. With many stock investors still trying to get back to even the concept of the stock market as an inflation hedge has lost some of it's allure. Fact is, the market looks alot better as an inflation hedge on paper than in reality. There are many long stretches, NASD points out one such 14 year period, where the market did nothing but go down and come back to even, or did nothing at all. While the upward trend of the market over time is undeniable, the market as an inflation hedge isn't a sure bet.
Lastly, modern portfolio theory was developed over the nineties and refined from there. It was and is used, and abused as a reason to collect fees in managed programs. It's based on risk/allocation theory that back dates data over a long period of time. Unfortunately, for investors and advisors who have bought into it hook, line and sinker, it's only a theory. The reality is that those who bought MPT as the defense against getting thwacked (NASD, Is thwacked a word?) by the market found out the hard way in 01-03, with their hard earned money, that it does nothing to protect them. Instead of losing money in just one investment, they lost money in a wide variety of investments. Ironically, the only people who didn't lose were those with all their assets in the bond market, even those in just a single maturity of the bond market. Many of the mpt investors wish they could get a do over to buy "dumb old bonds." Who knows were this group will be in 10 years. For now, many are still trying to get back to even. Even tougher when they're paying 1 to 2%  a year off the top for advise that cost them 30 to 70% of their assets.
The market as an inflation hedge seems on it's face to make sense. Yet for the client who needs max income, it's not always the answer.

Damn tjc, great post.  A breath of fresh air to have someone articulately address the MPT scam that's going on (using it as an excuse to collect asset management fees).........Now Mikey, hold on there as I know the beast is about to be unleashed.....I'm not saying that MPT IS a scam. O.K.?  I think we all know where you and I stand on this issue so let's let a dead horse lie.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

I am so proud that a thread I started has four or five pages of responses and that several of them are long well considered discussions.
It's almost as if I was as effective as Put Trader at getting things rolling.
I hope Put is doing well, wherever he is.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

Points well taken from all above.  I guess it's just a matter of perspective and how you learned the trade.  I started in the late 80's managing investments for a regional bank trust department and was raised on bond ladders and diversified stock portfolios, consisting of mostly blue chips.  These were far from new concepts for my employer, as I recall seeing statements that were 20-30 years old with bond ladders and diversified portfolios of blue chip stocks.  Some of the accounts I managed had positions that originated in the 60's and 70's, and in fact, one of the thorniest issues we dealt with in the late 80's was reducing/eliminating concentrations without committing tax suicide, due to the huge embedded gains in some of the star performers.  Generally, we reduced position concentrations over a period of years, unless we had compelling evidence that a given position was ready to implode.
My point is, not everyone thought that the bond portfolio, as described in NASD's original post, was a good idea...even in the early 70's, although it's become painfully obvious that plenty of advisors invested in a similar manner, at least before the interest rate disaster of the late 70's/early 80's.  From the feedback to my original post, it appears that trust departments (or at least the one I worked for), invested in a markedly different manner than retail advisors back when the bond portfolio in question was created, and there's not a doubt in my mind that my mentor would have, at the very least, staggered the bond maturities for the widow in question.
...and yes, I do believe that he would have labled the portfolio as described as malpractice.  He was much like our friend NASD...you did it his way, or you did it wrong.
I appreciate the civil discussion, even if our opinions aren't all in lockstep...

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:
...and yes, I do believe that he would have labled the portfolio as described as malpractice.

He would not have been capable of carrying the briefcases of the guys who cut their teeth in the 1970s.
The buy side has always been a bunch of simpering whiners quick to claim credit for success while more than happy to blame their losing choices on their brokers.
If they weren't necessary as clients most brokers wouldn't walk across the street to piss on a bank portfolio manager if he were on fire.
Just my opinion of course--the only one I am allowed to give.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

For clarification, he didn't manage the bank's investment portfolio, he managed trust client portfolios.

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

If they weren't necessary as clients most brokers wouldn't walk across the street to piss on a bank portfolio manager if he were on fire.

Now, that's funny!
 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

Indyone wrote:For clarification, he didn't manage the bank's investment portfolio, he managed trust client portfolios.
Indy, I always respect your opinion.

NASD Newbie's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-08-01

Indyone wrote:For clarification, he didn't manage the bank's investment portfolio, he managed trust client portfolios.
Quibbling difference. There is no worse investor than those who manage money for banks--regardless of their title or who owns the money being managed.

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

NASD Newbie wrote:Indyone wrote:For clarification, he didn't manage the bank's investment portfolio, he managed trust client portfolios.
Quibbling difference. There is no worse investor than those who manage money for banks--regardless of their title or who owns the money being managed.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, although your argument is a bit ironic given your self-admitted investment "strategy" with the widow...

Indyone's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-31

tjc45 wrote:Indyone wrote:For clarification, he didn't manage the bank's investment portfolio, he managed trust client portfolios.
Indy, I always respect your opinion.
...and likewise, tjc...we can act as gentlemen between the two of us at least...even when our perspectives differ.
...and despite appearances, I generally enjoy exchanges with NASD/PutEasy.  He's got some interesting insights...you just have to work around his tender ego (see earlier in this thread) and tendency to insult when someone disagrees with him, or otherwise doesn't measure up to his self-perceived social worth.  It's interesting to watch him casually throw insults...and then see his reaction when someone tosses a perceived slight back at him...

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

dude wrote:
Damn tjc, great post.  A breath of fresh air to have someone articulately address the MPT scam that's going on (using it as an excuse to collect asset management fees).........
tjc45, is this an even remotely accurate description of what you were saying?
dude wrote:
Now Mikey, hold on there as I know the beast is about to be unleashed.....I'm not saying that MPT IS a scam. O.K.?  I think we all know where you and I stand on this issue so let's let a dead horse lie.

OK, I'll admit confusion here. Could you explain what appears to be a contradiction in your posts? Sure sounds like you're calling something a scam....
 

tjc45's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-05-06

mikebutler222 wrote:dude wrote:
Damn tjc, great post.  A breath of fresh air to have someone articulately address the MPT scam that's going on (using it as an excuse to collect asset management fees).........
tjc45, is this an even remotely accurate description of what you were saying?
Yes and no. Yes, abused and over sold by wirehouses eager to fee every client up. Especially true of the young sales force that doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to investing and also true of the one size fits all crowd. No, it's not a scam. It's a valid investment theory. However, it doesn't save you from a down market,even though it often advertised by the abusers as being able to do so.
 

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

NASD Newbie wrote:
I am so proud that a thread I started has four or five pages of responses and that several of them are long well considered discussions.
It's almost as if I was as effective as Put Trader at getting things rolling.
I hope Put is doing well, wherever he is.

You are a serious cheeseball there NASD Easy Trader.

dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 2005-11-15

mikebutler222 wrote:dude wrote:
Damn tjc, great post.  A breath of fresh air to have someone articulately address the MPT scam that's going on (using it as an excuse to collect asset management fees).........
tjc45, is this an even remotely accurate description of what you were saying?
dude wrote:
Now Mikey, hold on there as I know the beast is about to be unleashed.....I'm not saying that MPT IS a scam. O.K.?  I think we all know where you and I stand on this issue so let's let a dead horse lie.

OK, I'll admit confusion here. Could you explain what appears to be a contradiction in your posts? Sure sounds like you're calling something a scam....
 

Use your eyes and read the above post by TJC.  I think he is being a little more articulate than I.  Maybe SCAM is a little harsh of a word but as you quoted ME, I clearly said that MPT is NOT a scam.  Just using it as an excuse to collect fees for an army of brokers who are getting paid to be asset gatherers not managers.  C'mon Mikey, we've had this conversation too many times before and like I said let's let a dead horse lie.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

tjc45 wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:dude wrote:
Damn tjc, great post.  A breath of fresh air to have someone articulately address the MPT scam that's going on (using it as an excuse to collect asset management fees).........
tjc45, is this an even remotely accurate description of what you were saying?
Yes and no. Yes, abused and over sold by wirehouses eager to fee every client up. Especially true of the young sales force that doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to investing and also true of the one size fits all crowd. No, it's not a scam. It's a valid investment theory. However, it doesn't save you from a down market,even though it often advertised by the abusers as being able to do so.
 

I’m in complete agreement with you about younger FAs and the “one size fits all” crowd (although I usually find that crowd selling everyone their fav three mutual funds or their investment strategy (read: portfolio of individual stocks run by the FA that every client must own)). Also agreed that it’s abuse to claim it means your account will never decline.
<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 
OTOH, I don't think in my experience (all day, now) that I've seen a "down market" where every asset class is down for any real length of time, and using MPT has ensured that every portfolio has within it those elements that didn’t decline or even grew as other elements declined. My clients in balanced portfolios have seen significant gains in this period of what some people call a "down market".
 
What is it you mean by “fee every client up”? Should I take it to mean you don’t approve of SMAs or flat fee accounts?
 
 

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Careers Category Sponsor Links

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×