Vanguard Group Inc

Latest story

138 Shares139 Views

Forget Stock Predictions for Next Year. Focus on the Next Decade.

by

Wall Street’s market forecasts for 2023 are worthless, our columnist says. But the long view is much clearer.The Federal Reserve raised interest rates again on Wednesday, but by less than it has in previous rounds this year. A day earlier, the government reported that the annual rate of inflation, though still painfully high, dropped a bit in November, to 7.1 percent from 7.7 percent in October.If you want to know what these, and other economic developments, mean for the stock market in the year ahead, there are plenty of forecasts coming out of Wall Street.It is December, after all, when investment strategists gear up and produce earnest, specific forecasts for where the S&P 500 will be at the end of the next calendar year.With inflation soaring, the Fed raising interest rates, Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s decision to drop its “zero Covid” policy, a recession all but certain in Europe and increasingly likely in the United States, clear maps of the future would be particularly welcome now.But that’s not what the one-year forecasts from Wall Street are providing.These attempts at clairvoyance are stymied by a fundamental problem: It’s simply impossible to forecast the path of the markets six months or a year ahead with accuracy and consistency, as many academic studies have shown. That the financial services industry continues to label these unreliable numbers as forecasts is a triumph of breathtaking chutzpah — a technical term for shameless audacity.It goes a long way in explaining why the vast majority of active investment managers can’t regularly and convincingly outperform the market — a failure I reported in a recent column about mutual funds. If you have no idea where stocks are going, it doesn’t make much sense to place specific bets on them, as active managers do.Accepting UncertaintyThese annual reports often contain impressive erudition. I pore through this stuff compulsively in search of nuggets that I can file away for some future column.Our Coverage of the Investment WorldThe decline of the stock and bond markets this year has been painful, and it remains difficult to predict what is in store for the future.Tech Stocks Sputter: Big Tech stocks have suffered staggering losses this year. But is this a good time to buy? Maybe, if you’re in it for the long term, our columnist says.Navigating Uncertainty: There seems to be growing acceptance that some kind of a recession might be coming. Here is how investors should approach the situation.A Bad Year for Bonds: This has been the most devastating time for bonds since at least 1926. But much of the damage is already behind us and the outlook for 2023 is better.Weathering the Storm: The rout in the stock and bond markets has been especially rough on people paying for college, retirement or a new home. Here is some advice.But with a high degree of confidence, I will repeat a prediction I’ve made before: The consensus forecast this year will be wrong.Read these things if you find them interesting, but don’t rely on them — or those who produce them — to guide your investing.Instead, embrace uncertainty.Accept that you need to invest without knowing what will happen to your money over the short term. So be sure, first, to put aside enough money in a safe place, like a bank account or money-market fund, to pay the bills in the months ahead.But because the stock market tends to rise over long periods, and because bonds are now generating reasonable income (as I explained last week), it’s wise to invest for a horizon of a decade or more in low-cost index funds that track the entire stock and bond markets.Don’t base your investments on specific predictions of where the stock market is heading over the short term, because nobody knows. Making bets on the basis of these forecasts is gambling, not investing.The History. Consider how bad Wall Street forecasts have been.In 2020, I noted that the median Wall Street forecast since 2000 had missed its target by an average 12.9 percentage points a year. That error over two decades was astonishing: more than double the actual average annual performance of the stock market!Imagine a weather forecast as bad as that. A meteorologist says the high temperature the next day will be 25 degrees Fahrenheit and it will snow, so you dress for a winter storm. Actually, the temperature turns out to be 60 degrees and the skies are clear. That’s about the level of accuracy for Wall Street strategists through 2020.They continued their errant ways the next year, issuing a median forecast of 3,800 for the closing level of the S&P 500 in 2021. But the index ended the year at 4,766.18, an error of about 25 percent. In a word, the forecast was horrible.The forecasts for 2022 look inaccurate, as usual, though we won’t know for sure until the end of this month. A year ago, the Wall Street consensus was that the S&P 500 would reach 4,825 at the end of 2022, a modest increase from 2021. But at the moment, the index is hovering around 4,000. In other words, a year ago, strategists were saying that 2022 would be just fine for stocks. It hasn’t been.The FutureAfter forecasts that were too low for 2021 and too high for 2022, Wall Street strategists are holding steady for 2023. The consensus is that the S&P 500 will end the year at 4,009, roughly around where it has traded in recent days.That could be right. Who knows? But if it does turn out to be correct, it will be an accident, not the result of uncanny knowledge about 2023.This inability to forecast the future goes way beyond Wall Street. Pandemics are part of human history and we know there will be more of them. But no one was capable of anticipating the specific Coronavirus pandemic that started in 2020, or the 6.6 million deaths, 646.2 million cases, and the complex economic and financial damage it continues to cause.Wall Street didn’t know that Vladimir Putin would order Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this year — or that fossil fuel companies would end up leading the stock market in 2022. The war in Ukraine and China’s attempt to shift from its Covid lockdown policy will both influence the stock market in the United States in the year ahead. But how, exactly? We can guess, but anyone who claims to know is delusional.No doubt, enormous changes that aren’t visible yet are coming in 2023. Inflation and interest rates preoccupy financial markets now, but there is no assurance that will be the case a year from now.Lack of specific knowledge about the future is a fact of life. Guessing, or betting wildly, isn’t a prudent solution.Instead, diversify. Hedge your bets so you are prepared whether specific markets move up or down, and be ready to ride out extended losses, like those of 2022. This strategy has been painful this year, though it has paid off over longer periods.A simple, classic investment strategy — a diversified portfolio made up of broad stock and bond index funds, with 60 percent allocated to stock and 40 percent to bonds, did terribly in 2022. The Vanguard Balanced Fund, which takes just this approach (though it is limited to U.S. and not global assets, which I’d favor), has lost nearly 14 percent this calendar year.But even including this year’s awful returns, this portfolio has gained more than 6 percent annualized, over the last 20 years. At that rate, it doubles in value every 11 or 12 years. There is no guarantee that it will continue to generate those returns in the future, but Vanguard said this week that it probably would.Vanguard doesn’t bother with year-ahead market forecasts because it recognizes that they are pointless. It does make estimates for market returns over a 10-year horizon. Stock market projections of longer duration have much greater accuracy than those for the next six months or a year, as Robert Shiller, the economist, demonstrated in the 1980s. He was recognized for that insight when he received the Nobel in economic science in 2013.At the moment, Vanguard’s 10-year outlook is fairly auspicious. The falling markets of the last year have led to better stock and bond valuations.It’s possible to be intelligently optimistic about financial markets over the next few decades, without knowing where the markets are heading over the next year. I wouldn’t bet on any single financial asset just because a Wall Street expert says it is about to rise.Using your money that way — whether you are buying stocks, bonds or far less solid assets like cryptocurrency — is gambling, not investing. But if you stay humble, invest in the total stock and bond markets and manage to hang in for decades, your chances of prospering are much greater. That prediction is reliable. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Dollars or Rubles? Russian Debt Payments Are Due, and Uncertain.

    by

    Citing sanctions, the Russian government warned it might pay foreign debt obligations in rubles. Credit rating agencies say a default is imminent. Russia is teetering on the edge of a possible sovereign debt default, and the first sign could come as soon as Wednesday.The Russian government owes about $40 billion in debt denominated in U.S. dollars and euros, and half of those bonds are owned by foreign investors. And Russian corporations have racked up approximately $100 billion in foreign currency debt, JPMorgan estimates.On Wednesday, $117 million in interest payments on dollar-denominated government debt are due.But Russia is increasingly isolated from global financial markets, and investors are losing hope that they will see their money. As the government strives to protect what’s left of its access to foreign currency, it has suggested it would pay its dollar- or euro-denominated debt obligations in rubles instead. That has prompted credit rating agencies to warn of an imminent default.The Russian currency has lost nearly 40 percent of its value against the U.S. dollar in the past month. Even if the payments were made, economic sanctions would make it difficult for Western lenders to access the rubles if they are in Russian bank accounts.“It is not that Russia doesn’t have money,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, told reporters last week. The problem is, Russia can’t use a lot of its international currency reserves, she said, because they have been frozen by sanctions. “I’m not going to speculate what may or may not happen, but just to say that no more we talk about Russian default as an improbable event.”Last week, the chief economist of the World Bank said Russia and Belarus were squarely in “default territory,” and Fitch Ratings said a default was imminent because sanctions had diminished Russia’s willingness to repay its foreign debts.Russia last defaulted on its debt in 1998, when a currency crisis led it to default on ruble-denominated debt and temporarily ban foreign debt payments. The crisis shocked the financial world, leading to the collapse of the U.S. hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management, which required Federal Reserve intervention and a multibillion-dollar bailout. If Russia failed to make payments on its foreign currency debt, it would be its first such default since the 1917 Russian Revolution.Foreign investor interest in Russian assets fell in 2014 when sanctions were imposed after the country annexed Crimea, and never fully recovered before more sanctions were imposed by Washington in 2019. But holdings aren’t negligible. Russian government bonds were considered investment grade as recently as a few weeks ago, and were included in indexes used to benchmark other funds. JPMorgan estimates that international investors own 22 percent of Russian companies’ foreign currency debt.BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has already incurred losses on Russian assets and equities.Jeenah Moon/BloombergFunds managed by BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, have incurred $17 billion in losses on Russian assets, including equities, in recent weeks, according to the firm. The loss in value has a number of causes, including investors selling their holdings.But so far, regulators have said the risk to global banking systems from a Russian default wouldn’t be systemic because of the limited direct exposure to Russian assets. The larger ramifications from the war in Ukraine and Russia’s economic isolation are from higher energy and food prices.Still, financial companies have been scrambling to assess their exposure, according to Daniel Tannebaum, a partner at Oliver Wyman who advises banks on sanctions.“I’m seeing a lot of clients that had exposure to the Russian market wondering what type of default scenarios might be coming up,” said Mr. Tannebaum, who is also a former Treasury Department official. In the case of a default, “those bonds become worthless, for lack of a better term,” he said.On Monday, Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, accused the countries that have frozen the country’s internationally held currency reserves of trying to create an “artificial default.” The government has the money to meet its debt obligations, he said, but sanctions were hampering its ability to pay. Mr. Siluanov had also said over the weekend that the country had lost access to about $300 billion of its $640 billion currency reserves.The government insists investors will be paid. The finance ministry said on Monday it would send instructions to banks to issue the payment due on dollar- or euro-denominated bonds in dollars or euros, but if the banks don’t execute the order then it will be recalled and payment will be made in rubles instead. The statement also said that the payments could be made in rubles and then converted to another currency only when the country’s gold and foreign exchange reserves are unfrozen.Russia’s finance minister, Anton Siluanov, accused the countries that have frozen the country’s internationally held currency reserves of trying to create an “artificial default.”Alberto Pizzoli/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images“In any case, obligations to our investors will be met. And the ability to receive the funds in foreign currency will depend on the imposed restrictions,” Mr. Siluanov said.But the statement doesn’t provide a clear vision of what might happen on Wednesday. American sanctions allow for the receipt of payments of debt obligations until late May, and so the reasoning behind the Russian finance ministry’s claim that banks might refuse the payments is unclear. The payments due on Wednesday also have a 30-day grace period, so a default wouldn’t technically happen until mid-April. But Russia has already blocked interest payments on ruble-denominated bonds to nonresidents, a sign of its hesitancy to transfer funds abroad.While the Russian finance ministry said it could meet its obligations by paying in rubles, others disagreed.“In order to avoid a default, the only way that Russia can really navigate this is to send the full payment in dollars,” said Trang Nguyen, an emerging markets strategist at JPMorgan.Some Russian bonds issued in recent years do have provisions that allow for repayment in other currencies, including the ruble, if Russia can’t make payments in dollars for reasons “beyond its control.” The Russia-Ukraine War and the Global EconomyCard 1 of 6Rising concerns. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    How to Win at the Stock Market by Being Lazy

    by

    #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }GameStop vs. Wall StreetRobinhood’s C.E.O. Under the GunGameStop Investors Are TestedYour TaxesReader’s GuideAdvertisementContinue reading the main storyUpshotSupported byContinue reading the main storyHow to Win at the Stock Market by Being LazyThe drama of GameStop is misleading; the surer path to wealth is extremely boring.Feb. 4, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETMany parts of the GameStop story — the wild swings over the last couple of weeks in shares of the video-game retailer and a few dozen other out-of-favor stocks — are not exactly new.Long before Reddit, the Yahoo message boards of the late 1990s democratized the expression of strong opinions about stocks (they didn’t call them “stonks” in those days).Short squeezes and market-cornering were maneuvers well before Randolph and Mortimer Duke — the fictional securities-fraud-committing villains of the 1983 comedy “Trading Places” — were greedy little boys.What has been weird to watch, if you’ve spent your life plodding away at building a retirement fund, reading books about personal finance, weighing fee structures and tax implications of various investment vehicles, is the mix of righteous anger and gleeful anarchism driving it all. Many of the traders driving the GameStop mania in recent days want to strike it rich and bring down what they view as a corrupt, rigged system along the way.Yes, there is abundant greed and venality on Wall Street. But the reality is that the stock market has also offered a path for ordinary people to build wealth — and more so in the last generation than ever before. You haven’t needed to burn down the system. All you’ve had to do is take the laziest, simplest approach to stock investing imaginable, and have a little patience.Ever since Vanguard introduced its S&P 500 index fund 45 years ago, ordinary investors have been able to invest in broad stock indexes in a tax-efficient manner, with extremely low fees. Any schlub on the street can put money to work harvesting a small share of the earnings of hundreds of leading companies, led by some of the sharpest corporate executives on earth and their millions of employees. You haven’t had to do much of anything![embedded content]Your returns would have been strong even if you had terrible timing. Suppose you had received a $10,000 windfall in March 2000, the peak of the dot-com bubble and a moment at which we can all agree stocks were overpriced. Yet even with such unfortunate timing, if you invested that money in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund and reinvested dividends for the last 20 years, your $10,000 would have turned into nearly $28,000 by the end of this past month — a 5 percent annual return when adjusted for inflation.And that was the single worst month in decades to begin investing. On average, if you were to select a month between 1990 and 2019 to begin investing, your annualized return through January 2021 would have been 9.8 percent after inflation. Simply for having the patience to sit on your hands.(Those returns would have been reduced by a few hundredths of a percentage point by mutual fund fees, and more by taxes if the money was not in a tax-advantaged account.)It gets better. Most people don’t receive and invest a single windfall, but rather chip in savings gradually.So suppose you had begun saving $100 a month at the start of the year 2000 — again, near the peak of a bubble — and had continued doing so ever since, increasing your savings along with inflation, putting the money into an S&P 500 index fund and reinvesting dividends. Over the last 21 years, you would have contributed about $32,500, yet your portfolio at the end of January would be worth more than $103,000.You achieved a 10.5 percent annualized rate of return, because while some of your savings was invested at market peaks, your slow-but-steady approach ensured you were also buying shares during periods when the market was depressed, as in 2002 and 2009.As recently as the 1970s, this strategy would have been hard to carry out. Modern index funds didn’t exist until John C. Bogle invented the concept for Vanguard in 1976. Mutual funds in the past had much higher fees than they do today. Buying lots of different individual stocks would have required high brokerage fees as well, making it all but impossible for people with modest savings.Moreover, the advantages of a “buy the index” approach were not as well understood until recent decades. Academic finance research in the second half of the 20th century had a series of findings about the efficiency of markets that, taken together, imply that the best long-term investing strategy for most people is simply to put money into the market as a whole and minimize fees and taxes. Personal finance advisers and commentators widely embraced this finding, with adjustments that depend on the investor’s risk preferences, particularly investing some slice of the portfolio in safer bonds.The result: In recent decades, following the most obvious conventional wisdom of how to invest has been possible even for small investors.If the market is rigged, it is rigged in a way that allows people to achieve a substantial return on their money by watching television or playing golf or taking a nap, rather than by spending their hours scouring message boards or developing elaborate theories of how to enact revenge on perfidious hedge funds or learning what the gamma of an option is.Think of Corporate America — the hundreds of large companies in which you are investing if you put your money into index funds — as a sports franchise.There are people who try to make money by betting for or against the franchise. They may put in lots of effort calculating proper odds, and once in a while may win big, turning a small wager into a big score. The very best at this — the sharps, in sports betting terminology — will even win more than they lose and be able to make a living out of it.But over all, the system is a zero-sum game, and most people who play are going to lose money once the sports books’ cut is accounted for. If you decide to try to make a fortune by betting on professional sports, you might even conclude that the system is rigged against you, because in a sense it is. The consistent winners are going to be highly skilled sports bettors who have been doing this a long time; and the casino, which takes a share of every pot.In this analogy, those fortune-hunting newcomers are the people who have taken to trading options on GameStop and other stocks in recent months.Then there are people who work hard to make that franchise operate: the team executives, the coaches, the players. They put in long hours to make the franchise a success, and while part of their pay is linked to the franchise’s success, the bulk of their compensation is cash in exchange for their labor. They can be well compensated, but theirs are rare talents and they have to work really hard.They are the equivalent of the executives and employees of the companies whose stock shares trade on public exchanges.Then there are the passive owners of the sports franchise. For instance, the owner of a minority share who doesn’t even have to help hire and fire team presidents. Other people do all the work of running the team. These owners just enjoy the benefits of earnings, year after year.It is not without risk: The franchise might sign an overpriced free agent, or ticket sales might collapse because of a pandemic. But if they are patient, they can expect that their investment will eventually pay off. And that is true even though they spend their time doing something other than examining point spreads and drawing up plays.There are no guarantees in life. Some people who are aggressively trading meme stocks will presumably walk away with significant profits. Index funds won’t generate the kind of overnight payoffs that buyers of GameStop options are evidently looking for. And the decades ahead may offer lower returns to stock investors than the decades just past.But the extraordinary payoffs of being a passive stock market investor are not something to overlook. When you are offered a free lunch — a reasonable expectation of good returns with zero effort and only moderate risk — it makes sense to eat it.Successful investing is not nearly as exciting and potentially painful as trading options on GameStop or sliding down the steps of Federal Hall on Wall Street. But then, it isn’t trying to be.Credit…Kena Betancur/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesAdvertisementContinue reading the main story More