Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

Random Walker wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:56 pm Larry takes attacks on his integrity VERY SERIOUSLY. He emailed me a copy of one of his investment statements to prove he takes his own advice. He has AVRPX, LENDX, SRRIX in a tax advantaged account.

Obviously I’m a highly biased huge fan of his. But just because I’m biased doesn’t mean I can’t be right. For those who haven’t done so, read his books. The clear thinking, internal consistency, and straight forward relaxed enjoyable delivery make his integrity obvious.

Dave
In defense of Larry, he is amazingly open. In response to questions, I got an e-mail from his personal e-mail account as well as his work e-mail account. His work e-mail reveals his direct phone number though I would never call him. He has revealed details of his personal finances that are really no one's business. He really does eat his own cooking. He has made a substantial personal investment in the alternatives.

The thing is, I really don't know him. I have no special access that no one else does. The few times I have contacted him by e-mail, he responded promptly as if I were his number 1 client. I am not a Buckingham client, like I said I do not know him personally. The way I was treated you would think I have $100,000,000 invested with them. I have zero invested.

No one, and I mean no one else in the investment business does this. I was a huge fan of Louis Rukeyser back in the day but I hugely doubt that he would have personally answered e-mails from fans to the degree that Larry does. It is clear that he spends a fair amount of time responding to e-mails and personal messages. He really is doing his best to help individual investors.

He has posted his work e-mail address here and one can always contact him by personal message.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Day9
Posts: 1000
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 6:22 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Day9 »

HomerJ wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:49 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:04 pmLarry Swedroe is talking up the alternatives in his columns and has been doing so for the last 2-3 years. His firm is recommending these products as well. Larry has substantial investments in these funds, so no doubt about his sincerity. He is putting is money where his mouth is. Again, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the strategies.
I would never say Larry is insincere.

But it should be pointed out he used to talk up commodities in the past. That didn't work out so well, even though I'm quite sure he was sincere when he was talking about them.
To provide some context: Larry used to say adding a small amount of commodities, 5%-10% of the equity allocation, while simultaneously extending the duration of your bond portfolio, can improve performance in a diversified portfolio. This is because the negative correlation of the risk factors, one does well in inflation and one does well in deflation. This helps during stagflation when inflation hurts duration risk but stocks don't do well either.
I'm just a fan of the person I got my user name from
Angst
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:31 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Angst »

Random Walker wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:56 pm Larry takes attacks on his integrity VERY SERIOUSLY. He emailed me a copy of one of his investment statements to prove he takes his own advice. He has AVRPX, LENDX, SRRIX in a tax advantaged account.

Obviously I’m a highly biased huge fan of his. But just because I’m biased doesn’t mean I can’t be right. For those who haven’t done so, read his books. The clear thinking, internal consistency, and straight forward relaxed enjoyable delivery make his integrity obvious.

Dave
Dave,
1 question: No, probably 2 questions, I suppose:

Am I allowed to ask (there's 1), does Larry still hold PCRIX? It seems to me, both a reasonable and appropriate thing to ask.
sreynard
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 8:11 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by sreynard »

HomerJ wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:49 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:04 pmLarry Swedroe is talking up the alternatives in his columns and has been doing so for the last 2-3 years. His firm is recommending these products as well. Larry has substantial investments in these funds, so no doubt about his sincerity. He is putting is money where his mouth is. Again, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the strategies.
I would never say Larry is insincere.

But it should be pointed out he used to talk up commodities in the past. That didn't work out so well, even though I'm quite sure he was sincere when he was talking about them.
I would never question Larry's honesty and integrity, and he knows more about investing in his little toe... :D Especially all the academic research.

I'll start looking at alternatives, oh, in about another 50 years or so. I am thinking about buying some TIPS some day, though. Maybe even some REITs! That's new and edgy enough for me. There's nothing in those four funds that have any interest to me. Call me a simpleton, but I think I'll stick with my 3 fund portfolio. You more savvy investors can have all that reassurance and confidence investing in alternatives gives you. I'm sure you will sleep far better at night than I.... :wink:
Topic Author
Random Walker
Posts: 5561
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Random Walker »

Angst,
Don’t specifically know your PCRIX answer, but I think the answer is no.

FIREchief,
With regard to using a financial advisor, it is important to keep three entities separate.
1. Holder of the funds invested in. A company like Schwab or Fidelity holds the account, holds the funds, maintains documents, etc.
2. The funds themselves that the investor invests in: VG, DFA, etc.
3. Financial advisor: advises on holdings and trades in clients portfolio. They are paid only for their role in advising the client. The funds and holder of funds make their money independently.

Dave
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21240
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by HomerJ »

nedsaid wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:50 pm
HomerJ wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:49 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:04 pmLarry Swedroe is talking up the alternatives in his columns and has been doing so for the last 2-3 years. His firm is recommending these products as well. Larry has substantial investments in these funds, so no doubt about his sincerity. He is putting is money where his mouth is. Again, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the strategies.
I would never say Larry is insincere.

But it should be pointed out he used to talk up commodities in the past. That didn't work out so well, even though I'm quite sure he was sincere when he was talking about them.
What happened is that so much money went into commodities that the markets were distorted. Pretty much the institutional money caused commodity markets to go from backwardization to contango. So investors no longer got a roll return as lower futures prices converged towards the higher spot price. Instead, futures prices tended to be higher than spot prices, so you got a negative return as higher futures prices converged towards the lower spot price. In other words, futures are trading at a premium to the spot price. So this made collateralized commodity futures unprofitable for average investors. This is why Larry changed his mind. Would you rather that Larry not act on the new information?

The thing is, as I learn more, I change my mind. If circumstances change, so should you. This is why I warn against extreme commitment to staying the course at all costs. Staying the course with collateralized commodity futures would have been bad for investors so Larry changed his advice. Markets change, the economy changes. We should be prepared to change along with it.
My point is fairly simple. Just because Larry believes in a product, it doesn't mean it will be successful.

Lots of variables out there. Nobody knows enough to make good predictions, because, as you point out, things change.

I mean, if 5-10 years from now, these alt fund haven't done very well, I'm sure there will be very good reasons why they failed to out-perform. Just like there were very good reasons why the commodity fund he believed in and promoted failed to produce. And Larry will indeed be a smart man to change his mind as circumstances change and new information comes to light.

Still won't change the fact that anyone who followed his advice will have less money. Just like people who followed his advice before about commodities have less money. But maybe this time, all the variables are known, nothing will change, and the alt funds will perform exactly like he predicts they will.

That's certainly possible.
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

HomerJ wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:04 am
nedsaid wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:50 pm
HomerJ wrote: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:49 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:04 pmLarry Swedroe is talking up the alternatives in his columns and has been doing so for the last 2-3 years. His firm is recommending these products as well. Larry has substantial investments in these funds, so no doubt about his sincerity. He is putting is money where his mouth is. Again, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the strategies.
I would never say Larry is insincere.

But it should be pointed out he used to talk up commodities in the past. That didn't work out so well, even though I'm quite sure he was sincere when he was talking about them.
What happened is that so much money went into commodities that the markets were distorted. Pretty much the institutional money caused commodity markets to go from backwardization to contango. So investors no longer got a roll return as lower futures prices converged towards the higher spot price. Instead, futures prices tended to be higher than spot prices, so you got a negative return as higher futures prices converged towards the lower spot price. In other words, futures are trading at a premium to the spot price. So this made collateralized commodity futures unprofitable for average investors. This is why Larry changed his mind. Would you rather that Larry not act on the new information?

The thing is, as I learn more, I change my mind. If circumstances change, so should you. This is why I warn against extreme commitment to staying the course at all costs. Staying the course with collateralized commodity futures would have been bad for investors so Larry changed his advice. Markets change, the economy changes. We should be prepared to change along with it.
My point is fairly simple. Just because Larry believes in a product, it doesn't mean it will be successful.

Lots of variables out there. Nobody knows enough to make good predictions, because, as you point out, things change.

I mean, if 5-10 years from now, these alt fund haven't done very well, I'm sure there will be very good reasons why they failed to out-perform. Just like there were very good reasons why the commodity fund he believed in and promoted failed to produce. And Larry will indeed be a smart man to change his mind as circumstances change and new information comes to light.

Still won't change the fact that anyone who followed his advice will have less money. Just like people who followed his advice before about commodities have less money. But maybe this time, all the variables are known, nothing will change, and the alt funds will perform exactly like he predicts they will.

That's certainly possible.
HomerJ,

I am not rushing out and buying alternatives. I am not recommending that others rush out and buy alternatives. What I have said is that these products are worth considering, if someone wants to buy these they need to go in with eyes wide open and aware of the risks they are taking. My posts have been more about the potential problems with such investments rather than their virtues.

The thing is, I have tried new things. I bought my first REIT fund when it became available. I bought TIPS early on. These would fit earlier definitions of alternatives. REITs were a success for me and TIPS have done okay. There was a time where the standard wisdom would have been to buy a portfolio of 15-20 blue chip paying dividend stocks, holding them forever and reinvesting the dividends. Index funds didn't become available until the mid-1970's. They were controversial when they started but they shouldn't have been, indexing is a no-brainer once you think it through.

You have to be careful about closing your mind to new concepts. It is also easy to dismiss someone because they were wrong about something once. So Larry changed his mind on Commodities. I suppose having him publicly drawn and quartered wouldn't be enough for some people. I have changed my mind on all kinds of things though my essential philosophy of life is mostly unchanged.

Did you know that John Bogle had some failures in his career? Did you know that he wrote an article under a pseudonym extolling the virtues of active management? Did you know that Mr. Stay the Course didn't stay the course in early 2000 and sold off much of his stock investments? Did you know Mr. Age in Bonds has also talked about Social Security as a bond? Seeing that this forum is named after him, perhaps he deserves a more human execution like a beheading.

I suppose that I deserve the Iron Maiden for some things I have said here. Probably deserve more punishment than Larry. I have been wrong more than once. Not only that but I posted extensively about how disappointed I was in my own investment performance in 2017. Did a lot of analysis of what went right and what went wrong. A lot of it is that Value has been on vacation since the 2008-2009 financial crisis, as a result the tilts have been disappointing. Before the financial crisis, my portfolio was hitting on all cylinders. Just goes to show that solid investing approaches don't work all of the time.

I think of Benjamin Graham. He pioneered the field of security analysis, doing painstaking analysis to discover undervalued stocks. Towards the end of his life, he gave up on the idea of stock selection as so many good analysts were extensively analyzing stocks. He thought indexing was a good idea. The markets became a lot more efficient over 40 plus years. This was in the 1970's, before the dawn of the robots and computerized analysis.

Again, I am not a Buckingham client. I know that what they have been recommending is a lot more than commodities. I actually have posted the results of Larry's recommendations dated from the first book that he wrote. As I recall, the results were good.

It is a valid criticism of Larry that he has made some changes to his recommendations over the years. The underlying philosophy underneath it all is the same. But on the other hand, he changes his mind as new information becomes available.
A fool and his money are good for business.
golfCaddy
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:02 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by golfCaddy »

Random Walker wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:19 pm The costs of the Stone Ridge alternatives are high because one is basically entering directly into the banking business in the case of alternative lending and the reinsurance businesses in the case of reinsurance. The investor is not purchasing the equities of banks or reinsurers.
It seems that LENDX should be correlated with the performance of financial companies, although with less leverage and artificially smoothed returns due to no daily mark to market for either share price or nav.
User avatar
in_reality
Posts: 4529
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:13 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by in_reality »

Random Walker wrote: Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:19 pm The costs of the Stone Ridge alternatives are high because one is basically entering directly into the banking business in the case of alternative lending and the reinsurance businesses in the case of reinsurance. The investor is not purchasing the equities of banks or reinsurers.
What is the advantage of using Stone Ridge over other alternative lending platforms?

For example, the current prospectus of lendx states:
The Fund has invested more than 25% of its total assets in loans originated by LendingClub Corporation, an
alternative lending platform operating in the United States that makes consumer loans, and SoFi Lending Corp.,
an alternative lending platform operating in the United States that makes consumer loans. However, there can be
no assurance that the Fund will invest more than 25% of its total assets in loans originated by any of these
platforms in the future, and if the Fund invests more than 25% of its total assets in loans originated by any
platform at any time, there can be no assurance that the Fund will remain invested in loans originated by that
platform in the future.
Another one files with the SEC lists other platforms they can use as well. (not sure if the current prospectus replaces that though).
inbox788
Posts: 8372
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:24 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by inbox788 »

Regressor wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:36 pmAnyone who thinks that inflation will be lower than expected is getting a great deal with that 2.85% bond.
What's a great deal for those who think inflation will be higher than expected? I've looked at iBonds and TIPS, but don't understand it well, and while it's safe and protects against inflation, are there other alternatives, especially ones that would perform better?

https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-advi ... ortfolios/
Regressor
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:28 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Regressor »

inbox788 wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:09 pm
Regressor wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:36 pmAnyone who thinks that inflation will be lower than expected is getting a great deal with that 2.85% bond.
What's a great deal for those who think inflation will be higher than expected? I've looked at iBonds and TIPS, but don't understand it well, and while it's safe and protects against inflation, are there other alternatives, especially ones that would perform better?

https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-advi ... ortfolios/
Getting a 30 year old mortgage for example.
In taxable iBonds are Superior to TIPS because of tax deferral. Tips are for tax advantaged accounts.
Short term bonds too - you could go to longer term when it's more obvious that inflation is out of control and you'll lose less in nav than if you were in longer term bonds.
I think that there's some proof that equities are good too, but I wouldn't bet on it.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by willthrill81 »

inbox788 wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:09 pm
Regressor wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:36 pmAnyone who thinks that inflation will be lower than expected is getting a great deal with that 2.85% bond.
What's a great deal for those who think inflation will be higher than expected? I've looked at iBonds and TIPS, but don't understand it well, and while it's safe and protects against inflation, are there other alternatives, especially ones that would perform better?

https://www.kitces.com/blog/should-advi ... ortfolios/
Are you wanting something guaranteed to do better than I bonds or TIPS? Over what investment period are you wanting this performance?
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 21240
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by HomerJ »

nedsaid wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:18 pmIt is also easy to dismiss someone because they were wrong about something once. So Larry changed his mind on Commodities. I suppose having him publicly drawn and quartered wouldn't be enough for some people.
I agree with many things that Mr. Swedroe has written. I think he has done much good for investors. My only issue with him is that he's always so SURE. I have no problem with him being wrong at times. But he always talks with certainty. About his team of experts who have done the math, and if you don't agree with his position, then you are an IDIOT.

You'd think being wrong in the past would temper his absolute belief in his current positions.

The truth is, there are too many variables. No one knows enough to predict anything.
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

HomerJ wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:40 pm
nedsaid wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:18 pmIt is also easy to dismiss someone because they were wrong about something once. So Larry changed his mind on Commodities. I suppose having him publicly drawn and quartered wouldn't be enough for some people.
I agree with many things that Mr. Swedroe has written. I think he has done much good for investors. My only issue with him is that he's always so SURE. I have no problem with him being wrong at times. But he always talks with certainty. About his team of experts who have done the math, and if you don't agree with his position, then you are an IDIOT.

You'd think being wrong in the past would temper his absolute belief in his current positions.

The truth is, there are too many variables. No one knows enough to predict anything.
HomerJ, you stumbled on a very important issue. My independent broker lost a client because he was humble and admitted that there can be wide variations in stock market returns. Stock market returns can't be projected with a ruler on a graph, those of us who have been invested in the market for a long time know this. The client took this as a lack of confidence and perhaps competence and took their money somewhere else. He said he learned an important lesson, that is to project confidence and not to dwell too much upon what could go wrong. This is a reality of the investment business when you try to draw clients to your firm. It is called putting your best foot forward.

If Larry is Director of Research for an Advisory Firm, he can't always be hedging his comments and say sort of, kind of, you know, the thing is, on the one hand. . .on the other hand. He has to project a confidence that he and is firm know what they are doing. That might come across as a bit of arrogance but that is a reality of the business.

I have been accused of being wishy-washy, hedging my comments, and admitting that I could be wrong. On a forum, that is okay, partly because hardly anyone knows who I am or that I post on this forum. In the competitive business world, this conduct would be deadly. This is probably a big reason that Larry doesn't admit to being wrong about anything. That might drive you crazy but that is the reality of what is happening.

We can disagree on the merits of Larry's arguments but clearly he believes in what he is doing and as has been pointed out, he has put substantial monies into the alternative investments he is recommending to clients.
A fool and his money are good for business.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by willthrill81 »

nedsaid wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:10 pm
HomerJ wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:40 pm
nedsaid wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:18 pmIt is also easy to dismiss someone because they were wrong about something once. So Larry changed his mind on Commodities. I suppose having him publicly drawn and quartered wouldn't be enough for some people.
I agree with many things that Mr. Swedroe has written. I think he has done much good for investors. My only issue with him is that he's always so SURE. I have no problem with him being wrong at times. But he always talks with certainty. About his team of experts who have done the math, and if you don't agree with his position, then you are an IDIOT.

You'd think being wrong in the past would temper his absolute belief in his current positions.

The truth is, there are too many variables. No one knows enough to predict anything.
HomerJ, you stumbled on a very important issue. My independent broker lost a client because he was humble and admitted that there can be wide variations in stock market returns. Stock market returns can't be projected with a ruler on a graph, those of us who have been invested in the market for a long time know this. The client took this as a lack of confidence and perhaps competence and took their money somewhere else. He said he learned an important lesson, that is to project confidence and not to dwell too much upon what could go wrong. This is a reality of the investment business when you try to draw clients to your firm. It is called putting your best foot forward.

If Larry is Director of Research for an Advisory Firm, he can't always be hedging his comments and say sort of, kind of, you know, the thing is, on the one hand. . .on the other hand. He has to project a confidence that he and is firm know what they are doing. That might come across as a bit of arrogance but that is a reality of the business.

I have been accused of being wishy-washy, hedging my comments, and admitting that I could be wrong. On a forum, that is okay, partly because hardly anyone knows who I am or that I post on this forum. In the competitive business world, this conduct would be deadly. This is probably a big reason that Larry doesn't admit to being wrong about anything. That might drive you crazy but that is the reality of what is happening.

We can disagree on the merits of Larry's arguments but clearly he believes in what he is doing and as has been pointed out, he has put substantial monies into the alternative investments he is recommending to clients.
Many hedge fund managers tell their clients that they can achieve 20% returns even when they privately admit that they'll never do it. When asked why they make false promises, they say that if they didn't, clients who just go to someone else who was promising 20% returns. While I believe that their explanation is accurate, I don't believe that it justifies lying.

I don't think that Larry has ever done anything that egregious, but he does come across as being very confident, even though he has clearly shifted his stance on issues over time. He has even crossed over into recommending the 'milder' forms of market timing (e.g. changing AA based on valuations), though he refuses to call it market timing because he has been so death on it for years.

Meb Faber is the only 'expert' in the investment world that doesn't, at least at times, come across to me as overly proud and confident. Yet his firm manages over $1B now, so maybe there are enough potential clients out there who are still okay with a manager who doesn't claim to know it all.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

willthrill81 wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:41 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:10 pm
HomerJ wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:40 pm
nedsaid wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:18 pmIt is also easy to dismiss someone because they were wrong about something once. So Larry changed his mind on Commodities. I suppose having him publicly drawn and quartered wouldn't be enough for some people.
I agree with many things that Mr. Swedroe has written. I think he has done much good for investors. My only issue with him is that he's always so SURE. I have no problem with him being wrong at times. But he always talks with certainty. About his team of experts who have done the math, and if you don't agree with his position, then you are an IDIOT.

You'd think being wrong in the past would temper his absolute belief in his current positions.

The truth is, there are too many variables. No one knows enough to predict anything.
HomerJ, you stumbled on a very important issue. My independent broker lost a client because he was humble and admitted that there can be wide variations in stock market returns. Stock market returns can't be projected with a ruler on a graph, those of us who have been invested in the market for a long time know this. The client took this as a lack of confidence and perhaps competence and took their money somewhere else. He said he learned an important lesson, that is to project confidence and not to dwell too much upon what could go wrong. This is a reality of the investment business when you try to draw clients to your firm. It is called putting your best foot forward.

If Larry is Director of Research for an Advisory Firm, he can't always be hedging his comments and say sort of, kind of, you know, the thing is, on the one hand. . .on the other hand. He has to project a confidence that he and is firm know what they are doing. That might come across as a bit of arrogance but that is a reality of the business.

I have been accused of being wishy-washy, hedging my comments, and admitting that I could be wrong. On a forum, that is okay, partly because hardly anyone knows who I am or that I post on this forum. In the competitive business world, this conduct would be deadly. This is probably a big reason that Larry doesn't admit to being wrong about anything. That might drive you crazy but that is the reality of what is happening.

We can disagree on the merits of Larry's arguments but clearly he believes in what he is doing and as has been pointed out, he has put substantial monies into the alternative investments he is recommending to clients.
Many hedge fund managers tell their clients that they can achieve 20% returns even when they privately admit that they'll never do it. When asked why they make false promises, they say that if they didn't, clients who just go to someone else who was promising 20% returns. While I believe that their explanation is accurate, I don't believe that it justifies lying.

I don't think that Larry has ever done anything that egregious, but he does come across as being very confident, even though he has clearly shifted his stance on issues over time. He has even crossed over into recommending the 'milder' forms of market timing (e.g. changing AA based on valuations), though he refuses to call it market timing because he has been so death on it for years.

Meb Faber is the only 'expert' in the investment world that doesn't, at least at times, come across to me as overly proud and confident. Yet his firm manages over $1B now, so maybe there are enough potential clients out there who are still okay with a manager who doesn't claim to know it all.
I want to make it clear that Larry has been very factual, he has not exaggerated. We all know that he changed his recommendations on Collateralized Commodity Futures, it was a matter of valuations. Institutional monies flooded the commodity markets and distorted them to the point where he felt they were an unattractive investment. You have to commend him for his honesty for making a change. Sometimes things really do change. Isn't that what you want an advisor to do?

But certainly in any business, there is the old saying about putting your best foot forward. If you are going out on a date, you will take extra care in grooming yourself and in your selection of clothing. You want to look your best and be at your best. That is a whole different thing than lying to your date.
A fool and his money are good for business.
boglesmind
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:07 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by boglesmind »

nedsaid wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:04 pm What I will say is that there are people on this forum that I respect who invest in the alternative funds. There are also people here that I respect who don't invest in such funds. Pretty much it boils down to whether you believe in the theories behind the alternatives. We know there are several schools of thought out there in the investing world. Here on the Bogleheads, most of what you see here are the Indexers vs. the Factor Investors. There seems to be a subset of the factor investors who are considering the alternatives.

Larry Swedroe is talking up the alternatives in his columns and has been doing so for the last 2-3 years. His firm is recommending these products as well. Larry has substantial investments in these funds, so no doubt about his sincerity. He is putting is money where his mouth is. Again, reasonable people can disagree on the merits of the strategies.
Larry mentions 2 trade-offs in his article
The trade-off is in two forms: The Stone Ridge funds are interval funds (thus, you don’t have daily liquidity), and you give up the flight-to-safety benefits that a portfolio of safe bonds can provide in severe equity bear markets.
but forgets a third one. Bogleheads typically stay away from funds with high ERs. One of the comments to Larry's article points out that
the Stone Ridge funds have high ERs of 2.29% (SRRIX), 2.68% (AVRPX), and similar. That is a huge portfolio drag and seems like a big risk factor if they fail to deliver equity-like returns.
Why would anyone touch the Stoneridge funds -- they are good for an advisor to collect his/her fees but not for the investors.

Bogleheads
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

My understanding of the Stoneridge Funds are this: you have direct ownership of the business in semi-liquid form and the higher expense ratios reflect that your fees are paying for the cost of running that business. If Stoneridge bought stocks of banks rather than in effect being a bank, you can see that there would be a difference in fees. In a mutual fund that bought bank stocks, you could operate with very low expense ratio. If you mutual fund was the bank, you have to pay for such things as salaries and technology out of your fees.
A fool and his money are good for business.
boglesmind
Posts: 319
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 12:07 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by boglesmind »

nedsaid wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:01 pm My understanding of the Stoneridge Funds are this: you have direct ownership of the business in semi-liquid form and the higher expense ratios reflect that your fees are paying for the cost of running that business. If Stoneridge bought stocks of banks rather than in effect being a bank, you can see that there would be a difference in fees. In a mutual fund that bought bank stocks, you could operate with very low expense ratio. If you mutual fund was the bank, you have to pay for such things as salaries and technology out of your fees.
IMO, the analogy is incorrect. If I had direct partial ownership of a business, then some portion of the net profits would be my return and the cost of running the business is already included while calculating the net profit. In any case, if one wants reduced risk, then investing in semi-liquid businesses doesn't seem like a good idea since semi-liquid can turn to illiquid pretty quickly during market downturns.


Bogleshead.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by willthrill81 »

nedsaid wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:52 pmI want to make it clear that Larry has been very factual, he has not exaggerated. We all know that he changed his recommendations on Collateralized Commodity Futures, it was a matter of valuations. Institutional monies flooded the commodity markets and distorted them to the point where he felt they were an unattractive investment. You have to commend him for his honesty for making a change. Sometimes things really do change. Isn't that what you want an advisor to do?

But certainly in any business, there is the old saying about putting your best foot forward. If you are going out on a date, you will take extra care in grooming yourself and in your selection of clothing. You want to look your best and be at your best. That is a whole different thing than lying to your date.
Don't get me wrong; I don't think that Larry has purposefully lied about anything at all. I think he has far more integrity than most in his field.
The Sensible Steward
aristotelian
Posts: 12262
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:05 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by aristotelian »

I have a great deal of respect for Swedroe and enjoy his writing. I am not convinced about alternatives. In my opinion, I do not need to reduce volatility using non-correlated assets because I have a long time horizon on the stock side of my portfolio. Rather than invest in alternative assets with the same expected risk/reward but less track record and higher fund expenses, my approach is to stay in equities and wait. History says that is the best approach.
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

boglesmind wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:51 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:01 pm My understanding of the Stoneridge Funds are this: you have direct ownership of the business in semi-liquid form and the higher expense ratios reflect that your fees are paying for the cost of running that business. If Stoneridge bought stocks of banks rather than in effect being a bank, you can see that there would be a difference in fees. In a mutual fund that bought bank stocks, you could operate with very low expense ratio. If you mutual fund was the bank, you have to pay for such things as salaries and technology out of your fees.
IMO, the analogy is incorrect. If I had direct partial ownership of a business, then some portion of the net profits would be my return and the cost of running the business is already included while calculating the net profit. In any case, if one wants reduced risk, then investing in semi-liquid businesses doesn't seem like a good idea since semi-liquid can turn to illiquid pretty quickly during market downturns.


Bogleshead.
I was addressing the fees charged by Stone Ridge. The cost of owning a share of a bank stock, once you have paid the commission is nearly zero. The cost of running a lending business is considerably more than zero. Stone Ridge investment in shares of stock of lending platforms is very small, Stone Ridge IS the bank that buys loans from the lending platforms and services the loans.

As far as liquidity, that is a different issue. When you buy into the Stone Ridge fund, you are actually providing capital as well as paying the expenses of running the business. When you buy a share of a bank stock, you are simply buying that share from somebody else, you are not adding to the bank's capital unless you are buying a new offering of shares. If you need cash, you sell your stock to somebody else but the banks operations are unaffected. When you own a bank stock, you aren't writing checks to pay for salaries and technology. That is paid out of the cash flow of the business. As a Stone Ridge investor, you are in effect writing the checks. That is why the expense ratio seems high. The thing is, the costs each way should be about the same.

My understanding is that the lending fund is semi-liquid so that the fund has a stable deposit balance from which it can buy loans. If people could pull capital out of the business at will, it would make it difficult if not impossible to commit funds to buy loans with. Unlike a bank that is a Fed member, Stone Ridge does not have a line of credit with the Federal Reserve Bank. Stone Ridge's investors are their line of credit so to speak and their source of capital.

There is more to this than expense ratios of the funds. You have to understand the differences in structure in owning bank stock and in owning shares in the Stone Ridge lending fund.

Another way of looking at this is that when you buy the Stone Ridge lending fund, you are directly buying into a portfolio of loans and thus you take on the expenses of maintaining that loan portfolio. You aren't just buying shares of stock, which in themselves have very little cost of ownership.

My understanding is that you can lend monies to people through peer to peer lending. My understanding is that the lending platform will put together potential loans and assign them a credit rating. The investor picks the loans that he or she wants to purchase. As an investor, you are making loan decisions by deciding which loans to purchase. With Stone Ridge, you are doing the same thing except there is a team that does the credit analysis for you and a team that makes the decisions on which loans to buy. All you have to do is provide the capital and pay a fee to pay for the lending team. Peer to peer lending might be "cheaper" but speaking for myself, I would be willing to pay a fee to pay for people who are experienced and knowledgeable about lending.

Larry has covered this many, many times. The facts are pretty plain and the issue of fees should not be controversial. The fees seem high because of the way the Stone Ridge fund is structured. The expenses of an index fund would seem high if you took into consideration the cost of doing business for each of the companies included in the index.

If you want to debate the merits of the investment itself, that is another issue. The merits of being in liquid investments vs. semi-liquid or illiquid investments is yet another issue.
Last edited by nedsaid on Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Bastiat
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 11:07 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Bastiat »

nedsaid wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:42 pm
garlandwhizzer wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:24 am 30 year Treasuries yielded 14.8% in 1981 because bond market participants saw more than a decade of ever increasing interest rates and inflation, currently at about 15% in 1981, and they expected that to continue for decades. That, of course, turned out to be totally wrong in spite of all the smart guys' pseudo-insight into the future. How nice would it be today if you could buy a bond that yielded 14.8% a year guaranteed for 30 years by the US government? Alas, those days are behind us. The take home message, however, is that the consensus can be totally wrong at any time about anything. Beware when markets of any type are at historical extremes.

Currently long term inflation expectations are the lowest in history. Today that same 30 year Treasury yields 2.85%, about the lowest rate in 4 decades. The 4 decade average yield rate on 30 year Treasuries is close to 6%, more than twice the current rate. Currently inflation is running at over 2%. Just as in 1981, bond market participants have extreme expectations for long term inflation rates based largely on past history and projecting that past history forward. Taking long bond duration positions looks great now on long term backtesting, just as it looked horrible in 1981 on long term backtesting. There is a real possibility that, as in 1981, the smart guys with their clever historical models will turn out to be wrong again. There are a number of reasons that have developed in recent years why interest rates and inflation may rise from the grave (co-ordinated world-wide economic growth, rising rates and inflation in the US, reversal of QE, massive levels of governmental and personal debt that will need to be financed, full employment but additional fiscal stimulus in terms of tax cuts, fiscal stimulus, etc.,). Whenever in the past all market participants have had a consolidated single point of view on any issue, it has often been the time historically to take the opposing position. I think it is a mistake to assume that inflation will remain in its grave for the next 3 decades. Long duration in the bond market may in the future be a headwind instead of the tailwind as in the past 3+ decades.

Garland Whizzer
Garland, great post as always. I will make the same point here that I made in another thread. Government deficits have nothing to do with interest rates. Reagan and Obama ran relatively large budget deficits and interest rates did nothing but fall each time. Reagan's economy started slow and went to a boom, Obama's economy emerged from the financial crisis and slowly recovered. Relatively strong economy vs. a relatively weaker economy, it made no difference, interest rates still fell.

I used to run the basketball scoreboard when I was in high school. When someone scored a basket, all I had to do to add a couple of points was to click the button a couple of times. I didn't have to go into a storeroom to get the points. I never had to tell the referee to stop the game because I ran out of points. Financing deficits is pretty much the same thing. People forget that the government has its own bank and that bank can buy US Government debt anytime it wants. Furthermore, the bank (the Fed) has to turn its profits over to the Treasury. So pretty much, the government can give itself an interest free loan anytime it wants. Another piece of the puzzle is that the private sector is in surplus when the public sector is in deficit. The surplus in the private sector soaks up the deficit in the public sector. The bigger picture is that the books always balance and debits always equal credits. I also read somewhere that larger budget deficits tend towards higher corporate profits.

Remember how the savings rates got so low when the Clinton administration ran surpluses? I know other factors affect savings rates rather than just budget deficits, but the deficits are a large factor. Remember also that in our economy, debt is money. More debt is more money supply and less debt is less money supply. Think of World War II, the greatest stimulus package of deficit spending of all time. The public had jobs and money but little extra to spend the money on as we had wartime rationing. Hence we had a big savings rate and a lot of those savings went into War Bonds.

A couple of anecdotal stories about War Bonds said that the buyers lost about 1/2 of the buying power of the monies used to buy the bonds. Pretty much a combination of economic growth and inflation in effect paid down our debt.

In fact, I have heard the argument that the national debt doesn't finance anything at all, we have debt to back our currency and so that the Fed can target interest rates. That argument seems to be extreme, but it makes sense to me and it might well just be right.

I know this goes against textbook economics, but textbook economics in this matter have been just plain wrong. It is counterintuitive, but it seems that larger deficits can mean higher private sector savings rates, higher money supply, higher corporate profits, and lower interest rates. The standard explanations just never worked for me. The Reagan deficits in the 1980's should have kept interest rates high but instead the rates fell and continued to fall for over 30 years. Somehow, those high deficits were always easily financed. The "crowding out effect" just never seems to happen.

Pretty much what backs currency is productivity. Inflation happens when you have too much money created versus too little increased production. Hyperinflation happens when you create huge amounts of money and productivity collapses. Interest rates on the debt that backs the currency is also a factor in how strong a currency is versus other currencies.

This is why I stated that to me, inflation is the thing to watch. The Fed controls short term rates but inflation expectations control mid and long-term rates. Which brings me to another point, that is governments can always shorten up the average maturities of their debt by increasing the issuance of short term instruments and buying long term instruments off the market.
I'd just like to point out that some of what is being presented in this post as fact is in actuality conjecture that is not widely accepted by economists. Specifically: WWII being good for the global economy (broken window fallacy); Public deficit equals private surplus (ignores capital surplus); etc.

There isn't really such a thing as "textbook economics" in this area, just different schools of thought. You're presenting essentially the Keynesian view, but there's also the Austrian, Chicago, Monetarist, Classical, and many others. Keynesianism is not established fact.
Always passive
Posts: 1265
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Israel

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Always passive »

Random Walker wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:58 am http://www.etf.com/sections/index-inves ... nopaging=1

In this article Larry discusses the widely held expectation that the Fed will increase rates during the coming year. He distinguished between knowledge and information. Information held by everyone else is of no value. Bond market is extremely efficient. Larry makes the point that some investors have increased their equity allocations in the face of low interest rates. It’s worked out well for them. But judging a strategy on outcome is a mistake; an alternative history could have easily played out. One should not let interest rates dictate one’s equity allocation.
At the end of the article Larry discusses how four alternative funds might fit into a portfolio. Currently equities have historically high valuations and low future expected returns. Many are concerned about rising interest rates causing a bond bear. These alternatives have expected returns about same as equities, SD about half that of equities, no correlation to stocks, bonds, or to each other. One can create an alternatives position by taking from equities, bonds, or some of both. It one takes from equities, portfolio expected return about constant, volatility decreased, Sharpe ratio increased. If one takes from bonds, portfolio expected return increased, volatility increased to a lesser extent, Sharpe ratio increase expected. In both cases portfolio efficiency improves.
Larry’s new edition of Black Swans is coming out soon, and he will surely go into some good detail on the potential improved portfolio efficiency obtained through these alternatives.

Dave
Is there a way to accomplish his ideas with ETFs? I live overseas and funds are a no no
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

I have read through the LENDX prospectus. It is an illiquid investment but investors can sell back 5% of their investment to the fund each quarter or 20% a year. The prospectus does say there is no guarantee that the fund will buy back shares and to consider this an illiquid investment.

The fund mainly invests in alternative loans and the prospectus discusses buying the loans from other lending platforms. So it is sort of like a bank buying mortgage loans from another bank. The fund can also purchase stock of the various lending platforms.

I looked at the annual report of LENDX and looked at the schedule of investments. The loans are mainly consumer loans, small business loans, asset backed securities, and student loans. I lot of loans from the platform Zopa in the United Kingdom, loans from the platform Sofi, Lending Club, Funding Circle, Square, Common Bond, and Upstart in the United States. Ownership of equity securities was relatively small, a bit more than 3% of the fund.

Pretty much what this fund does is buy loans underwritten by Alternative Lending Platforms listed above and services the loans. So it does not appear to be underwriting the loans themselves.

The fund had $148 million in investment income and took $41 million in expenses for running the loan portfolio. This left investors with about $107 million in net investment income. In addition, there was about $31 million in realized and unrealized losses in the portfolio.
A fool and his money are good for business.
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

Bastiat wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:46 pm
nedsaid wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:42 pm
garlandwhizzer wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:24 am 30 year Treasuries yielded 14.8% in 1981 because bond market participants saw more than a decade of ever increasing interest rates and inflation, currently at about 15% in 1981, and they expected that to continue for decades. That, of course, turned out to be totally wrong in spite of all the smart guys' pseudo-insight into the future. How nice would it be today if you could buy a bond that yielded 14.8% a year guaranteed for 30 years by the US government? Alas, those days are behind us. The take home message, however, is that the consensus can be totally wrong at any time about anything. Beware when markets of any type are at historical extremes.

Currently long term inflation expectations are the lowest in history. Today that same 30 year Treasury yields 2.85%, about the lowest rate in 4 decades. The 4 decade average yield rate on 30 year Treasuries is close to 6%, more than twice the current rate. Currently inflation is running at over 2%. Just as in 1981, bond market participants have extreme expectations for long term inflation rates based largely on past history and projecting that past history forward. Taking long bond duration positions looks great now on long term backtesting, just as it looked horrible in 1981 on long term backtesting. There is a real possibility that, as in 1981, the smart guys with their clever historical models will turn out to be wrong again. There are a number of reasons that have developed in recent years why interest rates and inflation may rise from the grave (co-ordinated world-wide economic growth, rising rates and inflation in the US, reversal of QE, massive levels of governmental and personal debt that will need to be financed, full employment but additional fiscal stimulus in terms of tax cuts, fiscal stimulus, etc.,). Whenever in the past all market participants have had a consolidated single point of view on any issue, it has often been the time historically to take the opposing position. I think it is a mistake to assume that inflation will remain in its grave for the next 3 decades. Long duration in the bond market may in the future be a headwind instead of the tailwind as in the past 3+ decades.

Garland Whizzer
Garland, great post as always. I will make the same point here that I made in another thread. Government deficits have nothing to do with interest rates. Reagan and Obama ran relatively large budget deficits and interest rates did nothing but fall each time. Reagan's economy started slow and went to a boom, Obama's economy emerged from the financial crisis and slowly recovered. Relatively strong economy vs. a relatively weaker economy, it made no difference, interest rates still fell.

I used to run the basketball scoreboard when I was in high school. When someone scored a basket, all I had to do to add a couple of points was to click the button a couple of times. I didn't have to go into a storeroom to get the points. I never had to tell the referee to stop the game because I ran out of points. Financing deficits is pretty much the same thing. People forget that the government has its own bank and that bank can buy US Government debt anytime it wants. Furthermore, the bank (the Fed) has to turn its profits over to the Treasury. So pretty much, the government can give itself an interest free loan anytime it wants. Another piece of the puzzle is that the private sector is in surplus when the public sector is in deficit. The surplus in the private sector soaks up the deficit in the public sector. The bigger picture is that the books always balance and debits always equal credits. I also read somewhere that larger budget deficits tend towards higher corporate profits.

Remember how the savings rates got so low when the Clinton administration ran surpluses? I know other factors affect savings rates rather than just budget deficits, but the deficits are a large factor. Remember also that in our economy, debt is money. More debt is more money supply and less debt is less money supply. Think of World War II, the greatest stimulus package of deficit spending of all time. The public had jobs and money but little extra to spend the money on as we had wartime rationing. Hence we had a big savings rate and a lot of those savings went into War Bonds.

A couple of anecdotal stories about War Bonds said that the buyers lost about 1/2 of the buying power of the monies used to buy the bonds. Pretty much a combination of economic growth and inflation in effect paid down our debt.

In fact, I have heard the argument that the national debt doesn't finance anything at all, we have debt to back our currency and so that the Fed can target interest rates. That argument seems to be extreme, but it makes sense to me and it might well just be right.

I know this goes against textbook economics, but textbook economics in this matter have been just plain wrong. It is counterintuitive, but it seems that larger deficits can mean higher private sector savings rates, higher money supply, higher corporate profits, and lower interest rates. The standard explanations just never worked for me. The Reagan deficits in the 1980's should have kept interest rates high but instead the rates fell and continued to fall for over 30 years. Somehow, those high deficits were always easily financed. The "crowding out effect" just never seems to happen.

Pretty much what backs currency is productivity. Inflation happens when you have too much money created versus too little increased production. Hyperinflation happens when you create huge amounts of money and productivity collapses. Interest rates on the debt that backs the currency is also a factor in how strong a currency is versus other currencies.

This is why I stated that to me, inflation is the thing to watch. The Fed controls short term rates but inflation expectations control mid and long-term rates. Which brings me to another point, that is governments can always shorten up the average maturities of their debt by increasing the issuance of short term instruments and buying long term instruments off the market.
I'd just like to point out that some of what is being presented in this post as fact is in actuality conjecture that is not widely accepted by economists. Specifically: WWII being good for the global economy (broken window fallacy); Public deficit equals private surplus (ignores capital surplus); etc.

There isn't really such a thing as "textbook economics" in this area, just different schools of thought. You're presenting essentially the Keynesian view, but there's also the Austrian, Chicago, Monetarist, Classical, and many others. Keynesianism is not established fact.
Yes, the point of view that I described is probably neo-Keynesianism. I have posted on this issue many times and the fact is that no one theory or school of thought fully explains how the monetary system works.

What is not conjecture is that the Federal Reserve Bank has to return its profits to the US Treasury. So to the extent that the Fed buys US Treasury Debt, the US Government is essentially making an interest free loan to itself.

I have been very dissatisfied with the standard explanations for a couple of reasons. First, it has never been shown that there is a relationship between deficits and the level of interest rates. As I pointed out, both the Reagan and Obama Administrations ran relatively large deficits and yet interest rates fell. The "crowding out" effect where supposedly government crowds private borrowers out of the credit markets just never seems to happen. Somehow deficits, even large deficits seem to be financed rather effortlessly. As someone described it, pretty much entering numbers into a computer.

It also isn't conjecture that the level of interest rates on sovereign debt does effect the strength of a nation's currency. All other things being equal, money will flow to the sovereign debt with the highest interest rates. Of course, in the real world all other things are never equal. The underlying productivity of a nation's economy and a nation's perceived political stability are also factors in the strength of a currency. Also, the confidence the rest of the world places in a nation's economic policies also affect the strength of a currency.

The other thing I didn't cover is the effect of trade deficits in all of this. China and Japan have large trade surpluses with the United States so it shouldn't be surprising that they own large amounts of our US Treasury Debt. It is also not a big surprise that China and Japan have made substantial investments here. You have to do something with those excess dollars. This would be a factor when you talk about surpluses and deficits in the private and public sectors. Japan runs big budget deficits but has very high productivity and runs large trade surpluses. Though Japanese interest rates are very low, the trade surpluses and high economic productivity help make the YEN a strong currency.

As far as WWII being "good" for the economy, it certainly was good for the United States but not for Japan or Europe. There is no doubt that the War jolted the economy out of the Great Depression. I would not recommend war as an economic policy. It is just that it so happened that WWII stimulated our economy, that we were on the winning side, and that our economic capacity was not damaged during the war. Germany and Japan were just devastated, I am certain they have a different view of how the war affected their economy.

I am also not saying that governments can just spend with impunity and run deficits with no economic effect. The risk with too high of deficit spending is not with outright default but debasement of the currency through inflation. An argument can be made that inflation is technically default as you pay back debts with debased currency.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the views of Milton Friedman and the monetarists. The problem is that money supply is hard enough to define and even harder to control. It seems that the Fed gave up on money supply targets a while back ago. I am not even convinced 100% by the explanations of how money is created. My views lean conservative and not liberal, so one should be surprised that it seems like I am a Keynesian. What I will say is that Keynes was right about a lot of things and he made huge contributions to the understanding of economics. But Keynes had his limits and Keynesian economics don't explain everything. One example is that I believe that markets and not governments set prices.

I also have some sympathy with Austrian views, looking for behavioral explanations for economic activity and having skepticism of mathematical models. I believe much more in the efficiency of markets than in central planning.

The problem with economic views is that any good idea taken to an extreme breaks down pretty quickly. As much as I believe in free markets, I still want the Health Department to inspect the restaurants. Also with ideas, there seems to be a happy medium where things work best. It isn't so much that free markets are good and government is bad, it is that both have their roles in a modern economy and somewhere there is a balance between the two. Pretty much, politics decide which way and how far the pendulum swings.
A fool and his money are good for business.
Regressor
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:28 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Regressor »

nedsaid wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:07 am
What is not conjecture is that the Federal Reserve Bank has to return its profits to the US Treasury. So to the extent that the Fed buys US Treasury Debt, the US Government is essentially making an interest free loan to itself.

I have been very dissatisfied with the standard explanations for a couple of reasons. First, it has never been shown that there is a relationship between deficits and the level of interest rates. As I pointed out, both the Reagan and Obama Administrations ran relatively large deficits and yet interest rates fell. The "crowding out" effect where supposedly government crowds private borrowers out of the credit markets just never seems to happen. Somehow deficits, even large deficits seem to be financed rather effortlessly. As someone described it, pretty much entering numbers into a computer.
FED does return profits to the treasury, but that covers only a small part of what our government pays for issuing debt because FED owns only a small portion of all available treasuries (2.5 trillion from what I found online and payed 80 billion of profits in 2017). So issuing debt definitely has its costs.
Also, government can issue new debt to refinance old one only as long as appetite for its debt exists in the market. Over the past decades that appetite has grown as population was getting older (the older you are the more bonds you want, the cheaper for treasury to issue debt) and as inflation expectation was getting lower. But now that our government owes so much money, refinancing that debt would become very hard if inflation expectation starts growing significantly. That would cause deficits to have a larger impact on interest rates.
User avatar
nedsaid
Posts: 19249
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 11:33 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nedsaid »

Regressor wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:02 am
nedsaid wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:07 am
What is not conjecture is that the Federal Reserve Bank has to return its profits to the US Treasury. So to the extent that the Fed buys US Treasury Debt, the US Government is essentially making an interest free loan to itself.

I have been very dissatisfied with the standard explanations for a couple of reasons. First, it has never been shown that there is a relationship between deficits and the level of interest rates. As I pointed out, both the Reagan and Obama Administrations ran relatively large deficits and yet interest rates fell. The "crowding out" effect where supposedly government crowds private borrowers out of the credit markets just never seems to happen. Somehow deficits, even large deficits seem to be financed rather effortlessly. As someone described it, pretty much entering numbers into a computer.
FED does return profits to the treasury, but that covers only a small part of what our government pays for issuing debt because FED owns only a small portion of all available treasuries (2.5 trillion from what I found online and payed 80 billion of profits in 2017). So issuing debt definitely has its costs.
Also, government can issue new debt to refinance old one only as long as appetite for its debt exists in the market. Over the past decades that appetite has grown as population was getting older (the older you are the more bonds you want, the cheaper for treasury to issue debt) and as inflation expectation was getting lower. But now that our government owes so much money, refinancing that debt would become very hard if inflation expectation starts growing significantly. That would cause deficits to have a larger impact on interest rates.
This is what I used to believe but the real world doesn't seem to work this way. Deficits do have a role in the creation of new money, how big of a role is up to debate. If indeed, public deficits create private surpluses, this builds in a demand for the debt. I have heard it said that public debt equals private savings, I am sure it isn't quite that simple but I believe there is a lot of truth to that. Why does the government have to issue debt at all? Couldn't the government just issue more currency to cover budget shortfalls? The Dollar Bill says Federal Reserve Note. The currency in your pocket is really a zero percent loan.

The problem is that we equate households to governments. I am revenue constrained, I can spend only what I can earn, borrow, or take from my accumulated savings. I cannot create, at least legally, my own currency to pay bills. Governments can create currency whenever they want. In effect, when the Fed buys up Treasury instruments, it does exactly that.
Last edited by nedsaid on Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A fool and his money are good for business.
User avatar
SeeMoe
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:30 am
Location: Near Philly..

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by SeeMoe »

RAchip wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:18 pm "30 year Treasuries currently offer a yield of 2.85%"

I would be worried. The Vanguard prime MMF is yielding about 1.45% and rising rapidly. Who would tie up money for 30 years now at 2.85% when interest paid for fully liquid ultra short term is 1.45% and is not locked in? It makes no sense to me.
Good point made! I have felt the same and have been building up our Prime MM fund waiting to see how the year shakes out before doing any AA adjustments. 1.45% interest looks pretty good now vs 0.20% interest in our credit union MM fund.

SeeMoe.. :confused
"By gnawing through a dike, even a Rat can destroy a nation ." {Edmund Burke}
Bastiat
Posts: 205
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 11:07 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Bastiat »

nedsaid wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:07 am
Bastiat wrote: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:46 pm I'd just like to point out that some of what is being presented in this post as fact is in actuality conjecture that is not widely accepted by economists. Specifically: WWII being good for the global economy (broken window fallacy); Public deficit equals private surplus (ignores capital surplus); etc.

There isn't really such a thing as "textbook economics" in this area, just different schools of thought. You're presenting essentially the Keynesian view, but there's also the Austrian, Chicago, Monetarist, Classical, and many others. Keynesianism is not established fact.
Yes, the point of view that I described is probably neo-Keynesianism. I have posted on this issue many times and the fact is that no one theory or school of thought fully explains how the monetary system works.

As far as WWII being "good" for the economy, it certainly was good for the United States but not for Japan or Europe. There is no doubt that the War jolted the economy out of the Great Depression. I would not recommend war as an economic policy. It is just that it so happened that WWII stimulated our economy, that we were on the winning side, and that our economic capacity was not damaged during the war. Germany and Japan were just devastated, I am certain they have a different view of how the war affected their economy.

I am also not saying that governments can just spend with impunity and run deficits with no economic effect. The risk with too high of deficit spending is not with outright default but debasement of the currency through inflation. An argument can be made that inflation is technically default as you pay back debts with debased currency.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the views of Milton Friedman and the monetarists. The problem is that money supply is hard enough to define and even harder to control. It seems that the Fed gave up on money supply targets a while back ago. I am not even convinced 100% by the explanations of how money is created. My views lean conservative and not liberal, so one should be surprised that it seems like I am a Keynesian. What I will say is that Keynes was right about a lot of things and he made huge contributions to the understanding of economics. But Keynes had his limits and Keynesian economics don't explain everything. One example is that I believe that markets and not governments set prices.

I also have some sympathy with Austrian views, looking for behavioral explanations for economic activity and having skepticism of mathematical models. I believe much more in the efficiency of markets than in central planning.

The problem with economic views is that any good idea taken to an extreme breaks down pretty quickly. As much as I believe in free markets, I still want the Health Department to inspect the restaurants. Also with ideas, there seems to be a happy medium where things work best. It isn't so much that free markets are good and government is bad, it is that both have their roles in a modern economy and somewhere there is a balance between the two. Pretty much, politics decide which way and how far the pendulum swings.
There absolutely is doubt that WWII ended the Great Depression. Not only is there doubt, there are volumes of research which assert the opposite.

If war did increase real economic output, why wait around for a war? We could reinstitute the draft, build new weapons factories and ship yards, and bomb the desert in Nevada, or maybe the ocean, into submission. We could even build entire cities to destroy if bombing the desert doesn't raise output enough. If destruction was the cure in the 1950's surely that would raise employment and economic output, right? Except that's not how wealth is created. What all that actually does is divert capital and resources which would otherwise be used by the market in a more productive manner and destroy them. Wealth is created through trade and value creation, not destruction.
User avatar
packer16
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by packer16 »

Although Larry has some good advice & is a really nice guy, he has some weaknesses. He appears to be in the hunt for alternative assets to generate returns, just like the active managers he rails on. This quest IMO leads him to risky & expensive alternative which IMO have little or no place in a Boglehead type of portfolio. I could see if after his recommendation the funds he suggested provided equity like returns with less correlation. However, this is not the case.

First, lets start with SCV and the Larry Portfolio. This was published in 2011. So lets look at the returns of the 60/40 non-tilted portfolio to the 40/60 SCV tilted portfolio from 2012 to 2107. Both portfolio have about the same SD but the returns the tilted LP is 8.1% per year to 10.5% per year. So here we got the same risk & lower retuns thusfar.

Second, lets look at Commodities. Using the PCRIX fund as a proxy, the returns over the past 5 years have been -9.4% per year versus 15.6% per year for VFINX.

Third, lets look at the alternative fund recommended. These were beginning to be recommended in 2013, so lets use 2014 as the starting point. If you use a an average of SRRIX, QSPIX & LENDX (when it became available) what would the returns be from 2014 to 2017? By may calculations the returns would be 6.1% per year. How does this compare to equities & balanced portfolio? Equities have an 11.7% return per year & the balanced fund 7.9%. So what we are getting so far (similar to the SCV tilted portfolio & PCRIX above) is lower than equity returns & given the expense ratios of the alternatives holding a balanced fund would be better. Now if you add back the fess of these alternative funds they may become more interesting. Given how they are currently configured they are more like the fund Larry (& rightfully so) rails against high cost active funds.

From the above either a) Larry is terribly unlucky in his timing or b) the quest for equity like returns & lower risk is like looking for the fountain of youth, not really there in an ever more efficient market. The other note is the amount Larry has discussed allocating these strategies. Initially, I thought it was 5 to 10% which may not impact the portfolio very much one way or the other, however, the recommendation to go to 20% is more concerning as the past record here has not been good.

I also wonder how the expected returns are estimated as the actual returns have been so much lower than expectations in the past. Just my 2 cents.

Packer
Buy cheap and something good might happen
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13609
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by watchnerd »

Random Walker wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:58 am http://www.etf.com/sections/index-inves ... nopaging=1

In this article Larry discusses the widely held expectation that the Fed will increase rates during the coming year. He distinguished between knowledge and information. Information held by everyone else is of no value. Bond market is extremely efficient. Larry makes the point that some investors have increased their equity allocations in the face of low interest rates. It’s worked out well for them. But judging a strategy on outcome is a mistake; an alternative history could have easily played out. One should not let interest rates dictate one’s equity allocation.
At the end of the article Larry discusses how four alternative funds might fit into a portfolio. Currently equities have historically high valuations and low future expected returns. Many are concerned about rising interest rates causing a bond bear. These alternatives have expected returns about same as equities, SD about half that of equities, no correlation to stocks, bonds, or to each other. One can create an alternatives position by taking from equities, bonds, or some of both. It one takes from equities, portfolio expected return about constant, volatility decreased, Sharpe ratio increased. If one takes from bonds, portfolio expected return increased, volatility increased to a lesser extent, Sharpe ratio increase expected. In both cases portfolio efficiency improves.
Larry’s new edition of Black Swans is coming out soon, and he will surely go into some good detail on the potential improved portfolio efficiency obtained through these alternatives.

Dave
The expense ratios on those funds Larry is recommending are scandalous.

How is this stuff a good fit for Bogleheads?
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
Topic Author
Random Walker
Posts: 5561
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Random Walker »

watchnerd wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:16 am
Random Walker wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:58 am http://www.etf.com/sections/index-inves ... nopaging=1

In this article Larry discusses the widely held expectation that the Fed will increase rates during the coming year. He distinguished between knowledge and information. Information held by everyone else is of no value. Bond market is extremely efficient. Larry makes the point that some investors have increased their equity allocations in the face of low interest rates. It’s worked out well for them. But judging a strategy on outcome is a mistake; an alternative history could have easily played out. One should not let interest rates dictate one’s equity allocation.
At the end of the article Larry discusses how four alternative funds might fit into a portfolio. Currently equities have historically high valuations and low future expected returns. Many are concerned about rising interest rates causing a bond bear. These alternatives have expected returns about same as equities, SD about half that of equities, no correlation to stocks, bonds, or to each other. One can create an alternatives position by taking from equities, bonds, or some of both. It one takes from equities, portfolio expected return about constant, volatility decreased, Sharpe ratio increased. If one takes from bonds, portfolio expected return increased, volatility increased to a lesser extent, Sharpe ratio increase expected. In both cases portfolio efficiency improves.
Larry’s new edition of Black Swans is coming out soon, and he will surely go into some good detail on the potential improved portfolio efficiency obtained through these alternatives.

Dave
The expense ratios on those funds Larry is recommending are scandalous.

How is this stuff a good fit for Bogleheads?
For people who believe in modern portfolio theory and diversification they can be a good fit. For people who do not believe in market timing or individual security selection they can be a good fit. For people who believe in passive access to unique, independent, uncorrelated sources of risk and return, they can be a good fit.

Dave
User avatar
watchnerd
Posts: 13609
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Gig Harbor, WA, USA

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by watchnerd »

Random Walker wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:38 am


For people who believe in modern portfolio theory and diversification they can be a good fit. For people who do not believe in market timing or individual security selection they can be a good fit. For people who believe in passive access to unique, independent, uncorrelated sources of risk and return, they can be a good fit.

Dave
I believe MPT, MVO, factor investing, and risk parity matching. I don't see how that makes a >2% ER defensible.
Global stocks, IG/HY bonds, gold & digital assets at market weights 75% / 19% / 6% || LMP: TIPS ladder
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Posts: 32839
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Taylor Larimore »

Bogleheads:

The longer I live the more I respect the words of Harvard economics professor John Kenneth Galbraith who wrote: “The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.”

Best wishes
Taylor
Jack Bogle's Words of WIsdom: "After nearly 50 years in this business, I do not know of anybody who has done market timing successfully and consistently. I don't even know anybody who knows anybody who has done it successfully and consistently."
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52105
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by nisiprius »

I am going to ask myself a question. I do not know the answer yet. I will post the answer however it turns out.

There is a new book by Larry Swedroe and Kevin Grogan, Your Complete Guide to a Successful & Secure Retirement. I have not read it. I haven't even looked at the Amazon "look inside the book" preview. It has gotten good reviews. I am going to go buy the Kindle version and download it, and then I am going to skim it to see what it has to say about

--QSPIX (mutual fund);

--AVRIX, LENDX, and SRRIX (not mutual funds, but "interval funds" with redemption restrictions);

--alternatives in general

--commodities in particular

--expense ratios in general.

And, the answer:

Yes, QSPRX (different share class of QSPIX), AVRIX, LENDX, and SRRIX are identified as "our preferred vehicles" for achieving worthwhile improvements in portfolio diversification.

Apart from their use in those funds, not much is said about commodities ("there is only one asset that we would recommend excluding from most portfolios if they must be held in taxable accounts -- commodities.") I didn't see any mention of PCRIX or pure commodities (actually collateralized commodity futures) funds. Ditto alternatives; the four "preferred vehicles" are discussed in some detail, others are not.

Expense ratios are mentioned mostly to urge investors to consider factor exposure and not just expense ratio--VISVX (0.19% or 0.07%) and DFSVX (0.52%) are compared, for example, with the remark that "the higher costs of the Dimensional fund have been more than offset by their greater exposure to the factors and their focus on adding value by minimizing the negatives of pure indexing." I don't see any specific discussion of the extraordinary expense ratios of QSPRX, AVRIX, LENDX, and SRRIX, or any rules of thumb for what is or is not an acceptable expense ratio.

Morningstar currently accepts the legitimacy of calculating an "adjusted" expense ratio of 1.470% instead of 2.240% for QSPRX, but categorizes its fee level as "high."

Image

The book discusses "structured portfolios," a term I hadn't heard before, and says that "structured portfolios incorporate the benefits of indexing, while at the same time minimizing its negative," and proceeds to list nine "weaknesses of indexing:"
  1. Sensitivity to risk factors varies over time.
  2. Forced transactions result in higher trading costs.
  3. Risk of exploitation through front-running
  4. Inclusion of all stocks in the index
  5. Limited ability to pursue tax-saving strategies
  6. Ability to preserve qualified dividends
  7. Limit securities lending revenue to the expense ratio
  8. Inability to incorporate an additional screen for additional factors such as momentum
  9. Accepting the risk of tracking error.
(Those are the authors' phrasing. I assume that #9 means that a weakness of indexing is foregoing the potential return that can be realized by accepting the risk of tracking error.)
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
lazyday
Posts: 3849
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:27 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by lazyday »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:26 amnine "weaknesses of indexing:" ...

2. Forced transactions result in higher trading costs.
3. Risk of exploitation through front-running
These might be serious downsides of indexing for funds such as EM Smallcap. But it shouldn't matter for total market funds.
6. Ability to preserve qualified dividends
Wonder what's meant here. I'd think a well run index fund would avoid converting a qualified dividend into a nonqualified one?
7. Limit securities lending revenue to the expense ratio
I didn't know that. Why can't the revenue exceed the ER?
User avatar
danielc
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:48 am
Location: Iowa, USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by danielc »

Random Walker wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 9:58 am One should not let interest rates dictate one’s equity allocation.

At the end of the article Larry discusses how four alternative funds might fit into a portfolio.
I think Larry is contradicting himself here: "Interest rates should not dictate your equity allocation, but since interest rates are low, how about you replace some of your equities with these alternate funds?"

In any case, I am concerned that Larry doesn't explain what those four funds are, or why we should expect them to have "equity-like returns with a quarter of the volatility". What's the catch? What are these funds? What new risks do I have to accept in exchange for the lower volatility? All Larry says is that some of those four funds are interval funds and he really glosses over the downsides of interval funds. I remember a recent poster who was talked into buying one of those funds and was horrified to see that his money was trapped in the fund, and it would take him 5 or 10 years (I forget which) to get his money out of the fund. In his article, Larry said "you don’t have daily liquidity". I don't think that that is an accurate or fair description of "you'll need a concerted effort for 5 years if you want to get out". When I read "you don't have daily liquidity" my mental image is that it might take a week to sell.
User avatar
danielc
Posts: 1079
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2017 3:48 am
Location: Iowa, USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by danielc »

Portfolio Visualizer can't even find data for the three funds from Stone Ridge. And the AQR Style Premia Alternative Fund (QSPRX) has had vastly lower returns and higher volatility than a simple 60/40 stock/bond portfolio since 2013 (that's all the data that portfolio visualizer has). Seriously, what the heck is QSPRX buying?

Code: Select all

              QSPIX     50/50 VTI/BND
CAGR           1.39%     7.54%
Stdev          6.83%     5.91%
Max Down     -20.83%    -6.89%
Sharpe         0.11      1.12
Sortino        0.16      1.83
Leesbro63
Posts: 10581
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Leesbro63 »

I've been following Larry Swedroe and the threads about this strategies, on here, for years...with one eye, basically. He tilts and sometimes makes unique fund recommendations etc. I'm just wondering, after all these years, has his "slightly oddball" strategy/strategies really made sense? Versus just a standard 60/40 to 40/60 "traditional" portfolio? He seems like one of the good guys, but always with a "I know just a little more" message. Does he?
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95466
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by LadyGeek »

I removed a political policy discussion from 2018. As a reminder, see: Non-actionable (Trolling) Topics
If readers can't do anything with the content of a topic other than argue about it, it does not belong here. Examples include:
  • US or world economic, political, tax, health care and climate policies
  • conspiracy theories of any type
  • discussions of the crimes, shortcomings or stupidity of other people, whether they be political figures, celebrities, CEOs, Fed chairmen, subprime mortgage borrowers, lottery winners, federal "bailout" recipients, poor people, rich people, etc. Of course, you are welcome to talk about the stupid financial things you have done.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
Topic Author
Random Walker
Posts: 5561
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Random Walker »

Danielc,
Long time since I read this specific essay, but Larry has written pretty extensively about the Alts in the past. There are etf.com and advisor perspectives essays on these. Perhaps the best place to look is in the second edition of his Black Swan book.

Dave
Topic Author
Random Walker
Posts: 5561
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:21 pm

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Random Walker »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:57 pm I've been following Larry Swedroe and the threads about this strategies, on here, for years...with one eye, basically. He tilts and sometimes makes unique fund recommendations etc. I'm just wondering, after all these years, has his "slightly oddball" strategy/strategies really made sense? Versus just a standard 60/40 to 40/60 "traditional" portfolio? He seems like one of the good guys, but always with a "I know just a little more" message. Does he?
Brings up the issue of strategy versus outcome. Lots of potential histories might play out in the future or might have played out in the past. The last decade has been amazing for US large cap growth. So 60/40 TSM portfolio has been a winner. I think the goal is to develop a strategy that is as robust as possible to a wide variety of potential histories, only one of which will actually play out. Costs of these strategies are certain, and the benefits relative to more conventional portfolios only potential. If a portfolio is well diversified, probably some component is doing poorly at any given time.

Dave
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by willthrill81 »

Random Walker wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:56 pm
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 2:57 pm I've been following Larry Swedroe and the threads about this strategies, on here, for years...with one eye, basically. He tilts and sometimes makes unique fund recommendations etc. I'm just wondering, after all these years, has his "slightly oddball" strategy/strategies really made sense? Versus just a standard 60/40 to 40/60 "traditional" portfolio? He seems like one of the good guys, but always with a "I know just a little more" message. Does he?
Brings up the issue of strategy versus outcome. Lots of potential histories might play out in the future or might have played out in the past. The last decade has been amazing for US large cap growth. So 60/40 TSM portfolio has been a winner. I think the goal is to develop a strategy that is as robust as possible to a wide variety of potential histories, only one of which will actually play out. Costs of these strategies are certain, and the benefits relative to more conventional portfolios only potential. If a portfolio is well diversified, probably some component is doing poorly at any given time.

Dave
While I have my doubts with some of the alts that Larry recommends, I entirely agree that we should always be careful to not confuse strategy with outcome. We shouldn't say that it was a mistake to buy homeowner's insurance for 2019 if our house didn't burn down or get blown away. If we knew the future, then obviously the correct strategy would be to only buy insurance when you knew that you would make a profitable claim, but we clearly can't do that. The same is true of investment strategies.
The Sensible Steward
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15288
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Northern Flicker »

Seriously, what the heck is QSPRX buying?
From the AQR website:

The Fund invests long and short across five different asset groups (stocks & industries, equity indices, fixed income, currencies and commodities) and four investment styles (Value, Momentum, Carry and Defensive), and aims to be market neutral.
Consider the value style. A long-short portfolio would be long a value stock portfolio, and would short the market to hedge out exposure to market beta. Thus provides a pure play on the value premium and reduces correlation to the whole market because the market is hedged out. The other styles have analogous implementations.

The difficulty is that market beta is the most significant part of a stock’s return. Paying a high ER to hedge out the largest magnitude source of return can be an exercise in swimming upstream.

But in all fairness, the market over the last 10 years has been one of historically low volatility. Alt products are designed to smooth out volatility and returns during periods of normal-to-high volatility. On the other hand, what we experienced is what the market gave us, and it is one of the types of outcomes one must consider when designing a portfolio.
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by larryswedroe »

Just to be helpful here re the comment about scandalous fees.

I completely agree that if funds like LENDX and SRRIX were buying publicly available securities the fees charged would be scandalous. Reason is that a passive buy the market strategy should be cheap to run. However, these funds are nothing like that. They are more like the equivalent of an investment in private equity with LENDX running a bank and SRRIX running a reinsurance company. And once you view it from that perspective the fees are much more appropriate. Would I like to see them lower? Of course. But there is little competition, and what is important is are you receiving value (expected returns) for the risk taking. Obviously I believe so as I have personally very significant investments in both. And of course as a fiduciary advisor I have no incentive to recommend them other than believing they are in best interest of investors (no payment for recommending them).

But here's another example of the mistake of only looking at fund ER. LENDX has competitor River North. It charges 1.5% vs. 1.94% for LENDX. But River North charges on leveraged assets, while LENDX charges only on investor assets. With leverage of 30%, that 1.94% becomes less than 1.4%, or less than River North's fees. But also because of LENDX's scale it allows them to negotiate much lower servicing fees, which would bring the relative cost to 1% or less, relative to RN. And a 1% fee for running a bank IMO is reasonable. Note since inception the fund has performed very well, with very low volatility and very high SR.

Similarly, SRRIX is running a reinsurance company and it's costs when you understand the nature of the quota share business are actually comparable to those of the reinsurers they negotiate the agreements with, allowing similar ROE. If you know the business you can construct an income statement and calculate the ROE. Remember reinsurers have costs too for running their business (as do banks) only you don't see the ER, no bill for it. Here you do. SRRIX unfortunately after good early years has had three poor years due to high losses with natural disasters, the same losses the reinsurers experienced as SRRIX basically partners with them via quota shares. That's the nature of risk. It's uncorrelated as those disasters don't cause bear markets, and vice versa. And it has a high risk premium due to the tail risk, which showed up. Now the expected return is much higher because premiums have jumped dramatically and headed higher.

LENDX and SRRIX are products that were once the exclusive domain of private equity with much higher fees, like 2/20 but the interval fund structure allowed SR to make them available to the public (with limited liquidity because you are investing in illiquid investments). What one should consider is are you getting value for the fee paid, not the fee paid itself. And these funds are much cheaper than investing in the space through hedge funds which are their competitors.

Hope that is helpful. If one has questions can always email me at lswedroe@bamadvisor.com
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15288
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Northern Flicker »

If you know the business you can construct an income statement and calculate the ROE. Remember reinsurers have costs too for running their business (as do banks) only you don't see the ER, no bill for it. Here you do.
This seems reasonable as long as when a reinsurer sells a slice of their actuarial book of business m, the buyer of that slice of business is getting the same revenue the reinsurer would have received if they just kept the business. I am unable to evaluate that, and unable to evaluate whether the ER of SRRIX is a fair cost for getting access to these businesses.

I am also unable to evaluate whether the reinsurers may be exploiting their deeper knowledge of their actuarial risk profile and selling off a slice of it when it had suboptimal risk diversification to raise cash to acquire new business that improved the risk management for them. This is an asymmetry that does not favor the buyer of the slice of business. Of course, SSRIX is buying slices of reinsurance with risk exposure diversified globally and from many reinsurers.

However, does SSRIX employ actuaries to evaluate the portfolio from an overall risk perspective to ensure good diversification? I’ve not been able to answer that question when looking at their materials. At some point, I just have to say that there are some investments I won’t be able to understand well enough to pursue.

LENDX holds no interest for me because it would likely create more correlated risk in our portfolio than it would diversify. This raises another point. When an investment professional designs a portfolio with use of some alts, the portfolio is (hopefully) well designed to provide attractive portfolio variance based on uncorrelated risks. This does not mean that a particular alt investment has some intrinsically special property that will automatically improve any portfolio to which it is added.

But I do have a hard time with the AQR ERs. The strong negative carry effectively makes the hedging expensive.
larryswedroe
Posts: 16022
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 7:28 am
Location: St Louis MO

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by larryswedroe »

Northern, let's try to address your points
First, SRRIX basically buys quota shares in which they buy a prorata share of all the risks of the reinsurer of the types of risks they seek (like hurricane, earthquake, marine transportation, etc). So there is no "cherry picking" etc. going on. And though they have people who have worked on the other side, you don't really need actuaries in the same way when you buy a TSM fund you don't need to know anything about the stocks you are buying. In this case you are relying on the underwriters of the reinsurer who is ceding risks to you. SRRIX does not attempt , like hedge funds in this space do, to guess which are the best risks, believing their underwriters are better. Of course that also allows SRRIX to have lower costs (their costs are much lower than those of reinsurers).

As to same revenue, they don't get exactly the same revenue, because the reinsurers (and SR) recognize that SR has none of the origination expenses and none of the underwriting expenses, and doesn't have the costs of a public company and costs of regulators, etc. So when they negotiate a quota share SR would "cede back" some of the premium. Being a big player and major strategic capital partner to the reinsurers it is able to negotiate lower percentages ceded back, and stronger overall terms. And because SRRIX cannot lose more than its invested capital, it doesn't take all the risks either, the reinsurer will retain the far tail risk. So think of it as a "stack" where the original insurance company takes the first level of losses, the reinsurer and SRRIX share the next layer, and then the reinsurer has the tail risk. That is why they don't get 100% of the premium related to the risks they take.

And as you note SRRIX is partnering with multiple reinsurers and has a highly diversified portfolio both geographically and by type.
When you go through all the math SRRIX has a very simple expected ROE as the reinsurer itself. Note also that SRRIX buys quota shares which tend to be deeper in the money "puts" than are CAT bonds. Thus like with deeper in money puts the expected return is much higher. But when losses occur they take bigger hit. So SR's similar funds which buys CAT bonds, actually has done well and is I think the number 1 performing fund in its space, despite the "scandalous" fees. The reason is that the losses have not been quite big enough to hit the CAT bond space. But the expected return to SRRIX is probably about 4% or so higher than for SHRIX.

BTW, how the math of the premiums work is not very different than reinsurers themselves who buy premiums from insurers who have much higher expenses, including the commissions they pay to agents, etc. But they don't engage in quota shares. They bid for the business the insurer is selling.

As to LENDX, while LENDX definitely has some economic cycle risk, which is part of reason for the premium, it has very low correlation on average to stocks because markets can crash without economy crashing. Think fourth quarter of last year, summer of 98 when had LTCM and Asian Contagion, and Greek crisis, and others. US economy did well but stocks got hammered. And the vol is exceptionally low (about 4% we think) because the fund avoids non prime loans and thus even in a 2008 when UE hit 10%, because stronger credits have more stable jobs (that's how you get strong credit) we estimate based on the data from credit card losses during the period the fund would have lost in mid to high single digits, vs. stocks losing many multiples of that. And because of very short duration, just over 1 year you basically eliminate inflation risks. So trading off some economic cycle risk (much less than for stocks) for less inflation risks, and big premium, say 4-5% over cash. That means a SR of more than 1, where SR of stocks is about .4 historically. Now SR isn't everything because that doesn't include loss of daily liquidity. But in IRA where you would hold this, you don't need liquidity!

As to AQR fund, don't know what you mean by negative carry as an expense.

I hope that is helpful
Larry
Northern Flicker
Posts: 15288
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 12:29 am

Re: Larry Swedroe: Rising Rates Increase Worries

Post by Northern Flicker »

As to LENDX, while LENDX definitely has some economic cycle risk, which is part of reason for the premium, it has very low correlation on average to stocks because markets can crash without economy crashing.
I’m more concerned with correlation to some of our fixed income assets.

With the AQR fund you are paying to hedge out market risk. The ER is much higher than it would be to hold the long asset classes. That excess ER is equivalent to a higher negative carry for the hedging.

As to SSRIX I was not suggesting cherry picking the business but the timing of when the reinsurer chooses to sell a full slice of their book of business. The reinsurer decides when to sell and they have detailed actuarial knowledge of the portfolio. They can sell full slices when it is suboptimal to raise cash to rebalance the risk with new business. Suppose they have a large liability on their actuarial balance sheet that they believe has become more risky. That is a great time to sell a slice of their full business to SSRIX.

Ceding back some of the premium in the contract also makes it a nonstarter for me— not transparent enough.
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Posts: 32839
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Gems -- A look back to see what worked--and what didn't

Post by Taylor Larimore »

Bogleheads:

As many Bogleheads know, I have read many books and have extracted valuable quotes from the best books to help Bogleheads succeed. I call these quotes "Gems."

We can look back at older books and see what worked and what didn't. This is one of my favorite books written in 2003 by Larry Swedroe: "The Successful Investor Today--14 Simple Truths You Must Know When You Invest."

Best wishes.
Taylor
Jack Bogle's Words of Wisdom: "Knowledge is power, but only up to a point. -- Investors must be extremely selective as to where and how they spend their time collecting information.
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
Post Reply