4/25 Kelly Letter Topics
Weekly market review
Earnings season
SEC GS politics
Fin reform toothless
Money always talks
Greece still sinking
Japan's sliding credit
AAPL > MSFT
Falling bullishness
Grant on fin reform
Unwinding hedges
Who will buy JGBs?
Tempur-Pedic
Of snow and stocks
2010 EDITION
Much has changed; good investing has not
The Neatest Little Guide to Stock Market Investing, 2010 Edition
I advocate the use of leveraged index vehicles in my stock book and newsletter, such as those offered by ProFunds, ProShares, and Rydex.
Since I first did so five years ago, the strategy has been under attack. The point of attack is always the volatility of the strategies. The inevitable conclusion of the skeptic is that a severe bear market will wipe out the entire investment.
Anything that magnifies performance on the up and down sides will by definition be more volatile than the underlying investment. If you own an ETF or fund that returns 200% of the Dow, then your portfolio will be twice as volatile as the Dow.
Some people equate volatility with risk. It is one kind of risk, but not the only kind and usually not the most important kind. Say you're 30 years away from retirement. A bank savings account will not fluctuate at all during those 30 years. It will return a few percentage points of interest each year and not for one moment will the balance drop below what you put into the account. It exhibits zero volatility and is therefore not risky at all by this measure.
However, you are guaranteed to miss your retirement goals in that account. The money will not grow enough to meaningfully outpace inflation. In that sense, the bank account is the riskiest choice of all because it comes with a 100% chance of failure to reach your retirement goals.
Volatility, the rise and fall of prices, is not inherently bad. If it ultimately takes your capital to heights not possible without the volatility, then it was worth the rollercoaster ride. Married to the right indexes, leverage and its attendant volatility is an excellent long-term path to wealth.
It works best when combined with dollar-cost averaging. That's simply sending more money on a regular basis, usually monthly or quarterly. That approach, which happens to be the way most people actually invest, works best with a strategy that is volatile. Why? Because the change in prices is what enables the periodic investments to buy more shares when the price is cheap and fewer when it's expensive. The automatic result is that the investor ends up with more cheap shares than expensive and benefits when the investment finally rises overall. Stated differently, the average cost of his or her shares is lower than the average cost of the fund or ETF during a given time period.
This can all go terribly wrong if the investment drops to zero and has therefore no chance of recovery, or just drops very low and does not recover. With carefully chosen indexes to leverage, however, these risks diminish. They don't disappear, but they diminish.
Let's look at one example. In the 2008 edition of my Neatest Little Guide to Stock Market Investing, I mention that I like the S&P Midcap 400 index because it tends to rise more than the Dow in good times and fall less in bad times. Look at this chart of the two indexes since August 1991 and you'll see what I mean.
The period from 1991 to today included one of the worst bear markets in history, that being the dot com bubble burst that took the Nasdaq down some 80%. That's key to this analysis because critics always point to an awful bear market as the reason that leveraged strategies are doomed to failure.
Even a buy and hold approach to leveraging the S&P Midcap 400 worked fine in this case, however. Let's take a big-picture look at how 200% leverage against the index worked over this time period:
08/91 to 01/94: +88%
01/94 to 06/94: -23%
06/94 to 05/96: +96%
05/96 to 07/96: -25%
07/96 to 04/98: +157%
04/98 to 08/98: -50%
08/98 to 08/00: +186%
08/00 to 03/03: -59%
03/03 to 04/06: +220%
04/06 to 07/06: -23%
07/06 to 10/07: +55%
Had you invested $10,000 in the strategy back in August 1991, you would have $122,459 today. Had you invested in the S&P Midcap 400 index without any leverage, you would have only $71,339. While the strategy did not actually double the index, it did beat it by a wide margin.
Keep in mind that this is buy and hold at work through one of the worst bear markets in history. However, had you been smart enough to keep sending more money each month during those -23%, -25%, -50%, -59%, and -23% times, you would have done considerably better than buy-and-hold alone.
If you were just a tad smarter still and decided to double your monthly contributions whenever the strategy was down by more than 20%, you'd have done better still.
The point to remember is this: extreme volatility coupled with assured recovery is a potent combination. It's what gives you the confidence needed to send more money to something that is down 59%. You cannot have that confidence in an individual stock because there's a good chance that it won't recover or at least won't do so in a reasonable amount of time.
With an index, though, the situation is different. Indexes always recover. All 30 megacaps on the Dow, all 500 large caps on the S&P 500, all 400 midcaps on the S&P Midcap 400 are not going to go bankrupt at the same time. The indexes will have turbulent months and years, as the above history shows, but they will rise to new heights eventually. Confidence in that is what gives an investor the courage needed to pony up more capital during dark months.
To Kelly Letter subscribers, this is old hat. We monitor this approach and use it constantly. It's been very good to us.
Just recently the familiar saga played out again. During the sub-prime scare last summer, our Maximum Midcap strategy fell 23% from mid-July to mid-August. The predictable "I told you so" mail came pouring in as the headlines darkened around the credit crunch, systemic crisis, worst housing market in decades, and so on.
What did we do? Invested more money with full confidence that the index and our strategy would one day fully recover, as they always have.
Since the August lows, the strategy is already up 21%.
Barron's unveiled the Barron's 400, or B400, a new index of 400 companies deemed to offer the best growth at a reasonable price.
In partnership with MarketGrader in Miami, Barron's selects from the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 with a formula that looks at growth, value, profitability, and cash flow. The growth category examines the surprise record, revenue-growth rate, short- and long-term sales and earnings-growth rates, and relative strength. Earnings momentum is defined as a stock's reaction to its earnings reports, a new twist. The value category looks at the usual ratios such as debt-to-equity, price-to-book, price-to-cash-flow, and such.
Then, according to last weekend's Barron's:
Once all the stocks in the DJ Wilshire 5000 have their grades, they are ranked. Then a series of screens is applied. Real-estate investment trusts are eliminated. The number of entries from any one industry is capped at 20%, or 80 companies out of the 400. Any company without officially reported financials in the past six months is booted.
To ensure sufficient stock liquidity, each selection must have a minimum three-month average daily dollar-trading volume of $2 million. The minimum market-capitalization of all components is $250 million, and at least 25% of the components must have a market value of at least $3 billion.
Once all those tests are satisfied, the highest-ranking 400 stocks become the Barron's 400. Importantly, each stock is initially weighted equally in the index. This prevents a small minority of huge companies from steering the index. Research shows that equally weighted indexes tend to outperform market-cap weighted ones over market cycles. The B400, which was indexed to 100 as of Dec. 31, 1997, is currently at 321.04.
Every six months, on the third Friday of March and September, the whole process is rerun to incorporate more-recent financial results and market action, and the index is revised accordingly based on the fresh rankings.
It will be fun to watch the B400, but I do so with low expectations. It's not that Barron's is unworthy or the process flawed, just that almost all new twists on indexing in the past ten years or so have been run in similar ways. Indexes are just screens, after all, and some pretty good ones have existed for longer than any of us have been alive.
Here at The Kelly Letter, we're big believers in indexes as the foundation of our permanent portfolios. What I've found every time I've followed new indexes, such as those at PowerShares, is that they're not enough better than the old tried and true indexes to make it worth switching over. Usually, they're not better at all.
For instance, the PowerShares Dynamic Mid Cap Portfolio (PJG) is, according to PowerShares, "based on the Dynamic Mid Cap Intellidex Index. The Index is designed to objectively identify those stocks within a particular market segment that have the greatest potential for capital appreciation. Intellidex methodology thoroughly evaluates the investment merit of the 2,000 largest U.S. companies by analyzing numerous unique financial characteristics from four broad financial perspectives: fundamental, valuation, timeliness, and risk."
That should sound familiar: another stock screen. It's supposed to produce an index better than the S&P MidCap 400, the proxy for our Maximum Midcap strategy.
Since its inception a year ago, PJG has failed to keep up with the S&P MidCap 400 and has been a miserable failure compared with Maximum Midcap, even after the summer correction to Max Midcap's price.
One day I may develop an indexing methodology that I tie to a leveraged product like what we use in our permanent portfolios, but I would start with the work done by James O'Shaughnessy, author of What Works On Wall Street. In the 2008 edition of my stock book, I look at his latest information and present it in short, formula form. I consider that to be more compelling than MarketGrader's work.
Regarding MarketGrader, the system might be exciting -- if only it worked. Try using it for your investment timing decisions and you'll be broke in no time.
Consider, for instance, how it guided investors on The Kelly Letter's AMD holding.
When AMD traded at $34 in spring 2006, MarketGrader's StockGrader assigned it a Buy rating. The stock had to drop to $25 before it changed that to Sell, but it then upped it to Hold when it poked up above $25 again a year ago.
We had been watching all that time from the low $30s with an initial target price of $20, which we then lowered dollar by dollar until finally buying the stock below $14 earlier this year. StockGrader didn't wise up to the short-term damage ahead for AMD until October 2006, when the stock again fell through $25 on its way to the teens.
This brilliant system that told us to buy AMD back at $34 when we later had the chance to buy it at $14, is the one Barron's is relying on to put together the B400.
Now, just by virtue of the index being a group of stocks, it will probably do pretty well. The problem is, that's not revolutionary, or even new. Charles Dow had that idea over a hundred years ago, and his humble little average is still one of the best for tracking large company stocks -- with a mere 30 components.
I'll keep an eye on the B400 in case they're on to something, but my hopes aren't high. So far this year, for instance, the B400 is up 5.4% compared to 11.6% for Double The Dow and 10.2% for Maximum Midcap.
When the sustained end-of-year recovery takes hold, watch our doubling strategies soar yet again past all comers, as they always have to date and look set to continue doing.
