A few years ago Vanguard performed a study to see how the Barclays Aggregate Bond Index would be affected by an overnight 3% rise in interest rates (something that has never actually occurred). They calculated what would happen if rates suddenly rose from 2.1% to 5.1% and showed the impact going out 5 years:
You can see the immediate loss would be around 13% (they also noted that the worst 12 month loss ever in bonds was -13.9% in 1974). But because the yield on bonds would now be much higher, the expected return going forward would now be around 5.1% annually, meaning the breakeven would be just over 3 years. So not exactly a crash of epic proportions.
REITs have been the darling asset class for the last few years, they out performed all other asset classes in 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015 and the first half of 2016. After being up 13.7% through June 30th of this year they have almost entirely wiped out that gain and are about to go negative for the year.
The Vanguard REIT ETF which tracks the MSCI US REIT index is currently yielding 3.92%, not much of a premium over the riskless US 10 year Treasury at 2.35%.
REITs have benefitted from investor’s search (reach) for yield and low borrowing rates on properties. That could be coming to an end with the rise in the 10 year Treasury, a looming rate hike by the Federal Reserve in December, and rising defaults on commercial mortgages.
Buyer beware, we could be looking at a repeat of the Master Limited Partnership (MLP) debacle in the second half of 2015.
Head over to the Mebfaber.com website and listen to a master class on factor investing (smart beta). Two of the best quantitative researchers on the subject do a deep dive into their findings and how most investors don’t implement the strategy correctly.
Larry believes there are 5 rules to help you evaluate factors: 1) Is the factor “persistent” across long periods of times and regimes? 2) Is it “pervasive”? For instance, does it works across industries, regions, capital structures and so on. 3) Is it “robust”? Does it hold up on its own, and not as a result of data mining? 4) Is it “intuitive”? For instance, is there an explanation? 5) Lastly, it has to be “implementable,” and able to survive trading costs.
The guys then switch to beta. Larry mentions how valuations have been rising over the last century. He references how CAPE has risen over a long period, and points out how some people believe this signifies a bubble. But Larry thinks this rising valuation is reasonable, and tells us why. Meb adds that investors are willing to pay a higher multiple on stocks in low-interest rate environments such as the one we’re in.Next, Meb directs the conversation toward a sacred cow of investing – dividends. He asks about one particular quote from Larry’s book: “Dividends are not a factor.” Larry pulls no punches, saying, “there is literally no logical reason for anyone to have a preference for dividends…” He believes investors over overpaying for dividend stocks today. He thinks it’s unfortunate the Fed has pushed investors to search for yield, inadvertently taking on far more risk. Dividend stocks are not alternatives to safe income. There’s plenty more on this topic you’ll want to hear.
This is from the Wall Street Journal this week and it is absurd. Millennials are missing out on the greatest edge they have investing – time.
Source: Start Now
|Asset Class||Index||Performance YTD 2016|
|Emerging Markets||MSCI EM||13.8%|
|REITs||NAREIT Equity REIT Index||13.13%|
|High Yield Bonds||Barclays Global HY Index||14.49%|
|US Bonds||Barclays Aggregate||5.8%|
|US Large Cap||S&P 500||7.84%|
|Commodities||Bloombery Commodity Index||8.63%|
|Developed Intl. Markets||MSCI EAFE||-.85%|
|US Small Cap||Russell 2000||11.46%|
A split “wouldn’t change the intrinsic value of the company and doesn’t provide any real benefit,”
“we want shareholders who focus on the investment itself, rather than on the currency it’s denominated in.”
I’m not the only one who thinks the combination of Tesla (TSLA) and SolarCity (SCTY) is “ludicrous“. Aswath Damodaran, a Professor of Finance at NYU and one of the leading experts in corporate valuations, has taken a hard look at the valuation used by the bankers in order to justify the deal and come away outraged at the hijinks of the process.
In fact, it is far easier to make the case for reverse synergy here, since adding a debt-laden company with a questionable operating business (Solar City) to one that has promise but will need cash to deliver seems to be asking for trouble.