Seeking Alpha

Joseph L. Shaefer's  Instablog

Joseph L. Shaefer
Send Message
Joseph L. Shaefer is the CEO and Chief Investment Officer of Stanford Wealth Management, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor. Joe retired as a senior executive at Charles Schwab and Co. to found Stanford Wealth Management, LLC, in 1990. He also spent 36 years in a very different leadership... More
My company:
Stanford Wealth Management LLC
My blog:
The Investor's Edge
My book:
Bringing Home the Gold
  • Wall Street’s (Fractured) Fairy Tales: #1 -- Buy & Hold is The Best Strategy 4 comments
    Jul 16, 2009 2:02 PM | about stocks: DE, SYT, LNN, IMO, CHK, XOM, BHP, VALE, GGN, BND, AGG, TIP, SHY, TUZ, SKF, SRS, SBB, EUM, PSQ, SH, DOG

     

     


    Like so much that comes from the crooked smile of Wall Street, there is just enough truth in this statement to make it sound credible.

     

    First, it is true that “over time,” buy and hold works out for 30-year periods (before taking inflation into account, anyway.)  And it works for most 20-year periods.  Of course, as John Maynard Keynes observed wryly, “In the long run we are all dead.”  If you’re 65 and living on a fixed income, it is rather a small comfort to know that, while you may now be eating cat food until you die, in the long term your children will inherit a portfolio that someday gets back above ground zero.

     

    Second, Wall Street’s PR machine always crows that they believe in “long-term investing.”  However.  What they teach their brokers in training is to sell.  After I left active duty and before discount brokering was allowed, I worked in the full-commission business.  Our branch manager wore 3-piece suits, spoke earnestly, shook hands forcefully, and took clients out on his yacht to impress them with how well they could do by investing with our firm.

     

    Dr. Jekyll became Mr. Hyde, however, the moment the clients were gone.  “There’s an extra dime a share in this dog for anyone who dumps more than 1000 shares in the next hour,” he’d howl, referring to some IPO or secondary the firm had gotten stuck with.  “Churn and burn” was the name of the game and the marching orders were to sell whatever had gone up (“you can’t go broke taking a profit”) or to sell whatever  had gone down “to move into something better.”  The goal was turnover.  Wall Street says one thing in their literature (“Invest for the long term”) but another to their brokers (“The more you turn, the more you earn.”) 

     

    Finally, you’ll note when they say, “Buy and hold is the best strategy,” they don’t say for whom the strategy is best...  It is the  best strategy for them so they can day-trade without a bunch of amateurs getting in the way!  Wall Street knows they can’t fool everyone into being churned, so they have found a win-win for themselves from among those who buy and hold.  By providing them your cash balances, and your stocks they can loan to other firms or use to lever their assets, they can comfortably program-trade, buying and selling in nanoseconds all day long.  (See here for more on program trading.)

     

    If buy and hold is so desirable, why are there no long-term holdings in Wall Street’s portfolio?  “Long-term” to Wall Street is: the public sells shares in despair all day.  At 3 p.m. we equal their earlier volume by buying wildly on the 30 (or for the S&P) 50 or so stocks with the ability to move the market indexes the most.  Then when the pigeons decide they’re missing something and want to buy, we sell what we just bought right back to them.

     

    Yep, buy and hold is very good for Wall Street.  But is it good for you and me?

     

    Maybe.  If you have the luxury of taking a truly long view – like you’re twenty years old and these funds will remain in an IRA until you’re 59 ½ , maybe.  Or if you’re independently wealthy and you want to leave a big nest egg to your kids or to the foundation you’ve established, maybe.  If upscale cat food is likely to be a possible dining choice if your portfolio declines, however, clearly not.

     

    Here is a recent chart courtesy of Sy Harding of Street Smart Report.  Sy is consistently ranked one of the best market timers around.  Here, from his superb blog (http://syhardingblog.com) is a chart indicating why he believes at least the occasional entry and exit from the markets is necessary.  Please note where buy and hold investors stand…

     

    S&P since 97

     

     

     

    That’s right.  If you are 50 today, your buy and hold portfolio is worth roughly the same as it was when you were 38.  Whether your stock picks mirrored the market or whether you fell for the index funds pitch and invested $10,000 in your 401k in an S&P 500 index fund when you were 38, that $10,000 is worth today: $10,000. Think $10,000 today will buy the same gallon of milk or gallon of gas it did back then?

     

    I believe there is a smarter way.  For me, there are three components to building a successful portfolio: periodic rebalancing (not to be confused with trying to time the market’s daily ups and downs,) intelligent asset allocation and, finally, exceptional stock selection.

     

    Buy-and-hold investors typically spend 0% of their time, energy and intellect on periodic rebalancing; 0% - 30% on asset allocation, and 70%-100% on stock selection. If they are mutual fund investors, they devote 0% on any of these, trusting the mutual fund managers to do all that.  The same mutual fund managers whose typical turnover is 100% a year.  You may buy and hold the mutual fund, but they are churning its portfolio mercilessly.  That’s hardly buy and hold!

     

    When the markets decline, they take the good and the great down right alongside the bad and the worst. Partly this is because of investor panic, more is because of the fact that institutional money managers are paid for performance. To keep their bonuses coming in, they’ll sell their mother if it will offset a loss that would otherwise place them below their “benchmarks.”

     

    This creates a waterfall effect and brings everything down, good, bad, ugly, or magnificent. In bear markets, buy and hold means hoping it will turn around while calling it a “strategy.”  One of our clients quoted a headline today in a phone conversation that sums it up rather well: “Hope is Not a Strategy.”

     

    By periodically rebalancing, you don’t have to “know” when to buy and sell.  You don’t have to “time” the top or bottom.  If you periodically rebalance, you simply take a little off the table when the news is universally sunny and priced for perfection.  You step back in when the world is allegedly coming to an end.  You won’t get it right every time but you aren’t risking your entire portfolio on a single bet, either.  And you’ll do better than buy and hold or day trading. (See here for more on this…)

     

    It’s the same with stock selection. Right now I’m looking forward to buying the best sectors, which for me will include energy, agriculture, mining, and the raw materials that nations like Canada and Australia will supply to developing economies like India and China. I can’t wait until Deere (NYSE:DE), Syngenta (NYSE:SYT), and Lindsay (NYSE:LNN) in agriculture, or Imperial Oil (NYSEMKT:IMO), Chesapeake (NYSE:CHK) and Exxon (NYSE:XOM) in energy, BHP Billiton (NYSE:BHP), Major Drilling (OTCPK:MJDLF), and Vale (NYSE:VALE) in mining  – to name just a few – decline to great buy points. But I won’t buy at just any price and I don’t hold them through a major decline.

     

    If you feel a need to buy the fuel for mutual fund or Wall Street execs as they helicopter between The Hamptons and their offices, they won’t mind a bit.  After all, if you remove some money in every bear market, protecting yourself from further declines, their bonuses would plunge to nothing. Some would even lose their cushy jobs. Of course they tell you that buy-and-hold is the way to make money!

     

    That said, where do we stand today? I believe that red neon light is flashing. Too many people are whistling “Happy Days are Here Again.” I think they’re whistling past the graveyard.  We are in income, cash equivalents like short-term bond ETFs, and short via inverse ETFs.  If you disagree, you may want to buy “banks” like Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), Morgan (NYSE:JPM), Citicorp (NYSE:C) or Bank of America (NYSE:BAC).  I’ll be shorting them.

     

    I regret to report that there are other, equally egregious, Fractured Fairy Tales.   Here are some I will discuss in follow-on  articles.

     

    #2 – Less Bad News = Good News 

     

    #3 – Program Trading Stabilizes the Markets

     

    #4 – Discount Brokers Can’t Provide What We Provide  

     

    #5 – Short Selling by Individuals is Bad for the Market

     

    #6 – Our Analysts Provide Unbiased Coverage

     

    #7 – Now That We’re a Bank, Your Money is Safe

     

    #8 – You Don’t Pay a Commission for Bonds, IPOs, Secondaries, etc.

     

    #9 – Your Broker is a Keen Observer of the Markets

     

    #10 – Investing is Too Difficult to Do On Your Own


    Full Disclosure: We are long a few bank and healthcare preferred shares that we believe still offer good value and high yield; we are long option-writing closed-end fund GGN because, through thick and thin, we like their portfolio of gold and energy companies; we own lots of cash equivalents (our biggest positions) in short-term bond funds like SHY and TUZ and slightly longer-term (5-10 years) BND, AGG and TIP; and we are short, mostly via inverse ETFs like SKF, SRS, SBB, EUM, PSQ, SH, and DOG.

     

     

    The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we take our responsibility seriously to advise that, since we do not know your personal financial situation, the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results, and it should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We take our research seriously, we do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong. Finally, we will always disclose whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

     

     

Back To Joseph L. Shaefer's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (4)
Track new comments
  • Silverman
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Comment about your GGN holding
    The Gabelli Global Gold, Natural Resources & Income Trust (GGN).

     

    I believe GGN generates income from writing options...but if one compares its performance to the GDX , XLE or IGE..over the last year..then GGN underperforms...BY UP to 40%
    so please help me understand why you chose GGN.
    Thank you
    18 Jul 2009, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Ardeeo
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I see you will have article in the future on us brokers/financial advisors. I am hopeful we will be fairly represented.

     

    I would love to see the statement always begin with"I know (know of, etc) brokers who______________." You fill in the blank however you want, either positively or negatively. I have no objection to either since I know very good advisors and poor advisors.

     

    The blanket statements are the ones that drive me over the edge of the soapbox. I dont make blanket statements about physicians. I dont even make blanket statements about people who manage money privately but used to work on Wall Street.

     

    People can manage their own money effectively if they work very hard at it, understand accounting, economics, etc.

     

    By the way I started selling in Aug of '07 and had only 15% in stocks by late Aug. of '09. I even had specific reason for doing so.

     

    Thanks for the soapbox.
    21 Jul 2009, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph L. Shaefer
    , contributor
    Comments (1503) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » In my book and in my lifeg, I laud individual brokers who deserve it. Typically, when we use terms like "banks and brokers" however, we refer to the bloodsucking institutions themselves! I try to use the term "brokerages" to distinguish but occasionally neglect to do so. Thanks for the reminder...

     

    On Jul 21 05:45 PM Ardeeo wrote:

     

    > I see you will have article in the future on us brokers/financial
    > advisors. I am hopeful we will be fairly represented.
    >
    > I would love to see the statement always begin with"I know (know
    > of, etc) brokers who______________." You fill in the blank however
    > you want, either positively or negatively. I have no objection to
    > either since I know very good advisors and poor advisors.
    >
    > The blanket statements are the ones that drive me over the edge of
    > the soapbox. I dont make blanket statements about physicians. I
    > dont even make blanket statements about people who manage money privately
    > but used to work on Wall Street.
    >
    > People can manage their own money effectively if they work very hard
    > at it, understand accounting, economics, etc.
    >
    > By the way I started selling in Aug of '07 and had only 15% in stocks
    > by late Aug. of '09. I even had specific reason for doing so.<br/>
    >
    > Thanks for the soapbox.
    27 Jul 2009, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Joseph L. Shaefer
    , contributor
    Comments (1503) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Sorry to respond so tardily, Silverman. Now that SA guarantees a 24-hr turn from blog to article, I seldom check comments after 24 hours...

     

    To your question -- actually, these two approaches are apples and oranges. The 3 ETFs you refer to are indexed ETFs. They are passive investments that rise or fall with their sector. GGN takes the active approach of trying to provide strong income -- they just happen to do it in two of my favorite sectors.
    Best regards,
    JS

     

    On Jul 18 01:36 PM Silverman wrote:

     

    > Comment about your GGN holding
    > The Gabelli Global Gold, Natural Resources &amp; Income Trust (seekingalpha.com/symbo...).
    >
    >
    > I believe GGN generates income from writing options...but if one
    > compares its performance to the GDX , XLE or IGE..over the last year..then
    > GGN underperforms...BY UP to 40%
    > so please help me understand why you chose GGN.
    > Thank you
    27 Jul 2009, 11:28 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.