By Neville Bennett
I contest accepted investment wisdom.
Savers and investors are routinely told that shares are the best medium and long-term investment to grow their funds.
Fund managers trot out dubious statements like "you can expect 8% p.a. over a longer period".
Actually the only sure thing is that the fund manager and advisor will clip the ticket, and get their fees, even if they lose money year after year.
I have a friend who ten years ago invested NZ$150,000 with a reputable investment manager in a medium risk balanced fund. His fund is actually smaller now than when he invested.
The argument for balanced funds is diversity. Most balanced funds have something like a 50/50 mix. 50% is cash and fixed interest, 50% equity and property.
They aim at about 3% p.a. net gain (after fees and taxes) and very few satisfy that objective.
Morningstar surveys their performance, and it looks like most return 2% over 7 years.
But remember that this yield could be largely consumed by your fund manager and investment advisor as happened in my friend’s case.
A long term investment in global equities is usually recommended to the young. Again, there is no evidence that this is a good strategy.
Indeed I looked at Morningstar and more than half the funds in that category had lost money in the last 7 year period.
Why have the returns from shares been poor?
The problem is that world markets followed the US into a long bear market, beginning March 2000. But the US markets have not recovered to their 2000 highs.
Markets move in cycles, the important ones are long, covering a generation. These go back a long way in time, but let’s take more recent times.
There was a boom in the USA in the 1920’s, eventually Wall Street overshot and crashed in 1929. That started a downswing and a bear market. Share indexes did not recover to 1929 level until 1954.
The upswing started 1946 and lasted to 1966. 1966 was another crash and shares did not recover 1966 levels until 1982.
American markets went into bear-mode in March 2000 with the tech crash. I choose as an example the NASDAQ index. Remember that it covers the best cutting edge technology firms in the world. But if you bought the index in February 2000 you would have a book loss of over 60% now.
Similarly, if you had bought the Nikkei in 1989, thereby getting a slice of 225 of Japan’s best companies, you would still have a 78% loss.
That is 22 years of misery and there is no chance of ever getting back to parity in either the NASDAQ or Nikkei.
Here is a chart of the Dow 1929, Nikkei 1989 and the NASDAQ 2000 showing how bear markets can impose 80% losses, and these endure for a more than a decade.
To be sure, there are rallies within the cycle, and both the Dow and Nikkei have at times had good rallies, sometimes lasting a year. But, alas these are suckers rallies which eventually run out of steam.
They can be tempting. The S&P500 rallied strongly 2003-2008 as Greenspan flooded the economy with cheap money and the world banks were using leverage of 50, and making super-profits. After, the 2008 crash, Bernanke flooded the market with drops of cash from helicopters. I advised clients in my subscription newsletter to buy as QE2 was designed to inflate assets prices.
But the key to preserving wealth in these difficult bear markets is to switch assets when appropriate. I advised on July 15:
Maybe the fear of another big earthquake is preying on my mind, but I feel that financial skies are very ominous. We have the making of a perfect storm. We have consistently said that the equity was invigorated by QE. I said I was wading into equities last August but as we got to March this year, the market began to anticipate the end of QE2 and we said “sell into strength”.
By April we said “sell in May and go away”. Equities are in for the storm but blue chips will survive if they have little debt. The storm will be vicious because, in the GFC, it was private debt that collapsed. This time it could include sovereign debt. I take a Greek default as read. But Portugal and Ireland are near junk, and the pressure on Spain and Italy is mounting.
The market is moving to safe harbours, especially the Swiss franc which is at record levels v. both the Euro and dollar ... the Swiss Franc, oil and gold are good harbours.
Fund managers do not switch. They think that the market will keep going up, despite some corrections. They observe big falls with equanimity, and advise people to stay in the market, waiting for the inevitable upswing.
The myth persists that the stock market delivers excellent returns over the long term. $1,000 invested in the S&P in March 2000 would, cum dividends, be worth $1,083 in July 2011. It would be worth less today. Moreover, this analysis doesn't include the impact of brokerage and fees. If inflation is added, the $1,000 dollar investment would be worth only $822 last month.
I am pessimistic about stock markets now. I think the bear is dominant.
The Dow has had bear markets in 40% of the last 122 years. It is also becoming more volatile.
There have been 283 swings in the Dow of 4% in a day since 1900. But 10.9% of these have occurred since October 2007. I also feel that it has recovered twice since 2000 because of loose US monetary policy, but feel that it is unlikely that Washington can stimulate the market again.
Bernanke over-inflated it, and it will correct dragging others down with it.
--------------------------------
* Neville Bennett was a long-time Senior Lecturer in History at the University of Canterbury, where he taught since 1971. His focus is economic history and markets. He is also a columnist for the NBR.
nevillebennett@clear.net.nz
www.bennetteconomics.com
55 Comments
Excellent piece Neville - I could have written it myself, its that good.
I think you should forward a copy to Mary Holm. The implications for many Kiwisaver accounts could not be more obvious, even those in 'conservative' funds. And how is it that from what I can see none of these so-called conservative funds have even a minimal exposure to gold?
Neville - care to illustrate what $100K would be worth simply rolled over for the past 5 years in the best available 6-12month term deposits (either big 5 bank or guaranteed finance company) after tax and management fees (oh I forgot there arent any management fees) ?
Remember that booklet which was issued to all New Zealand households more than a decade ago,when Don Brash was chairman of the Reserve Bank,spearheaded by him and featuring Mary Holm and others.I received it in my mailbox.it stated that NZers had too much invested in houses and needed to get involved in the sharemarket.That was the wrong advice as it immediately preceeded the collapse of the NZ dollar,the lowest interest rates for 40 years,and the opportunity of a lifetime to make megabucks buying houses and borrowing to the hilt..As a result,Don,Mary and everyone else commenting in that booklet,have no credibility in my eyes.
I have come to the conclusion that Mary Holm must be on a sizeable retainer from the NZ Fund Managers Interest Group (Kiwisaver division). Particularly galling has been her constant belittling of gold - given the fact that its 5 year performance (+190% in US$ terms) blows anything else that she has recommended out of the water you would think she would have the even-handness to admit that perhaps its worthy of consideration for a small part of a typical portfolio. But no, she still lives in the pre-GFC world, where 'drip feeding' cash into shares over extended periods is going to make you rich.
Mary Holm certainly ain't perfect. Sizeable retainer Puhlease.Kiwisaver is a fantastic savings.
Most people ie the vast majority of the financially illiterate Kiwi masses would be well served by listening to her advice.
So would i be correct at thinking that you are suggesting investing in the rear vision mirror & invest in Gold. That is exactly the strategy & trap the aforementioned continually fall into. Extrapolating past returns into the future.
Warning anyone who buys Gold at these levels Get ready to do your money
I have never been big on shares but over the last 12 months have decided to put 10% of my income into overseas stock markets. I use directbroking.co.nz which is ANZ owned rather than a fund manager.
I spead my 10% investment over 12 months making 1 buy a month regardless of the current state of the market. I only buy companies I have heard of that pay over 5% dividend.
My share price is mixed, from 30% down to 17% up. Overall 12% down which is not bad as I was reading average US hedge funds are 30% down for the year. In my (limited) portfolio there are now big name companies with positive cash flow paying close to 10% dividend on current market prices. So I will be doubling up
For me I don't care about the price. I am still gbetting 5%+ return on my orginial investment regardless of the current share price which is only a problem if I need to sell
A fair enough comment. The hard part is learning to pick the trends. For example, you can expect the memories of Clark to be washed out of the peasant brains by 2020 and for there to be a return of the fools to the Beehive...followed by the immigration doors being tossed away and leading to a property bubble for the 20s...so you wanna be positioned for that...don't you.
lets face it, no one has a clue. The only thing we can be sure of is that financial advice and stock picking are not worth paying for. For every "expert" buying a stock there is bound to be another selling. My solution, buy index funds which will give you the weighted average of everyone's best guess (and I'm sorry Neville, your best guess is still a guess) - the major benefit is there is no fee for this, and you are getting the weighted average of all the good / bad / indifferent financial advice which you have no idea is good / bad / indifferent when you buy/sell select stocks(and even with the benefit of hindsight good advise may have just been luck). I have 30% cash, 30% NZ/AUS index, 30% foreign index, 10% previous metals. I pay .5% a year for the index funds.
Neville Bennett may be a senior lecturer but his column is merely a re-worked version of what Olly Newland said a couple of days ago when he was interviewed by Bernard in a "double shot" . Either the two points of view were coincidence or Bennett was hanging onto Olly's coat tails for some reflected glory.
At least both agree on one thing
Olly: "The only people who make money are the fund managers and ticket clippers on the way through"
Bennett : " Actually the only sure thing is that the fund manager and advisor will clip the ticket, and get their fees, even if they lose money year after year"
You are full of cr*p.............nothing to do with Olly.
Most ppl who bothered to look at how their investments via managers were doing 15 odd years ago (poorly or average) could have said how useless they were....simple, invest yourself, its ppls own laziness that costs them....
Hard assets in a Depression will collapse in value, I'd rather listen to the likes of Steve Keen and Roubini any day...
regards
Went looking for the quote where I thought I'd seen it (on keen's blog over the past couple of months in the blog comments area from my unreliable memory)
Similar sentiments appear to be voiced in the period between 16:00 and 18:30 ish in the max keiser interview at http://maxkeiser.com/2011/07/09/ote113-on-the-edge-with-steve-keen/
I wouldnt have said it would counteract....but magnify....the impact of debt.
Really debt is a future call on energy/work......if there isnt the energy and more of it than there is today to pay it back, the impact has to be worse IMHO, I cant see it being good in any way.
regards
Fresh water !
"The most and almost overwhelming factor that we had to consider is the enormous financial benefit that the mine will bring to the Buller district and the West Coast region."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10747733
Why can they not develop industries, which are 100% NZgreen & clean – driven by a sustainable long term strategy, benefiting the entire country/ economy ? Fresh water !
Using brain before greed (short term profit)
Wolly, before making stupid comments - please make a real contribution.
Here an interesting article – what could be done with new sustainable technologies:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/5966969/A-sustainable-future-for-coal.html
In a very competitive economic environment, NZ misses a great opportunity in branding its economy. We could be the world leaders in a NZgeen and clean economy with revenues in the billions. But no – it’s a little bit from everything – without any long term strategy – look where NZdairy farming vs NZtourism is going - just increasingly polluting NZ – costing billions for the clean up – losing out on billions in revenue.
It was Walter...only you lacked the ability to recognise it. Stop bleating on about NZ green this and that and start to pick up on the fact that none of that can happen without the energy coming from somewhere...and coal just happens to be one source.
"But no – it’s a little bit from everything – without any long term strategy – look where NZdairy farming vs NZtourism is going - just increasingly polluting NZ – costing billions for the clean up – losing out on billions in revenue.".....that amounts to rubbish Walter.
For a start you are wrong to suggest NZ tourism is non polluting...just go count the tourist vehicles belting through Kaikoura and work out the fuel use...check out the latest law changes to reduce the amount of filth left by tourists....check out the way your own district council has blocked off old camping sites....take a drive along any of the highways and play spot the rubbish...throw in the pollution from all the jets flying in all the tourists....get the picture Walter.
And you are wrong to suggest NZ dairy farming is always polluting the environment....and you should remember that every time you buy some cheese or milk or dairy product.
As for your constant demand for a "long term strategy".....consider what happens when all the eggs are shoved in the one strategy...and it goes wrong....your demands fly in the face of good planning.
Wolly – did you read the link ? The example clearly demonstrates - we can do better.
Your article just confirms what I’m saying - there is no sustainable, national long term economic strategy in place.
Where did I say tourism doesn’t do pollution – of course it does ? But again, I ask the question - why are we allowing that to that extent ? Wolly, my question to you - why are we allowing the constant abuse of our environment, costing taxpayers billions, when better solutions are possible ?
We cannot carry on like that:
http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/state-nz-rivers-and-lakes-3-29-video-4336489
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/5169412/Time-to-focus-on-water-quality
and make compromises/ excuses all the time.
I’m a strong advocate for diversity in economics. Flexibility is a very important component for success in today’s world. Why should sustainability - a green and clean economic strategy undermining that is beyond me.
Who are you including in your "we" group Walter? Is it a dictatorial state you want...where the little Hitlers roam the countryside laying down their laws...Kiwi do not go for that sort of crap mate.
As for "sustainable"...and "long term"....you would have to elaborate on those terms Walter....the fauna and flora are not as they were when Europeans first came here to plunder the whales and seals...there are now over 4million on these islands and going on past govt policies that number will not stop expanding. Yet you want "sustainable"...meaning what?....we cannot sustain the current numbers without importing shiploads of energy and the farm output that you say is polluting the place, happens to pay for that energy...
It would be far better if you were to sell up what you have and buy a rural chunk of land and then show others how it's done...how it's possible to farm in a sustainable way...complete bollocks....as you would discover when the soil screamed out for fertiliser!..and you ran out of fuel assuming you didn't have fifty acres of Kanuka to utilise....but you would need to be close to Kaikoura wouldn't you...very close...otherwise you would need to use a vehicle and that would mean imported diesel or petrol. And that means pollution.
Well Walter for a start I disagree with your claim that the environment is being constantly abused. Abuse is happening in places by a number of people and corporates and councils and govt, off and on, to a greater or lesser extent. Throwing accusations at all dairy producers is like blaming all in Kaikoura for the plastic litter along the coast and rubbish along the highways.
Second...you have no idea what the cost is...your "billions" is a number from thin air.
Legislation to force councils to improve sewage systems, as in Kaikoura!, is now in place when it wasn't before....a time when all your 'stuff' went into the sea!
Farming is under far tighter controls than ever regarding effluent and streams. Trucking firms are prosecuted for effluent being released anywhere but in places built to cope with it.
But....little can be done about the huge increase in exhaust fumes from tourists burning the rubber...or the same filth from the urban scrums.
On a more positive side...landlocked bird sanctuaries are being established and species protected with DOC accessing taxpayer revenue to pay for it. Many of the farmers you lash out at, have been putting aside native forest sanctuaries for well over 100 years and the trend is on the up.
How can you help Walter?. Instead of lashing out...buy some rural land that's poor farmland and spend you last days planting native bush and killing bloody Possums and wild Deer and Goats.
Well Wolly for a start are you reading and listen to links people are putting in with their comments ?
Although, I find some of your comment bizarre - dissipated, not really adding to a sensible debate.
“Over the past decade or so New Zealanders have witnessed accelerated degradation of many water-bodies in response to diffuse nutrients derived mostly from agricultural sources”, says the Society President, Professor David Hamilton.
I recommend to read:
As I pointed out earlier pollution (coal) is of course the result of industrialisation not only limited to agriculture activities.
http://www.dioxin-nz.com/blog/
Air pollution and its consequences cost $ 1.14 billions alone.
http://www.consumer.org.nz/reports/air-quality/pollution-costs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution_in_New_Zealand
My conclusion: New Zealand as an isolated, rather under- populated and under- industrialised country could have an excellent chance to become the world leaders of a “100% Green & Clean NZEconomy” – including agriculture. An economy based and branded on such a strategy would not only minimise pollution costs and benefit NZ as a society, but generate billions in revenue longer term.
The current way – short term thinking - just doesn't work.
So you won't go farming Walter...and you won't plant native bush...but you want NZ to become industrialised and you want more people living here.....you post drivel Walter....
" An economy based and branded on such a strategy would not only minimise pollution costs and benefit NZ as a society, but generate billions in revenue longer term."
It reads like an Alice in wonderland tale.
How can your utopian paradise of green branding achieve a bloody thing without the rest of the world existing and feeding in the tourists and buying the produce from here....and how can it exist without the liquid fuels...the oil diesel and petrol and the plastics?
Stop losing yourself in links to other dreamers Walter. Work things out for yourself. I notice you have ended your thrashing demands for Key to boot Gerry out...Now you are onto another bandwagon. What next.
Been down to the coastline lately...heaps of plastic you could pick up...but where to put it...
Wolly – this is about exchanging ideas/ experience among adults. Constantly trashing other people’s valuable contribution, composing stories for other people, including false interpretations - shows your lack of arguments, even inability to debate.
E.g. “A 100% NZgreen & Clean” Economic policy is discussed by many Kiwis, important business leaders and certainly has merit to be considered.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10618678
Your answer: It reads like an Alice in wonderland tale
E.g. You doubted the costs of pollution, other data and statement I made. So, I proved it – with links the only possible way.
Your answer: Stop losing yourself in links to other dreamers Walter. Work things out for yourself.
Without further commenting - I leave your/ my answers (comments) to others to judge.
Back to the future Walter....here's where you started:
"Why can they not develop industries, which are 100% NZgreen & clean – driven by a sustainable long term strategy, benefiting the entire country/ economy ? Fresh water !"
I am trying to get you to understand that such industries are constantly being developed in NZ....but I am also suggesting you recognise it is not possible to operate without the oil, petrol, diesel and plastics, the effluent and sewage and rubbish tips, the noise and stink, the urban scrum spreading across the land, the farming where native bush once was. How much Kaikoura farmland has gone into housing!
And this carping on about the need for a "long term strategy"....who gets to decide this Walter? Right now the pinky greens are spitting tacks at National's version of a long term strategy....
Yes Walter...it's an unproven highly risky technology that would not be suitable on the West Coast because the coal there is destined for the steel making industries in Asia at prices way above normal coal.
Deposits on the Coast are small..localised...and in many cases plain bloody too difficult to get at. The export earnings from the coal go to pay for the oil petrol and diesel we all use.
Wolly – below 2 interesting links explaining the issue coal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/dirty-coal-clean-future/8307/
Striving for a “!00% Green & Clean NZeconomy” will benefit our society and economy, doesn’t exclude, but encourages the development of new technologies/ philosophy to overcome, which are currently considered as “dirty industries practices” – faster and more efficiently.
Yes alright Walter..you found more links...goody....there are millions to find out there...good luck.
Whom do you plan on making pay for this urge you have to reach a utopian future devoid of pollution where wealth comes from new technologies and new philosophies .....
You might like to concentrate on the dirty technologies that allow heaps of tourists to get to and from Kaikoura, including those who head out to sea in a diesel powered launch to look at whales...Shall we start with that pollution Walter?
Perhaps the same tourists could stop in chch and visit a high tech 3D screening of Whales surfacing off Kaikoura...and somebody could throw sea water at them and a sound techy could blast them with the noise Gulls make...but then they wouldn't be spending any money in the Kaikoura shops would they!....and your property values would crash yet more than they have.
Or we could follow the pinky greens and ban the export of coal...and borrow more to balance the books....and freeze in winter because they don't want hydro dams either...
Yes, great Wolly – not that I’m overwhelmed, but good to see some of your “green ideas” – a start at least. Every single, even small practical and educational contribution helps.
The company is upgrading its entire fleet at the cost of $NZ15 million (£6.6m) with quieter, even more fuel-efficient and whale-friendly boats. "There's nothing wrong with our current vessels," Ngapora says. "But things don't stand still and we want to keep up with all of the available technology."
..not everything is perfect, but improving based on..
..striving for a “!00% Green & Clean NZeconomy” will benefit our society and economy, doesn’t exclude, but encourages the development of new technologies/ philosophy to overcome, which are currently considered as “dirty industries practices” – faster and more efficiently.
Wolly, you are prefectly correct that energy has to come from somewhere, and what happens when the coal runs out?
But actually the hit is long before that.....about 1/2 way we reach the max output then it declines, so we have shortages....so we have very high prices and recessions.....oh look just like we are having now.
Tourism is doomed, it has 5 maybe 10 years and like the airlines its a gonner.......fools investing in Air NZ will be toast....its as big a con as the finance companies imho.
Eggs in one strategy....thats exactly what we have with the strategy of growth...the only one Key and National has and the only one Goff and Labour has....the Greens dont even have much of an idea, they are pretty much committing hari kari by jumping off the far left cliff to hell....uh.....I mean socialist paradise.....
regards
Now lets make it a legal requirement to lose money, force the country into Kiwisaver this will provide for retirement. The only possible way it will grow is if you keep pumping money into it. Sounds like a great plan what great leaders we have.
Where is the money going? If every seller needs a buyer and every buyer needs a seller, then a 12% loss for one person is a 12% gain for another. If fund managers can't make a profit out of this then who is? If Fund managers have to buy stocks, then they are profiting the people selling stocks. Money doesn't dissapear if the Nasdaq dropped 60% and you lost that much, it means someone else has your money. Why would you give it to them? Fairfax is printing fake money rush out and buy it with real money.
This reminds me of a investor weekly news letter that used to come out in the mid 80s before the crash.... the APpaper or A plus??? something like that...anyone remember or subscribe to it?
It showed very long term trends , cycles in shares, realestate , futures, cash ...and they would all cycle at different times and when to change from one to the other.
Again Nevelle shows us what long term...real long term stats ...history just keeps on rolling over, nothing is "new"
Tthese short term , so called long tern graphs commentators and economists use today, and on this web site only show what may happen tomorrow, not next yr or 5 yrs from now. I dont understand the logic of talking long term predictions, made on 10yrs term stats, when cycles go in approx 7, 14, 28, 42, 84 yr cycles
It was the A Letter, Steptoe. And I distinctly remember (well after nearly 25 years – so allow me some recollection errors) his issue that came out in about March 87 I think it was which had a cartoon of a squirrel on the front cover holding an acorn. And the inside story was about how investors now needed to be just like the squirrel. Sell up their shares, take their profits and squirrel the whole lot away for the coming long hard hash winter. The charts were pointing to everything turning to brown custard. Everybody laughed at him, ridiculed him actually. I think even Bob Jones’ got in on the act said he was a plonker, and that chartists couldn’t chart their way out of a paper bag let alone chart a successful share market investment. And that with regards to his company, you aint seen nothing yet. Even I scoffed at the suggestion and thought he was being too much of a theorist and was allowing his charts to get in the road of sound common sense.
Oh what fools we were. As they say, he who laughs last laughs loudest.
I’ve often wondered what happened to him and if he’s still around and still putting out an investment newsletter? Do you know by any chance, Steptoe?
Yeah the A Letter....
We did rather well off that, and when everything went to the wall, we didnt go near sa far as the rest did...basicaly walked away with what we put in at the start....because of the A Letter.
Yep remember the squirell and that issue to.
"....and thought he was being too much of a theorist and was allowing his charts to get in the road of sound common sense"
If rem correctl;y it was his long term charts..decades and longer that he used for his fundimentals.....just like Nevelle above.....But I wish I could to remember his name....hang on going to make a phone call...Nope.... but he worked out of a place on Blockhouse Bay Rd..and what me me feel even more guilty is...we met him a couple times.
i subscribed to the A letter.When I received the edition which advised that all NZ shares should be sold,I phoned my sharebroker Forsyth Barr,and requested that this be done.They told me that I was making a mistake.One share I specifically recall discussing was Wilson Neill.They said to me"it is a buy not a sell."i only wish I had sold all my offshore shares like Ariadne and Tag Pacific as well.
Some are wise. Some are otherwise.
(a) Jimmy Squirrel (above) is the smartest man around here. Pay attention. He is wise.
(b) Warren Buffet was the first to coin the phrase "Toll Road" and clipping the ticket. Long ago.
Neville. The world has changed. Your article is too general and too yesterday.
Here in Australia, Superannuation is compulsory, and, most of it is controlled by Fund Managers (the banks) and 80% of those managed funds are index funds, and 40% of all superannuation funds are now SMSF's (self managed super funds). A long time ago, people woke up to the fact that most of their funds were handled by Fund Managers who were simply using vanilla index funds and clipping the ticket at every turn. So there has been a tidal wave of people deciding to do it themselves. Hence SMSF's. A contemporary insight into the issues you comment on can be seen here in a Q&A between myself and a Financial guru with a Phd. http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~iconoklast/strategist.htm
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.