4/29/2013 7:45 PM ET|
Charting a course for rest of 2013
With the market seeming to defy gravity, investors are caught between betting on a pullback or hoping the rally will run on. More prudent is a small-ball strategy capable of delivering returns with a modicum of risk.
Selling on valuation has felt like a mug's game for the past six months or more.
The question now is, is this about to change? The most recent significant drop in the U.S. stock market came in late spring/early summer of 2012. Wall Street is clearly worried about a replay of that drop, and it's not overstating the case to call the current market jittery.
Are we about to see a drop that's large enough in volume and long enough in duration so that selling on valuation will finally pay off? Or is this just enough head fake from a market that will keep going up until global central banks take the punch bowl away?
If you're sitting on cash do you keep sitting on it, looking for drop? If you don't have much cash, should you be raising it hand over fist?
I wish I could give you one of those big dramatic "sell everything" or "buy everything" calls that make the headlines and sell lots of newsletter subscriptions. But I think this market is way more complicated than that. Valuations are high, and economic fundamentals in much of the global economy are weak or weakening -- but cash flows from global central banks are simply off any recent scale.
In uncharted territory
We're in uncharted territory. And that makes big calls tempting. But it also makes it very easy to get them wrong.
This column is instead a little call. It's a description of investing small-ball of the sort that should get you a decent return in 2013 without an indecent risk. It's not the kind of strategy to set your heart aflutter. But I doubt it will give you a heart attack either.
So here's how I'd position myself for 2013 with what we know right now.
Every time during the past six months that it has felt like time to sell because a U.S. stock market trading at historic highs was ready to take a breather or worse, the move down has turned out to be a minor head fake and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) has moved even higher. That's what happened when the market dipped in late February, and it could be happening again in April, when a week's worth of weakness has refused to turn into a meaningful downward trend.
If you sold on those dips in the hope of getting in at a lower price, you were probably caught in cash when the market moved higher. Your choice then was either to stay in cash hoping for a dip in the future -- in which case you earned close to nothing on your cash position. The average money market account is paying 0.136%, well below the rate of inflation in the United States. Or you could have decided to bite the bullet and buy back in once the market showed it was headed higher. Selling low and buying high can take a chunk out of your portfolio over time.
Even if you didn't try to play the dips in the market and instead just sold individual stocks when they hit your target prices, this was probably a trying six months or more. I know because in my Jubak's Picks portfolio (registration required), some of my sells on valuation worked -- Cummins (CMI), for example was down almost 7% as of April 26 from when I sold it on Feb. 11, and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya (BBVA) was down 4.5% from my March 13 sell -- while others that I called fully valued kept on climbing, or at least did not fall.
My Dec. 28, 2012, decision to sell Dollar General (DG) to raise cash was painfully wrong. The stock was up 23% from that sell through April 26. And I took a 10% loss on the position when I sold. My sell of Costco Wholesale (COST) on the same date -- again to raise cash -- was almost as painful; the stock rose 12.5% from that sell through the April 26 close.
Even when the sell didn't result in a significant loss of potential profits -- Nestlé (NSRGY) was down less than 1% from my sell, for example -- raising cash hardly seemed worth the effort.
Don't want to buy high
Once you've made mistakes like these, it's especially hard to rectify them in a market that is climbing from high to higher. After all, you sold these shares because you thought you saw a dip coming or because you thought stocks were more expensive than the fundamentals or even the cash flows from global central bank justified. Now you're going to buy back into a market that is even more expensive than the one you sold out of? That's hard.
I tell you that from experience. I spent 2012 trying to reduce the cash position in Jubak's Picks without much success. The portfolio ended 2011 with 37% in cash and, after a year of trying to put money to work at good value I ended the year at 29% cash.
For 2012, the portfolio returned 7.3%, substantially trailing the 16% return on the S&P 500 for the year. Certainly the portfolio's high cash position isn't to blame for all of that underperformance -- it's hard to match the index when your picks include Nokia (NOK) and OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals (OGXI) -- but it sure didn't help to have 30% of the portfolio in cash earning nothing.
Doing some rough what ifs for 2012 on the effect of holding all that cash, I get a 11.7% return on the money that the portfolio actually had invested in the stock market in 2012. That still trails the return on the S&P 500 but not nearly as badly as the actual portfolio did. Much—about half--of the underperformance of the portfolio in 2012, then, is a result of keeping too much of the portfolio in cash that year.
That's not an excuse for the 7.3% return in 2012 -- after all, I am the one who decided how much to keep in cash -- but an explanation that might help make 2013 a better year. If an explanation for the underperformance of Jubak's Picks -- or your portfolio -- is that you held too much in cash, then one solution would be to be more fully invested in 2013.
Hard to increase your exposure
Except -- and it's a big except -- a decision to be more fully invested in 2013 runs straight into the valuation and risk issues that led me to be underinvested in 2012 to begin with. The market isn't any cheaper than it was last year. The fundamentals aren't any better. And the less-risky alternatives, such as dividend-paying blue chips, that have been a place to put money to work are looking pricey indeed.
In fact, if you compare this point in 2013 to a year ago, I think you should reasonably conclude that growth is now dodgier in the eurozone and China than it was then. That valuations look more stretched, given the likely slump in earnings growth in the first and second quarters of 2013 on slower global growth and the effects of the sequester. And that this bull market seems to be showing its age with sentiment starting to look for a correction in the summer.
All those things make it hard to increase your exposure to this market if you're sitting in cash. And they raise the issue of whether you should even try to reduce cash exposures at this point in the rally. The next dip, if there is one, could be the dip that you've been reserving cash for, after all.
If you're looking for a bold solution to this puzzle, I'm afraid you've come to the wrong place. My suggestion -- and the strategy that I've been pursuing in Jubak's Picks so far in 2013 -- isn't some kind of bold call on the direction of this market. I think the market is overvalued on the fundamentals, but I can't discount the power of central bank cash to push stock prices still higher.
With huge amounts of stimulus from the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan -- and with additional stimulus from China's unofficial lending markets -- I think we are in uncharted territory.
We simply don't know how much higher central bank cash will push asset prices.
And while I'll all in favor of following the adage "Don't fight the Fed" and its current re-invention as "Don't fight the global central banks," I can't say I see this as the time to add risk to a portfolio just to put cash to work in a rally that may be running out of gas just in case central banks still have the power to push asset prices higher.
That leaves me, I'm afraid, with the kind of one-stock-at-a-time strategy that I've pursued so far in 2013.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Breaking records on Wacko Street everyday is not helping the average person.Bubbles are nice in the bath tub but I don't want to be near the one they are making.KABOOM
The business pundits like to compare the federal deficit to GDP by using the “deficit to GDP ratio.” Right now the deficit totals about $15 trillion and the GDP is about $14 trillion. So they say the deficit is about 100% plus of GDP. But that makes it sound much better than it is. As if in just one year of GDP they could pay the debt off completely. Well the government doesn’t get $14 trillion each year. They only collect about $2.4 trillion in taxes out of the $14 trillion. So they should be comparing the deficit to the government’s annual income of $2.4 trillion. In this comparison the government now owes more than 6 times its annual income. If they paid for nothing else for 6 years, and put everything they collect into paying down the debt, they would come close to a payoff. That means no defense, no medicare, no social security, on and on, for six years. Never going to happen.
Let’s look at this from the perspective of a family income and budget. What if we owed 6 times our annual income? Say at an annual salary of $50,000, you would owe $300,000. $300,000 is way too much debt for a $50,000 income. How could a family in this predicament ever pay this off? They couldn’t. This is the same predicament the government is in right now. From this you can really start to see how deep the trouble the government is in. And you can see they’ll never be able to pay it back either.
There has been a massive failure of late of what has happen and why. Sure, there is massive Global Money Printing. However, that printing is dwarfed by the Money Printing which is the Derivatives Markets. If you compare the amount of farce Derivatives to the amount of Global Fed Money Printing, there really is no comparison. Yet the mainstream Media refuses to talk about it.
Small ball, schmall ball!
It's all just Fed Reserve propped up pocket pool.
MSN editors, this is the kind of content we want! We need content to help us in our financial planning. With pensions all but gone, 401K's are about all we have to rely on in future years. Your readers hunger for good investing advice. This is the content you should be featuring. Stop featuring absolute junk, like today's article comparing name length to income. No one gives a tinkers dam! Jubak and Fleckenstein - they're the reason we come back. Get it???
I think we are still coming out of the mentality of our 401k coming the 201k. Jubak is simply trying to figure out when many stocks have come back to its ten year high, there's got to be an adjustment. For example, VZ Verizon I held over ten years while kids grew up and it finally came back to give me a little profit. Sold it. Now I had VZ again in the dip, like any monkey back in 2008 who bought, and I saw VZ rise to its 10 year high again and I cashed out, back in june 2012, remembering all too well the 201k effect. But no adjustment came, then in Feb 2013 it almost came back to my selling price, and I thought better get back in. But I didn't pull the trigger. Since then VZ has gone up 32 percent, 15 year high. What is driving this? I think Jubak is right. Europe, Japan, China banks are giving no wind. But the good old USA Fed Reserve is. Maybe foreign investors are driving this. Even now VZ dividend is still paying 4 percent in dividend on your money. Cash is getting nothing. So where are you going to put it.
Sorry to say, I am still in cash waiting for news to say something that changes things. I missed the ride.
The only thing I can see that is wrong with this method is putting your money into cash instead of mutual fund bonds. You can make 6-7 percent with most bonds and a little more with aggressive bonds that follow the market to a lesser extent. Then when opportunity presents itself, you have the funds that can be transferred just as easy as cash can. Beating the market assumes you invest no money in bonds. The old rule of investing your age in bonds kind of guarantees you will never beat the market.
Is this another article about Asia?
Remember kids, most of the posts here are by MSN employees. You know, just to stir the soup up.
Let me try that one more time.
Most of the posts here are by MSN employees.
Except for the posts by Jane Fonda under her alias.
Get it? Now, log off and go to a topless bar. Ice cold beer! Yum.
If you are going to write a column about money management, the best thing you can do for your readers is to be accurate and handily beat the market averages. Anyone can make inaccurate predictions. In fact, most columns tend to predict doom and gloom frightening investors who have done their homework for their purchases which only favors the inside wall street traders.
When you invest, you have to look at the entire world. If you are dubious about the United States, then look at your alternatives. I think most of us will find that the USA is still the best place to put your hard earned money.
NO NO NO
I refuse to click on page 2 of this dribble. You write a story about how nobody, including yourself, knows what to do and then you support this theory by telling us how if we had invested with you we would have lost money because you sold all of your winners too soon and held on to the losers? What is this about again? MSN MONEY you entertain me to no end but somewhere on an island there is a man called Bill Gates who could take all my pain away by simply FIRING you, Mirhaydari and Fleckenstein. Exactly how does MSN MONEY compliment the Microsoft Empire when your advice is always wrong? I bet we keep going higher until Bernanke pulls the plug. There, I said it. No need for another Jubak article until August.
Jubak is a loser and he admits it. Why would you even think of taking his advice or following his lead,The two stocks he sold and lost on was his own stupidity and not enough planning.
All is well known the market is about to slow down on growth. Its just when and are you situated.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages began the new trading week on a slightly lower note with small caps leading the weakness. The Russell 2000 shed 0.3% while the S&P 500 slipped less than a point with six sectors ending in the red.
Equity indices began the day in negative territory with only the Nasdaq (-0.04%) making a very brief appearance in the green. After sliding through the first hour of action, the major averages reversed and spent the remainder of the session climbing off ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'