6/16/2011 5:47 PM ET|
Wall Street's biggest secret
Over nearly half a century, the stocks with the highest risk produced the lowest returns -- and stocks with the lowest risk produced the highest returns.
Wall Street has a wide array of mutual funds it wants to sell you. "Absolute return" this. "Midcap blend" that. "Small-cap growth" whatever.
Many brokers, advisers and salesmen will tell you that just the right mix of each one will give you a portfolio that's "right for you," with returns perfectly adjusted to your "risk tolerance."
Before you invest a penny, listen to Bob Haugen.
He's a former finance professor who's spent half a lifetime studying the stock market. He's written a number of books and papers and is co-author of a remarkable piece of analysis titled "Case Closed."
Haugen and co-author Nardin Baker looked in excruciating detail at the characteristics of which stocks did best (and worst) over nearly half a century, from 1963 to 2007.
Most of these "styles" are a waste of time. And the idea that you need to take on more "risk" to earn higher returns is a total con.
On the contrary, Haugen says, the stock market has a big secret. Over many decades, "the stocks with the highest risk produced the lowest returns -- and stocks with the lowest risk produced the highest returns."
In other words, he says, "the risk/return ratio was upside down . . . the payoff to risk is consistently negative over the 45-year period of this study."
Instead of being paid to take risk, you got paid not to.
All those glamorous, sexy "growth"' stocks? All that extra volatility you took on in the desperate pursuit of the next big thing? It was a bad move. You would have done much better investing in the dull, low-risk, widow and orphan "value" stocks.
These winners were stocks that were cheap in relation to their net assets, earnings, cash flows and dividends. They were stocks in companies that had big and growing profits today, not pie-in-the-sky expectations for the next decade. They often also had recent positive momentum on the stock market.
While Haugen tells me it's rare to find an individual stock that's a "perfect fit," you can build a portfolio of stocks that are good fits.
Investing in value works. Haugen and Baker wrote that "the evidence strongly suggests that this simple intuition is more powerful than any of the complex theories about expected return that can be found in the literature of Modern Finance!"
Value stocks actually earned you more money and gave you a smoother ride. The strategy worked even after counting trading costs.
This has not just been true in the United States, either. Haugen also looked at historical data on the British stock market. On the Paris bourse. In Germany. In Japan. The results were the same. Lower volatility stocks gave you higher returns. A free lunch.
Many professional investors already know this. But too many don't. And many of those who do know it keep forgetting it -- and rushing out and chasing expensive "growth" stocks all over again. That's what's been happening lately (more on this on the next page).
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Hard to beat dollar cost averaging and/or DRIP programs. Slow, steady dividend paying stocks like utilities are a great way to go. They're not sexy, just successful.
It’s a key observation to be sure. But, if you think this is Wall Street’s biggest secret, you’re as naïve as they want you to be.
Between the lines? Fundamentally, the monopolies are fearing the economy, and want your money to float them through it?
Only Warren B who can buy the company and receive the cash flow has the patience to hold value stocks for a long enough time frame to make a value strategy work. Back in the 90s when everyone was doubling their money every 3 to 4 years do you really think you would have had the conviction to watch your value stocks significantly underperform? Academic theory looking back crunching the numbers doesn't account for human emotion.
Jimmy Joe Blo,
Glad to see your one of the sheeple. Bet you have your whole 401k in stocks too. By the way it's area 51
The "hot stocks" will always bite you if you get caught holding the proverbial hot potato. If you can get in and out, you can make money. However, they always look bad when viewed from a long-term perspective.
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] Sellers remain in control with the Russell 2000 now down 2.0%. Including its current loss, the index is now lower by 5.6% in July. Meanwhile, the Dow (-1.1%), Nasdaq (-1.7%), and S&P 500 (-1.3%) entered the session with modest July gains that have now been turned into losses between 0.3% and 0.8%.
At this juncture, health care, technology, and telecom services are the only sectors that are on pace to register July gains. Technology and telecom services sport ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|