Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review July 29, 2002 / 20 Menachem-Av, 5762

James K. Glassman

Jim Glassman
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Your money for your life |
As the stock market falls for the third straight year -- something that hasn't happened since 1941 -- I get asked three questions: 1. When will it end? 2. Why is it happening? 3. What should I do?

The third question is by far the most important, and the answer is fairly simple. But let me first dispose of the other two.

When will the slide stop? No one knows. Already, the decline is the second-worst since World War II, according to the scorekeepers at Bridgewater Associates in Wilton, Conn. The benchmark Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has dropped 44 percent from its peak on March 24, 2000. But picking a bottom is a fool's errand. What we know about bear markets is that they always end. Since 1931, a basket of S&P-style stocks has never lost money in any overlapping 10-year period (e.g., 1931-41, 1932-42, etc.), and since 1938 the market has lost money only three times in five-year periods.

The second question is a good subject for chitchat among politicians and economists but largely irrelevant to investors. Repeat after me: Despite all the verbiage on CNBC, one rarely knows why stocks decline in the short term. The financial markets are unbelievably complex places, and it's irresistible to opine that this or that event or trend is influencing prices. (Hey, I do it all the time!) When the pundits can't pinpoint a reason, they say that stocks fell on "profit-taking" or that they rose on "bargain-hunting." Nonsense.

Ultimately, the price of a stock today reflects the long-term expected profits that a company will make over its lifetime, and accounting scandals, terrorist threats and currency fluctuations (not to mention the most important thing: what's happening within the business itself) can affect those expectations.

The main factor, of course, is the economy, and, try as they might, economists can't forecast it very well in the short term. Right now, the economy looks healthy, though not robust, for the rest of this year. That's what Alan Greenspan told Congress, and it's what most experts believe.

The Economist magazine's survey, for instance, finds professionals on average estimating that gross domestic product (GDP, or the total output of goods and services) in the United States will grow 2.8 percent this year and 3.5 percent the next. Those figures are higher than for any developed country in Europe or Asia. By historic standards, they are low for a recovery after a recession, but the 2001 recession was mild.

Could the economy slow again soon, or go into a "double dip"?, an excellent subscription Web site, has concocted a risk-of-recession index to predict downturns in the next six months. Currently, the index stands at 11 percent, compared with 14 percent in February and 43 percent after the terrorist attacks last September.

Because the economy seems decent and the stock market is falling, many commentators are stumped by the disconnect between the two. But market prices and real-world performance don't march in lockstep. Day to day, the emotions of investors affect prices, but over the long term a good economy always means a good stock market. That's really all you need to know. If you think the U.S. economy is sound in the long term, then you can expect stocks to continue to produce the same annual returns, on average, that they have throughout history -- about 11 percent a year including inflation and 7 percent to 8 percent in purchasing power.

Finally, what to do?

The answer lies in two boring words: "asset allocation."

Of all the decisions you will make in your investing life, your choice of how to divide up your money among financial categories is the most important. By far. All the academic research says so, and it's obvious. What matters is not so much which individual stocks and bonds you pick, but the proportion you assign to each asset.

It is encouraging that, during an hour-long Internet discussion with readers on last week and in many recent e-mail messages, most of the reader questions I received were not about fleeing the market but about allocating assets within it. "How much money should I put into stocks if I am retiring in 10 years?" asked a 52-year-old. "My portfolio is 50 percent bonds. Is that the right amount in times like this?" asked a 35-year-old woman.

Asset allocation, or AA, begins with self-analysis. What are your needs, desires and fears? Most people figure they will need money in retirement, and most investing is geared to building a nest egg. If you are in your twenties, thirties or forties and expect to retire in your mid-sixties, then it makes sense to put the vast majority of your retirement money into stocks. But be sure you allocate within the allocation, that you balance your holdings of large-caps with small-caps, finance with technology, consumer stocks with real estate. As you approach retirement, money should come out of stocks and into bonds and cash.

Make your asset-allocation plan now and don't change it because of market conditions. Stock and bond prices will rise and fall, but your plan should endure. In fact, the most responsible action you can take today, in the face of a frightening market, is to sit down -- either on your own or, as I prefer, with a good financial adviser -- and set a serious, simple AA strategy.

The three asset categories are stocks, which represent ownership in a business; bonds, which are IOUs for loans you make to companies or government agencies; and cash, which is very short-term debt, in the form of Treasury bills, certificates of deposit, money-market funds or bank deposits. In the short term, there is a clear continuum: Stocks produce the highest returns, but they are the most risky; cash produces the lowest returns, and it is the least risky; bonds fall in between.

The nature of stocks is that they return far more than the other assets, but they are also more risky in the short term; that is, they bounce wildly up and down. For example, Ibbotson Associates, the Chicago research firm, found that from 1926 to 2001, large-cap stocks (like those in the S&P 500) returned an average of 10.7 percent a year while U.S. Treasury bonds returned 5.3 percent and cash (T-bills) returned 3.8 percent. But the standard deviation (a fair measure of risk) for stocks was 20 percent annually; bonds, 9 percent; cash, 3 percent.

Over longer periods, however, the riskiness of stocks declines so that, according to economist Jeremy Siegel of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, "the safest long-term investment has clearly been stocks and not bonds." The standard deviation over 20-year holding periods is about the same for the three assets.

That's the case for stocks in the long run. And it is always the case. Through thick and thin. Through bear markets and bull markets. Yes, it would be wonderful if you could pull your money out of stocks just before the market tanks and put it back just before the market booms. But such exploits in market timing rarely prove successful.

The reason AA is so important is that, over long periods, differences in the returns widen among different asset groups. In a single year, the gap between a stock that returns an average of 11 percent and a bond that returns an average of 5 percent is minor.

But over an investing lifetime, consider this: You put $600 a month into a portfolio that's allocated 70 percent to stocks and 30 percent to bonds. The average return of such a portfolio, based on three-quarters of a century of history, is about 9 percent annually. At the end of 30 years, your nest egg will exceed $1 million, according to a handy calculator from TIAA-CREF, the large pension-management firm.

Now imagine you put the same $600 a month into a portfolio that's allocated 20 percent to stocks and 80 percent to bonds. At the end of 30 years, you will have $588,000. With the 70-30 allocation, you will end up, incredibly, with two-thirds more retirement income than with the 20-80 allocation.

In a fascinating letter to clients recently, Todd E. Grady of David L. Babson & Co., a Cambridge, Mass., investment management firm, explored "the miracle of compound interest." Compound interest, writes Grady, "is when the interest paid to you is on both the original principal and the accumulated reinvested interest." It's the interest on the interest -- or, in the case of stocks, earnings (that is, dividends and rising stock prices) on top of earnings.

Grady cites the classic example of Peter Minuit's purchase of Manhattan from Indians in 1626 for $24 worth of trinkets. Compounded at 6 percent annually (an aggressive bond rate), that $24 would be worth $78 billion. Compounded at 10 percent annually (slightly below the average stock return), $24 would become $87 trillion -- or about nine times as much as last year's GDP.

In 1791, Benjamin Franklin, the American hero I admire most, gave the cities of Boston and Philadelphia each $5,000 with the stipulation that after 100 years each could withdraw $500,000 for worthy projects. By 1991, the remaining funds had grown to $20 million per city.

Ibbotson calculates that, if you had invested $1,000 in a basket of large-company stocks in 1926, you would have $2,279,000 by the end of 2001. The same amount invested in bonds would have grown to just $51,000; in Treasury bills, to $17,000.

But what about inflation and taxes? Taxes hurt bonds (whose interest is taxed at the higher ordinary-income, rather than capital-gains, rate) more than they hurt stocks. Still, let's give bonds a break and assume that, in real, after-tax terms, bonds return 3 percent and stocks 6 percent. If you invested $400 a month in bonds, you would have $232,000 in today's purchasing power at the end of 30 years; in stocks, $392,000. Stocks accumulate a nest egg that's 69 percent larger.

AA is a personal endeavor. If you can't sleep at night because you are worried about your stocks, then get out of them entirely. If you are saving not for retirement but for tuition bills that are five years off or a house down payment that's three years off, then stick to bonds. The most miserable stories I have heard lately involve people on the verge of retiring who have lost half their money because they had it all in the stock market. That's a shame. In the short term, anything can happen, so lock in your gains and switch to bonds as the date when you'll need to use your money nears.

Let's assume you will need your investments only for retirement, starting at age 65. A simple asset-allocation formula would work like this. Keep an emergency stash of cash that might represent a few months' expenses. All of the rest, if you are in your twenties, should go into a diversified portfolio of stocks. In your thirties, the allocation should be 90 percent stocks, 10 percent bonds. In your forties, move to 80 percent stocks, 20 percent bonds. In your early fifties, 70 percent stocks, 30 percent bonds; in your late fifties, 60 percent stocks, 40 percent bonds. By age 65, a good mix for most people who can also count on Social Security and some pension money from another source is 50 percent stocks, 50 percent bonds. And remember to diversify within those categories as well.

But these are only guidelines. Nearly everyone has different needs, desires and fears. What's important is to keep your eye on the ball: on how to allocate your assets for the future, not on what the stock market is doing this minute.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor James K. Glassman is the host of Tech Central Station. Comment by clicking here.


07/15/02: Have your cake
07/09/02: Competition cure-all
06/26/02: Rebalancing Act
06/21/02: Technology Back on Track
06/19/02: Star Power?
06/12/02: The Beautiful Line
06/10/02: Squashing broadband
06/06/02: Frank investing advice
06/04/02: Say it ain't so, George
05/29/02: He moves in mysterious ways
05/22/02: Reel in these stocks
05/15/02: It's a "small" world
05/08/02: Goldi-stocks
05/02/02: Japanese stock growth?
04/30/02: Trust the Bells?
04/24/02: Being there is best revenge
04/18/02: I'm a Seoul man
04/16/02: Analyze this
04/09/02: The Dot.Con con game
03/21/02: The companies you keep
02/28/02: Trusting monopolists
02/22/02: How not to get taken when buying stocks
02/06/02: Investing After 9/11
01/30/02: Blue Light Specials? Advice on snapping-up K-Mart or Enron stock
01/24/02: Dare to be obscure
01/16/02: Bank on this
01/10/02: What goes down...
01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks
12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech
12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You
12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts
12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes
11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?
10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No
10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror
10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech
10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times
09/26/01: The Information War
09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times
08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List
08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking
08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit
07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness
07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians
06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall
06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining
06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio
06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend
06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?
06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices
06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security
05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices
05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education
05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto
05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders
04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold   —   Break Up The Bells
04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future?
03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ
03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto
03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs
03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures
02/26/01: Chips on the Dips?
02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"
02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off
02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law
01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk
01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?
12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy
12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar
12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective
12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history
12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?
12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath
11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense
11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty
11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?
11/14/00: The Election and the Market
10/26/00: Hang on for the long term
10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all
10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought
10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize
10/13/00: Way to play biotech
10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology
10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In
10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap
10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance
09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?
09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?
09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps
09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?
09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation
08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks
07/27/00: Tech Dividends
07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators
07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock
07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit
07/13/00: Silicon Valley East
07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?
07/07/00: Adventures on the
07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison
06/29/00: In the Chips
06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!
06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?
06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?
06/15/00: Shopping for Government
06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks
06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave
06/06/00: "The Last Mile"
06/02/00: Keep Buying!
05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?
05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"
05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"
05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap

© 2002, Tech Central Station