Posts tagged financial advising
2024 Q3 Economic Update: Equity Risk Premiums
 
 
 

We’re all familiar with the risk-reward tradeoff: Do I risk injury to compete in a sport I love and feel fulfilled by? Do I risk leaving a stable job to pursue a career that excites me? It’s not surprising that this everyday phenomenon is also very present in our investment portfolios.

For example, there are three asset classes that an investor typically includes in their portfolio: cash, bonds, and stocks. Of the three, stocks can generate the greatest return but also merit the highest risk. On the other hand, a risk-free investment guarantees a future return with essentially no possibility of loss. An example of a risk-free investment is US Treasury bills, as they are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. If investors are taking on more risk by investing in stocks, they want to know their efforts are worth it. Enter the equity risk premium.

Understanding the Equity Risk Premium

The equity risk premium measures how much more an investor may receive in returns when investing in stocks versus a risk-free investment like T-bills. Basically, it puts a number to the term, “the higher the risk, the higher the reward”.

As we’ve previously written, the fear of financial loss causes many investors to be overly cautious about their investments. ”Myopic loss aversion” is when focusing on avoiding short-term losses in equities leads to poor long-term allocation decisions.  Incorporating bonds into your investment portfolio can serve as  a stabilizer, reducing the payback period to see your portfolio recover from downturns. Many investors own some combination of stocks and bonds to ensure the risk-reward tradeoff is an acceptable range for them, either emotionally or financially (or both). Because of the fear of loss, many investors either avoid or under-weigh equities. How significant is the difference between owning stocks (highest risk), bonds (lower risk), or cash (no risk)?

Risks associated with investing in Stocks

So, why do those who invest in stocks generally receive a greater return? Because of the greater risk they take on by doing so, such as:

Unpredictability: Stocks do not offer fixed payments at specific intervals like bonds.

When an investor buys a bond, they are essentially lending money to a company or a government (see our Bonds 101 blog for a primer on bond basics). Like any loan, bonds have terms outlining specific payment amounts and dates. These payments, known as coupons or interest, are obligatory, with insolvency being the only reason for non-payment.

Conversely, stocks represent ownership in a company and entail greater uncertainty. Returns for stock investors can come in the form of dividends distributed by the company or by selling shares at a higher price in the future. Unlike bond payments, dividends are not mandatory and can be suspended unexpectedly, as seen during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the growth of dividends may not meet expectations, even for well-established companies commonly known as “blue chip” stocks (such as Coca-Cola, McDonalds, or Microsoft). Even large and stable companies face challenges that can cause fluctuations in their stock prices. Due to the unpredictability of stock payouts in terms of amount and timing, investing in stocks is inherently riskier and more volatile. As a result, investors demand higher returns from equities as compensation for bearing this additional risk.

Risk of Total Loss: Stockholders can see their investment go to zero more easily than bond investors.

Over the last thirty years, bondholders have frequently recouped 40% or more of their initial investment during bankruptcies, although exact recovery rates can vary[1]. In contrast, equity owners seldom receive any compensation in bankruptcy. The harsh reality is that most companies fail in the long term, and many of these companies made interest payments on bonds throughout their existence, while equity investors ultimately see their investments become worthless. Regardless of whether you’re investing in stocks or bonds, owning a broad index fund provides essential diversification. Owning a basket of companies ensures that even if one fails, the other companies that continue to grow offset your losses so you’re never experiencing a complete wipeout.

The Equity Premium at Play Can Sometimes be a Jackpot

First, a quick note: All return figures mentioned below are based on real returns, or returns after adjusting for inflation. Real returns are the most accurate comparison across different asset classes, reflecting changes in purchasing power over time. Although nominal returns are widely used in the financial world unless otherwise specified, they do not account for inflation and are therefore less accurate in this example. All returns are based on rolling 12-month periods, meaning this is the return if you held the investment for 12 months.

Table 1 - Real returns, rolling 12 month periods - (1926-2023, adjusted for inflation)[2]

When we look at the real returns for the last 97 years between cash, bonds, and equities, it’s clear stocks deliver the highest returns, albeit with the most downside risk. Cash is undeniably the safest asset class but struggles to outpace inflation. Bonds tend to be closer to cash than equities in terms of their risk-return profile.

The Long-Term Power of the Equity Premium for an Investor

While stocks undoubtedly offer the highest returns, it’s essential to grasp their long-term value to investors. To demonstrate this, let’s outline a hypothetical scenario:

  • Assume three investors each save $5K annually for 40 years for retirement for a total contribution of $200K per investor.

  • We’ll assume each investor owns only a single asset class (cash, bonds, or stocks) for all 40 years of saving.

  • We’ll use the real return averages from Table 1 for each asset class.

  • We’ll utilize the commonly cited 4% annual withdrawal rate[3] for retirees to determine how much income the portfolio provides in retirement annually.

Table 2 – Portfolio values assuming real returns

The difference in portfolio value, and resulting income possible in retirement, is significant. A pure equity investor ends up with nearly six times the spending power of a pure bond investor after 40 years.

While equity market volatility can be unsettling, exposure to equities can significantly reduce the amount of savings required to achieve your financial goals such as funding retirement. It’s critical to ensure your equity allocation is sufficient to facilitate asset growth yet small enough to prevent panic during market downturns. Striking this balance depends on your emotional risk tolerance and financial capacity for risk.

Determining the optimal equity and bond allocation requires careful consideration of factors such as taxes, time horizon, and liquidity needs. If you are seeking guidance in navigating this complex process, please reach out to us at 503-905-3100, or email hi@humaninvesting.com to start the conversation.

Sources

[1] https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/research/articles/231215-default-transition-and-recovery-u-s-recovery-study-loan-recoveries-persist-below-their-trend-12947167

[2] These returns are based on an index, do not represent actual investment results, and are not guarantees of future results.

Data based on rolling 12 month returns, with monthly return intervals.

Equity returns utilize the Ibbotson SBBI Large-Cap Stocks Total Return for Jan 1926 to Sep 1989 (data courtesy of CFA Institute), and S&P 500 TR for Oct 1989 to Dec 2023 (data courtesy of YCharts).

Bond returns utilize the Ibbotson SBBI US Intermediate Term Government Bonds Total Return for Jan 1926 to Apr 1996 (CFA Institute), and Bloomberg US Aggregate for May 1996 to Dec 2023 (YCharts).

Cash returns utilize the Ibbotson SBBI US (30-Day) Treasury Bills for Jan 1926 to May 1997 (CFA Institute), and Bloomberg US Treasury Bills 1-3 Month for Jun 1997 to Dec 2023 (YCharts).

Inflation rates for calculating real returns are based on the Ibbotson SBBI inflation for Jan 1926 to Jan 1947 (CFA Institute), and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Feb 1947 to Dec 2023 (YCharts).

[3] https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/MAR04%20Determining%20Withdrawal%20Rates%20Using%20Historical%20Data.pdf

 
 

 

Related Articles

What Financial Planning Should Look Like
 
fragmented-planning.jpg

What are these individuals doing with their clients?

On several occasions we have had a “financial planner” approach us and ask if we could do some financial planning work with their clients. This is a confusing request. The request was not made because there was too much work to do and additional financial planning help was needed. The question was asked because these “financial planners” were not doing (or capable of doing) financial planning. What are these individuals doing with their clients? They are doing meaningful and helpful work, but it is typically isolated to advice focused on a specific product, either investment services or life insurance. They are not equipped (either educationally or structurally within their business) to do comprehensive financial planning, and that has created a gap between the services they are providing and the full financial planning needs of clients. It also begs the question of what clients expect when they hire a “financial planner.” Do they know? Do they know what they don’t know? Do they assume that all financial planners and advisors offer the same range of services?

Imagine going to the doctor

We would postulate that clients outsource the financial planning process as much as they do the financial planning outcomes. More clearly, they trust the expert to guide them through the process and illuminate financial topics that they should be considering as much as making specific recommendations within areas that have already been identified by the client. It is quite similar to what a patient expects of a doctor. The patients brings in a set of identified ailments or existing conditions and expects the doctor to treat these. However, the patient also expects that the doctor will use their expertise to guide them through a more comprehensive physical evaluation that will identify things that are not yet known to the patient. Whether it is in areas of health, legal or business consulting, architecture, etc., we expect the experts to not only address the identified concern but to navigate us through a perplexing and complex topical maze that many of us know very little about. The truly desired outcome normally circles around something like, “help me know what I should know.” There is a lot of trust and vulnerability in that request, and it can get worse as there are many financial incentives that are not in the client’s best interest that have kept the financial planning industry siloed around investment services (stay tuned for much more on that in a later post). Let’s go back to the medical analogy. A patient would never want to go to a doctor who has a drug or pill already identified and is evaluating the condition of the patient by searching for ways to use that drug or pill to treat the patient. Instead, a patient would want a doctor who evaluates the medical situation with an unbiased lens and only uses a drug or pill if it is the most effective way to treat the identified condition.

Truly comprehensive financial planning

Below is a picture that depicts what most financial planning firms look like (the pieces on the right – “Product-focused financial planning”). These firms primarily start with a product and identify ways that their product can help clients reach their financial goals. Their version of financial planning focuses almost exclusively on how investments or life insurance can be used to fund a client’s retirement. They determine retirement funding needs, manage client investments/insurance, and establish and manage tax-advantaged plans (IRAs, Roth IRAs, 529 Plans, etc.). The additional financial planning topics are often neglected or marginally addressed because they are ancillary to the investments and life insurance products (see bottom right of graphic). Many might use the terms “wealth advisors” or “wealth management.”

The picture on the left (“Truly comprehensive financial planning”) is what we propose financial planning should look like. This firm assesses a client’s financial needs from a comprehensive financial planning perspective and realizes that “investment planning” is only one part of financial planning. All of the other aspects are critical in and of themselves, but they also have an impact on the investment strategy and plan. This difference in structure is not a minor variation in mindset or perspective. It is a completely different paradigm that allows for the purest, most comprehensive, and optimal human-centered financial planning. Truly comprehensive financial planners consider all of the client’s financial goals and helps them see the interconnectedness of the various parts as well as the unique behavioral elements that will interact with the plan.

human-investing-financial-planning-puzzle.jpg

Our standard

We are an ensemble practice that desires to model the purest and most human-centric version of comprehensive financial planning (picture on the left) so that we can faithfully serve the financial pursuits of all people. One way that we address the limitations cited above is to place an importance on hiring CFP® credentialed advisors to work among our other world-class humans. As a first step to CFP® certification, individuals must complete CFP Board education requirements in the major personal financial planning areas, including:

  • Professional Conduct and Regulation

  • General Principles of Financial Planning

  • Education Planning

  • Risk Management and Insurance Planning

  • Investment Planning

  • Tax Planning

  • Retirement Savings and Income Planning

  • Estate Planning

  • Financial Plan Development (Capstone)

After fulfilling the education requirement, candidates must take and pass a rigorous application-based exam that covers the above-listed topics. After passing the exam, candidates must obtain at least 4,000 hours of financial planning work experience and additionally adhere to the CFP Board’s Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct (including continuing education hours in ethics and content areas required every two years). While other financial services credentials and licenses provide training and permit certain financial product sales, the CFP® certification is recognized as the highest standard in personal financial planning. It provides the education and training necessary to offer comprehensive financial planning services. The CFP® certification is an important foundation, but it is only the first step towards delivering truly comprehensive financial planning.

We will more fully address many other topics mentioned in this post in future pieces as many of the systematic factors identified in the last article touch and extend from what has been explored above. We believe that the ‘human’ part of Human Investing involves both hiring and investing in exceptional humans and offering investment services within the context of the most comprehensive and purest form of human-centered financial planning.

Ryan Halley, Ph.D., CFP® is Director of Planning Practices and Research at Human Investing. He holds a doctorate in Personal Financial Planning from Texas Tech University and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from The Ohio State University. Ryan has his CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. Dr. Halley is also a Professor of Finance and Financial Planning at George Fox University, where he directs a CFP® Registered Program located near Portland, Oregon. He has co-authored a book and has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, he has been an invited professor and lecturer at various universities in the United States, Canada and China.

 

 
 

Related Articles