Larry Swedroe

Wise Investing
Click Here

David Swensen’s Words of Wisdom

By Larry Swedroe | Oct 16, 2009 |

David Swensen has been the chief investment officer of the Yale Endowment since 1985. At the end of 2008, the endowment was the second-largest higher education endowment at about $17 billion. Kevin Grogan, my colleague at Buckingham Asset Management, passed along an interview Swensen gave to the Financial Times last week. Although he’s an institutional money manager, individual investors would be wise to follow his advice:

Market Timing
“Ultimately, market timing is an exercise in futility. When you’ve got dramatic movements in the markets you can identify after the fact a handful of investors that succeeded in the short run. But making big, aggressive asset allocation moves isn’t a strategy that’s likely to prove successful in the long run.”

Index Funds
“The overwhelming number of investors, individual and institutional, should be completely in low-cost index funds because that’s easy to understand.”

Swensen’s Most Important Investing Advice
“You should only invest in things that you understand. That should be the starting point and the finishing point.” For most investors, this means avoiding complicated alternative investments like equity-indexed annuities, structured investment products and hedge funds.

The key to investing is relatively simple and almost boring. Determine the asset allocation that matches your ability, willingness and need to take risk. Then, implement this asset allocation using passive investments that are easy to understand. If you follow this simple advice, you’ll be well ahead of many investors.

 
Reply to Story

MoneyWatch TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    RogerS@...

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Dave,

    Frankly, I'm tired of hearing your bashing of market timing. Let's see if you'll put your money where your mouth is. I hereby issue you this challenge.

    Roger Schreiner


    My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle and Larry Swedroe
    Index investing doesn?t work in the real world of inefficient markets.

    Roger J. Schreiner

    His disciples call themselves ?Bogleheads,? and cling to his ?Pillars of Wisdom? as though they were the Ten Commandments. Those in the media adore him and treat his words like gospel. He?s an icon?a God-like figure to thousands of investors.

    John Bogle is the founder of The Vanguard Group, and launched the first index mutual fund in 1975. Since then, he has dedicated his career to encouraging investors to ?own the market? by investing in index funds. He stresses the importance of asset allocation and low fees within a passive, buy-and-hold investment approach. There is no doubt that Mr. Bogle is sincere and has noble ambitions, but I believe his unwavering faith in the markets is misplaced.

    Today, he is taking up what many are calling his final crusade. On February 24, he appeared before a Congressional committee in Washington, D.C. to tell lawmakers about his vision for ?an independent Federal Retirement Board to oversee both the employer-sponsors and the plan providers, assuring that the interests of plan participants are the first priority?Our Federal Retirement Board should not only foster the use of broad-market index funds in the new defined contribution system but approve only private providers who offer their index funds at minimum costs.?

    Mr. Bogle wants Congress to overhaul our retirement system by ?limiting investment choices? for workers? retirement plans and providing ?more understandable options.? Under his plan, ?only private providers? (such as Vanguard) would be ?approved? investment vehicles.

    If you?re not sure which investments are right for you, don?t worry; John Bogle knows. If he has it his way, a Federal Retirement Board will make your investment decisions for you. Doesn?t Mr. Bogle realize that shareholders in his index funds had their retirement plans decimated last year? Do you really want him guiding your investment decisions? Nothing personal, Mr. Bogle, but I think buy-and-hold has failed?it doesn?t work.

    On June 19, in an interview with IndexUniverse.com, Bogle was asked, ?Do you believe that there are environments that are more favorable to active management than passive management and index investing?? His response was clear. ?There is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances are. It is just statistically, mathematically, tautologically impossible.?

    My $100,000 Challenge

    I hereby challenge John Bogle to a friendly wager. I want to bet $100,000 of my own money that my active investment approach can outperform his passive one.

    I am challenging Mr. Bogle directly because he has the loudest voice in the industry. However, my challenge is also open to other passive investors and managers. I have set aside $1,000,000 and am ready to accept up to ten challengers. I have $100,000 earmarked for my contest with Mr. Bogle and another $900,000 waiting for nine others who want to accept the challenge.

    The Wager: Both Mr. Bogle and I will place $100,000 in an escrow account at the bank of Mr. Bogle?s choice. At the end of the wager, the winner gets his $100,000 back and the loser will contribute his $100,000 to the winner?s favorite charity in his name.

    The Portfolio: Mr. Bogle is free to construct his own portfolio using the index funds of his choice. I will create an exact replica of Mr. Bogle?s holdings for my portfolio. During the contest, Mr. Bogle must passively hold the assets in his portfolio and, in my portfolio, I will limit myself to trading the same assets. As an active manager, I will be able to use cash in my portfolio to help control risk. Of course, Mr. Bogle can use cash too. If he wishes, a website can be maintained so that the public can follow the portfolios and/or the results. There will be complete transparency.

    The Time Period: Mr. Bogle can choose the length of the contest?anywhere from one year to a few years, or as many years as he wishes.

    Fees and Expenses: Mr. Bogle?s portfolio will incur no (0%) annual management fees. My portfolio will have the disadvantage of incurring a 2% annual management fee, in addition to any transaction costs. We will use a tax-deferred, retirement account structure, so there are no tax implications for short-term capital gains.

    The Results: Risk and return are the most basic and logical measures of investment success. In order to win the contest, a portfolio must have both higher return and lower risk. To calculate risk and return we will use the statistical measures of total return and standard deviation.

    Mr. Bogle? Well, there you have it. Since you believe ?there is no way that active managers can possibly have an advantage no matter what the circumstances,? my $100,000 must seem like free money to you. I?m waiting for your call. I?m not holding my breath though, because I am sure you will find a reason to back down. Of course, if you do, that will help prove my point?that my active investment process is superior to your high-risk ?buy-and-hope? approach.

    Any passive investor who believes he or she can generate a safer and higher return in their buy-and-hold portfolio than I in my active portfolio has an opportunity to relieve me of $100,000. I?m giving the passive investor all the choices, except the one they saddle themselves with?the burden of not managing their money.

    We have created a web page dedicated to ?My $100,000 Challenge to John Bogle? at www.scminvest.com/100k. There we will post the names of everyone (with their permission) who takes me up on my challenge and you can sign up to receive an e-mail alert. You can post your comments, ask me a question, and take our ?Active vs. Passive Survey.? There is also a link for a free subscription to our Dynamic Investor newsletter.

    Talk is Cheap

    I?ve been writing about the flaws of passive investing for over twenty years, but to what end? Articles, debates and media interviews cannot settle the longstanding dispute between active and passive investors. Talk is cheap.

    If John Bogle is a consumer advocate, he is also a lobbyist promoting the products of the company he founded. Unfortunately for investors, he has the ear of lawmakers in Congress, most of whom do not truly understand investing. I believe Bogle?s investment philosophy is dangerous to investors? retirement savings, as evidenced by the results of last year. It is based on old, flawed investment models like Modern Portfolio Theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), and the Random Walk Theory. A proper reading of today?s financial research suggests that these theories are unfounded. To some in our industry, that?s blasphemy?but it?s what I believe to be the truth.

    Passive investing is simply ill-equipped to handle the unpredictable events and market volatility we have experienced over the last ten years?it ignores reality. Professor Robert Shiller of Yale University has shown that the instability of asset prices is much greater than is predicted by EMH. That is, where the EMH suggests that passive exposure to investment markets are a way to control risk, real-life experience (the best kind of evidence) shows that markets are actually the source of risk! Even Eugene Fama himself, the father of EMH, recently admitted, ?markets are not entirely efficient.? In a recent interview with David Salisbury he said, ?market efficiency is a simplification of the world, which does a good job on almost everything, but some things it doesn?t do a good job with.?

    The problem with building an investment strategy around the Efficient Market Hypothesis (and the other theories EMH supports) is that it only takes one event?one market crash?to wipeout your retirement savings. Every investor?s time horizon is limited?they don?t have forever to wait for markets to recover.

    On August 7th, John Mauldin, an economist and author of the newsletter Thoughts from the Frontline, shared his opinion on EMH. ?The Efficient Market Hypothesis, according to Robert Shiller, is one of the most remarkable errors in the history of economic thought. EMH should be consigned to the dustbin of history. We need to stop teaching it, and brainwashing the innocent. Robert Arnott (who oversees $31 billion at Research Affiliates) tells a lovely story of a speech he was giving to some 200 finance professors. He asked how many of them taught EMH?pretty much everyone?s hand was up. Then he asked how many of them believed it. Only two hands stayed up!?



    Baffle a Boglehead: Use Facts and Logic

    Bogleheads won?t admit it, but indexing is high-risk and has delivered low returns historically. According to CrestmontResearch.com, from 1900 through 2008, the stock market has returned just 5.8% on an annualized basis (including dividends and adjusted for inflation). To capture that 5.8% return, investors had to suffer devastating losses along the way, including an 89% loss (1929-32), a 48% loss (1973-74), another 49% loss (2000-02) and, most recently, a 57% loss (2007-09). It took investors 25 years and almost 900% gain just to break even after the 1929-32 bear market. How many years is it going to take Bogleheads to recover from the 57% loss of 2007-09? How much time do you have? See attached chart: ?Impact of Losses?

    Every quarter, in our Dynamic Investor newsletter, we publish ?SCM?s 5 Rules for Investment Success.? We think they are so important that we print them every quarter?we want investors to read them time and time again.

    Our Rules for Investment Success are very different from John Bogle?s Pillars of Wisdom. The glaring difference is that our rules are focused on risk management and an acceptance of uncertainty about the future. Bogle?s Pillars of Wisdom hardly acknowledge that investing is risky. His first pillar is: ?Investing Is Not Nearly as Difficult as It Looks.? Oooo-kay. I don?t know about you, but if Mr. Bogle is going to work from that premise, I don?t want him anywhere near my retirement savings!

    In contrast to Bogle?s first pillar, our first rule is ?Avoid Significant Loss.? The man known as the most successful investor of all time, Warren Buffett, agrees. He reminds investors often of his first two rules: ?Rule #1: Never lose money. Rule #2: Never forget rule #1.?

    ?I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It.? ?Charles Barkley, 11-time NBA All-Star

    There are two reasons why I am not concerned about losing the challenge. First and foremost, because active management is adaptable, it has a huge tactical advantage over passive indexing?sophisticated investors understand this. The risk management benefit, which is inherent in our investment process, gives us an edge that passive investing cannot overcome.

    Secondly, it is highly unlikely that John Bogle or anyone else will accept my challenge. I hope he does, though, because it will be a great opportunity for us to raise money for our charities. If passive management truly is superior, or has some kind of built-in advantage, I won?t have any trouble finding ten passive managers to accept my challenge.

    To be perfectly clear, active investing does not insure success, and it certainly does not guarantee investors will profit. No investment manager can make such a claim, no matter how long the investment time horizon and no matter who is running the portfolio. By challenging Mr. Bogle, my objective is simple: to prove to everyone?especially individual investors who have been misled by the mainstream financial services industry for far too long?that active investing can be less risky than buy-and-hold. The proof will come when no passive manager accepts my challenge. If someone does, then I will have the opportunity to prove it with my results.

    A Safer Way to Reach Your Retirement Goals

    If you look objectively at the history of financial markets, it becomes clear that passive, buy-and-hold investing is a high-risk, low-return endeavor. Investors who are close to or in retirement don?t want high risk and unpredictable returns. They want low risk and more predictable returns. For retirees who own tax-deferred retirement accounts, such as IRAs, active management may offer lower risk and more consistent returns.

    Investors who utilize active investment strategies in their retirement accounts can move between stocks, mutual funds, ETFs and cash with no tax consequences and with little or no transaction costs. The performance of our active investment strategies speaks for itself. For complete performance information on all of our investment models, please visit our website, or contact us directly.

    Investors must unlearn what people like John Bogle have been telling them. The greatest threat to your retirement is uncertainty of the future?it?s the next credit crisis, the next financial crisis, the next recession. If you accept buy-and-hold, you must expect that, at some point, your retirement savings will experience a devastating loss. I always tell investors, ?Your investment process must include an exit strategy, otherwise, you shouldn?t be invested in the stock market.?

    While our past is certain, the future is unknowable. Bogle?s approach is reckless and irrational because it assumes the market will provide positive returns to all investors. There is no guarantee that returns will be positive no matter how long you invest. My advice to you is to find an investment manager who truly understands risk and has a plan for both good and bad markets. Find a financial advisor that is confident enough to take on today?s uncertain markets, but is humble enough to know what he does not know.

  •  
    2

    larry swedroe

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Roger

    The only problem with your post is that all the evidence from studies on market timing show that it is a loser's game big time.

    As one example, Charles Ellis cited a study in which 100 pension plans engaged in market timing efforts. Now they only hire managers with great track records, and they have access to the very best. How many benefited from their efforts? A big fat zero.

    Mark Hulbert, publisher of Hulbert?s Financial Digest, studied the performance of 32 of the portfolios of market timing newsletters for the ten years ending in 1997.3 During this period, the S&P 500 Index was up over 18 percent per annum. Here is what he found:
    ?The timers? annual average returns ranged from 5.8 percent to 16.9 percent.
    ?The average return was 10.1 percent.
    ?None of the market timers beat the market.

    MoniResearch studied the performance of 85 managers with a total of $10 billion under management. Here is what they found:
    ?The timers? annual average return ranged from 4.4 percent to 16.9 percent.
    ?The average return was 11.04 percent.
    ?None of the market timers beat the market.

    Andrew Metrick, found similar results. Metrick studied the equity portfolio recommendations of 153 newsletters covering the 17-year period ending December 1996. His conclusions:
    ?There was no evidence of stock-picking ability.
    ?There was no evidence of abnormal short-run performance persistence (?hot hands? didn?t stay hot).
    Metrick noted that there were over two million subscribers to over 500 newsletters. He also noted that while the publishers were making millions for themselves they weren?t adding any real value for their readers.

    A study on TAA funds (Tactical Asset Allocation or read market timing funds) that covered 12 years found that S&P was up 734 percent and TAA funds returned 384.

    The problem with market timing efforts are that so much of returns occur over short and unpredictable periods that even before costs it must be a loser's game. After costs it only gets worse.

    As to your strategy about using tax-advantaged accounts. For anyone with the ability to allocate assets in taxable or tax advantaged accounts should have preference for holding the equities in taxable accounts for variety of reasons. This too you will find in the literature. So for anyone with such ability the tax impact of market timing only makes the situation even worse.

    Note that even legendary active investor Peter Lynch was always 100% invested because he believed that more money was lost anticipating corrections than ever lost in them.

    And I think we can both agree that Warren Buffett is a pretty smart guy. And he rants against market timing. Should investors take your advice or his? Care to take a poll on that one?

    One last note, while investors who put all their money in the S&P 500 Index had negative returns over the ten years ending in 2008, investors that build more diversified portfolios like the kind I have recommended in my books did not. They outperformed the S&P 500 by about 7 percent per annum, depending of course on their particular asset allocation and which fund family they used. Of course one had to have the discipline to stay the course, and rebalance to do so.


  •  
    3

    larry swedroe

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Roger
    One last point I forgot to cover in response to your post.

    The question of whether or not the market is efficient or not is really irrelevant. The real question in determining the winning strategy is if the markets are inefficient can you outperform risk adjustment benchmarks AFTER THE COSTS (including taxes) of the efforts. Even the behavioral funds that claim that the markets are inefficient and they can exploit them have failed, as one study Are the Disciples Profiting from the Doctrine demonstrated.

  •  
    4

    crondanet5

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Swenson was also recently on Consuela's WealthTrack. He had some other tidbits to share there. (Goto wealthtrack.com and you can find it). What amazed me was that at a time when the advisors all touted the diversified investment approach he instituted a plan that reduced his stock holdings from 75%to 15% and went into US Treasurys. I also like the fact he appreciates those who work with him and doesn't play it like it is a one-man show. Interesting.

  •  
    5

    crondanet5

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    For RogerS@ Why are you restricting yourself to a $100,000 for your challenge? What can you do with that? How about $500,000 to make it really meaningful? The data could be captured and analyzed to determine what worked best for whom and how it could be integrated into a formidable investment program.

    I'm sort of thinking along the Red Flag exercises run by the Air Force. While we're not after bandits, we could substitute stocks, ETFs, whatever and run the scenario multiple different ways, change the trading day data, burn out a few hard drives. Doesn't that seem a more interesting experiment than simply getting into a tacking contest?

  •  
    6

    crondanet5

    10/16/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Post-thought. Roger, I agree with your market timing approach but not to the last penny of gain. The more I trade, the more obvious it becomes predictable what the markets will do. Sort of like following a heart monitor with a lot of Beta in the ER. It took me a while to pick this out of your reply what with all the gravy covering it. But you know, with the newer trading programs being used it becomes difficult for an individual investor to stay ahead of the activity. So there is room for Larry's more Bogle approach in the market place. As long as you're making money, stick with your program. But when those markets go cold, don't you wish you were in a more traditional mode? I know I do.

  •  
    7

    MrRosemary

    10/17/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    There's a particular blog devoted to technical analysis and market timing I read frequently. Very well written blog and I think the author is quite insightful.

    However he's frequently wrong. I've paper traded his ideas for the past 8 months and the results have been no better than a buy and hold well diversified portfolio of 100% equity, 50/50 US/International with a value bias.

    My actual trades are net of cost. My paper trades are not. So if I factor costs in, I'd be behind. I'm even counting using an ultra low cost broker, like IB.

    The real money in market timing is developing a market timing system and selling it to people. That's the alpha, should you be looking.

  •  
    8

    larry swedroe

    10/18/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Mr Rosemary

    Steve Forbes said it before you did: You make more money selling the advice than following it. He added: And we count on readers having short memories.

  •  
    9

    mid-coast Mainer

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Larry -- would you please elaborate on the following: "As to your strategy about using tax-advantaged accounts. For anyone with the ability to allocate assets in taxable or tax advantaged accounts should have preference for holding the equities in taxable accounts for variety of reasons. This too you will find in the literature." Why wouldn't one want to use tax advantaged accounts for trading, if one is doing that kind of thing? Wouldn't that eliminate the tax consequences (and hassle)? Thanks.

  •  
    10

    larry swedroe

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Midcoast
    Happy to help.

    First your preference should be to hold fixed income in tax advantaged accounts and then equities in taxable. There are several reasons for doing so

    a) equities more tax efficient than bonds in taxable accounts due to capital gains rate treatment for long term gains vs ordinary income

    b) in taxable accounts you have the ability to harvest losses, something you lose in tax advantaged accounts. Note that the more volatile the asset the more valuable the option is. And equities far more volatile than bonds.

    c) with foreign stocks you lose the foreign tax credit in tax advantaged accounts, and that is worth roughly 10% of the dividends (depends on tax treaties) of diversified portfolios

    d) in taxable accounts you have the potential for stepped up basis on death, avoiding income taxes

    e) with taxable accounts can donate appreciate shares to charity, again avoiding taxes.

    Now in addition to all the costs of trading you give up the above advantages (if you have a choice of location) which only increases the already high hurdle active investors face. In effect you are imposing on yourself more costs because you lose the above advantages. The odds of your winning this game (not even counting the value of the time you spend on it, when you could be doing more important things than trying to beat the market) are already so low that it is imprudent to try and by holding the assets in the wrong location you make the odds even worse.

    Now as to trading, all the studies on individuals trading stocks (or funds) are horrific in terms of results. Suggest you read the series of papers by Terrance Odean and Brad Barber. Or you can learn about them in my book Rational Investing in Irrational Times.

    And there is an overwhelming body of evidence on active management being a loser's game, whether done by individuals, hedge funds, venture capital, mutual funds or pension plans. So why play the game when the odds of winning are so low that it is irrational to play? What advantage do you think you have over the big pension plans that have low costs, hire the best money managers around, with great track records, and they fail with great persistence to beat risk adjusted benchmarks? If you cannot think of an advantage there is no logic to the decision. And remember, if you cannot identify the sucker at the poker table, you're it.

  •  
    11

    mzhuang

    10/21/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    I'd just like to add to Larry's point, even though I am not a market efficiency purist.

    Let's suppose the market is inefficient, does that mean we smart guys can beat the market? Not necessary. Just like John Maynard Kaynes said: "the market can stay irrational longer than you stay solvent."

    In fact, the market can stay irrational longer than you stay alive. You might die being the only person who knows the true value of the market.

    Michael Zhuang
    http://www.investment-fiduciary.com

  •  
    12

    mid-coast Mainer

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    OK Larry. Thanks. One of my main struggles with buy and hold is the potential for significant loss of capital. Getting close to retirement and just can't afford huge losses, not knowing if or how long it might take to come back. Asset allocation didn't provide protection in the last big downturn as expected. I've been reading lots of articles by seemingly very smart people on all sides of the issues of buy and hold, active managment, sector trading, etc and everyone seems to have lots of statistics and data to support their claims. I've read the stuff about how active investing doesn't beat index funds and passive investing, but I've also read claims to the contrary, with detailed info to prove their point. Would you comment? I wish there was a place to submit some of these things I've read and have you or someone else respond to them...

  •  
    13

    larry swedroe

    10/22/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Mid-coast Mainer

    Happy to help.

    First, re this statement: "Asset allocation didn't provide protection in the last big downturn as expected." That is absolutely false. Those making such claims, don't understand the most basic concepts in investing.

    A) The most important asset allocation is the equity to fixed income allocation. So the first step in developing an AA plan is to make sure you have a sufficient allocation to high quality fixed income investments to dampen the overall risk of the portfolio to a level that does not exceed one's ability, willingness or need to take risk. And for those that followed the advice in my bond book, The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need, to limit fixed income holdings to only Treasuries and the highest investment grade municipals accomplished that goal. Those assets went up in value during the crisis.

    Second, those that claim that diversification of equities doesn't work also doesn't know the first thing about investing and certainly doesn't know their investment history. I discuss this in my blog of July 22
    (http://moneywatch.bnet.com/investing/blog/wise-investing/687/687/?tag=col1;blog-river)

    What happened in 2008 had occurred in every crisis and should have been expected, which is why you need to have the right amount of fixed income and the right type (junk bonds, preferreds, emerging market bonds, and convertibles all acted like equities in 2008 because they have equity like risks).

    Third, as to being close to retirement; that should be taken into account when you design your plan. That is part of the ability to take risk part of the equation. But remember that you don't plan to die the day you retire, and the average 65 year old couple has a second to die life expectancy of almost 90. And that is AVERAGE, meaning half will have one live longer. So the horizon is likely long.

    Fourth, as to the active/passive debate there are no reliable statistics to support active investing. Any study that shows otherwise is measuring incorrectly---as William Sharpe demonstrates using simple math in his famous paper "The Arithmetic of Active Investing." In fact, we have seen studies reporting to show active wins and have then published responses exposing the flaws and yet the updated versions of the studies contain to LIE, even though they are aware of the flaws. They need to do that to have you believe. Here is the link to Sharpe's paper.

    http://www.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm

    He clearly demonstrates that anyone claiming that active investing can win (in aggregate) in any asset class, bull or bear market, should be required to wear a shirt that says "I cannot add." This is simple arithmetic. Active management doesn't lose because it is dumb. It loses because it has higher costs. And there are just not enough victims to exploit since the institutional investors do as much as 90% (or maybe more) of the trading, exactly who are they exploiting?

    I hope that is helpful

    Best wishes
    Larry

  •  
    14

    mid-coast Mainer

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Thanks. What asset allocation do you recommend for someone about 10 years away from retirement? 60/40? 50/50? Where do cash equivalents fit in? Do you have a general recommendation for %'s in large cap/small cap? US/International? Growth/Value? Emerging Markets? sectors? what else?

  •  
    15

    larry swedroe

    10/23/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    Midcoast Mainer

    Unfortunately, it is literally impossible to answer your question without a lot more detail. We typically spend a couple of hours in what we call a discovery meeting to flesh out all of the issues that need to be addressed to answer that question about the right AA. There is no right AA based on age because there are so many other facts, and these rules of thumb are really not helpful IMO (like 100- age).

    The right answer depends on individual analysis of one's ability, willingness and need to take risk. That includes the correlation of one's labor capital to equity risks, options that one has that can be exercised if the left tail of the potential dispersion of returns shows up (the more options one has and is prepared to exercise the more risk one can take), one's ability to handle the stress of a bear market and not panic, or lose sleep, the marginal utility of wealth (including any bequeth desires), life expectancy (you don't plan on dying the day you retire), and many other issues.

    My next book, The Only Guide You'll Ever Need to the Right Financial Plan will actually address all of these issues by giving you the questions to ask yourself. It will show for example who should consider tilting more to int'l, EM, small, value, etc. It will also address a whole host of other issues including incorporating SS, long term care insurance and the role of annuities.

    BTW- sector investing should avoided--not a risk factor, so not compensated for taking diversifiable risk.

    Wish could be more helpful, but it would be "phony" answer---one that could easily be wrong because I would not have the full knowledge needed to answer the question.

    In the meantime my book, The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need, does provide some guidelines and tables to help with the decision. It contains three tables on ability, willingness and need to take risk. They can be quite helpful in leading you in the right direction at least. But there is more to finding the right answer than any table can provide. It is one way a good advisor can add lots of value.

  •  
    16

    mid-coast Mainer

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    OK. Thanks. When's your next book due to be out?

  •  
    17

    larry swedroe

    10/24/09 | Report as spam

    RE: David Swensen's Words of Wisdom

    MidcoastMainer
    Bloomberg will be publishing it in May 2010.

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is principal and director of research for The Buckingham Family of Financial Services. He has authored or co-authored seven books, including The Only Guide to a Winning Investment Strategy You'll Ever Need.

Larry Swedroe

Larry Swedroe is a principal and the director of research for Buckingham Asset Management and BAM Advisor Services. He has also worked with Prudential Home Mortgage and Citicorp, totaling nearly 40 years of managing financial risks for major corporations and advising individuals on ways to do the same.

His opinions and comments expressed on this site are his own and may not accurately reflect those of the firm.

Click Here
track your portfolio