Comments on: Bogle expects stocks to return 10% http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/ Helping you invest and prosper Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:54:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Monday LinkStuff - US Election Roundup http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-166815 Monday LinkStuff - US Election Roundup Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:58:41 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-166815 [...] Capitalist reports that John Bogle says equities will return 10% over the next 10 years.  Sounds good to [...] [...] Capitalist reports that John Bogle says equities will return 10% over the next 10 years.  Sounds good to [...]

]]> By: Nabloid.com http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164998 Nabloid.com Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:21:55 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164998 I think the increase must reflect his view that inflation will surely creep up. The big question I have isn't what the average rate of return will be, but what will the average rate of REAL inflation be? I think the increase must reflect his view that inflation will surely creep up. The big question I have isn’t what the average rate of return will be, but what will the average rate of REAL inflation be?

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164945 Canadian Capitalist Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:11:34 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164945 Anon: Thanks for your explanation. I don't feel Bogle's forecast is inconsistent with your opinion at all. His earlier forecast of 7% in 2007 and 10% now (both nominal, not real returns) could simply be explained by the 30% to 40% in equity values. Also these forecasts are for the next 10 years, not indefinitely into the future and are based on recent stock returns. Because stocks are mean reverting, I think these expectations to be reasonable and logical, not wildly optimistic. I totally agree with you on blindly extrapolating past experience. To be fair, Bogle's himself has warned investors of the same dangers in many books and articles. Personally, I'm assuming real returns from stocks in the range of 4% (<a href="http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/2008/06/11/sample-investment-policy-statement" rel="nofollow">Link</a>) over my investment horizon (30 to 40 years). In Triumph of the Optimists: 101 years of Global Investment Returns, the authors look at precisely the data you suggest: stock, bond and bill data from 16 countries starting from 1900 and find that on average stocks have beaten bonds by 4% to 6%. The same book (an updated study in the link below) found that stock returns in two countries -- Sweden and Australia -- exceeded US returns and in 11 out of 16 nations, real returns were at least 5%. The lowest premium of stocks over bonds over the century was 2% (in Switzerland). Even Germany and Japan experienced positive real returns from stocks (3.3% & 4.5%) over the century. What I'm getting at is that the superiority of stocks over bonds isn't just based on the US experience. The real return on world ex-US stocks was 5.3%, shy of the 6.5% real return from US stocks but still impressive. http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/786_GIRY2008Synopsis.pdf I couldn't agree with you more on (1) modest future returns (2) diversification across asset classes (3) diversification across equity markets. I'm guessing you mean 4% to 5% *real* returns from stocks -- that's my assumption as well with the lower end being more probable. (I haven't read Black Swan yet but I've read Fooled by Randomness...) Anon: Thanks for your explanation. I don’t feel Bogle’s forecast is inconsistent with your opinion at all. His earlier forecast of 7% in 2007 and 10% now (both nominal, not real returns) could simply be explained by the 30% to 40% in equity values. Also these forecasts are for the next 10 years, not indefinitely into the future and are based on recent stock returns. Because stocks are mean reverting, I think these expectations to be reasonable and logical, not wildly optimistic.

I totally agree with you on blindly extrapolating past experience. To be fair, Bogle’s himself has warned investors of the same dangers in many books and articles. Personally, I’m assuming real returns from stocks in the range of 4% (Link) over my investment horizon (30 to 40 years).

In Triumph of the Optimists: 101 years of Global Investment Returns, the authors look at precisely the data you suggest: stock, bond and bill data from 16 countries starting from 1900 and find that on average stocks have beaten bonds by 4% to 6%. The same book (an updated study in the link below) found that stock returns in two countries — Sweden and Australia — exceeded US returns and in 11 out of 16 nations, real returns were at least 5%. The lowest premium of stocks over bonds over the century was 2% (in Switzerland). Even Germany and Japan experienced positive real returns from stocks (3.3% & 4.5%) over the century.

What I’m getting at is that the superiority of stocks over bonds isn’t just based on the US experience. The real return on world ex-US stocks was 5.3%, shy of the 6.5% real return from US stocks but still impressive.

http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/786_GIRY2008Synopsis.pdf

I couldn’t agree with you more on (1) modest future returns (2) diversification across asset classes (3) diversification across equity markets. I’m guessing you mean 4% to 5% *real* returns from stocks — that’s my assumption as well with the lower end being more probable.

(I haven’t read Black Swan yet but I’ve read Fooled by Randomness…)

]]> By: Anon in Montreal http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164920 Anon in Montreal Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:59:10 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164920 CC: What I'm trying to get at is that 7 to 10% is not a scientifically based forecast, since it is heavily influenced by survivorship bias. It was computed from 10, 20, 30, etc. years of **USA** market returns. But the USA is a survivor! A scientific computation would start, say, in 1900 A.D.. Then look at all countries with stock markets then in existence. Allocate funds according to market weights (or some other passive strategy) and see what results you get over 10, 25, 45 years, etc. I bet you wouldn't get 7 to 10% returns due to all the blow ups that have occurred since then. In fact, this kind of extrapolation is what got us into the current mess ("house prices have always gone up in the past"; "mortgage default rates have never gone over x%/year"; etc.). ***The Nassim Taleb (Black Swan) books cover these points much better than I can here.*** Solutions/What to do: Assume long run stock returns will be much lower than expected (say, 4 or 5%). **Therefore, save more.** Also, be as diversified as the size of your portfolio allows: stocks, bonds, real estate (eg own small rental properties), gold, different currencies, etc. If I'm wrong? Yipee, you'll have a golden retirement and leave some cash to your kids. CC: What I’m trying to get at is that 7 to 10% is not a scientifically based forecast, since it is heavily influenced by survivorship bias. It was computed from 10, 20, 30, etc. years of **USA** market returns. But the USA is a survivor!

A scientific computation would start, say, in 1900 A.D.. Then look at all countries with stock markets then in existence. Allocate funds according to market weights (or some other passive strategy) and see what results you get over 10, 25, 45 years, etc.

I bet you wouldn’t get 7 to 10% returns due to all the blow ups that have occurred since then.

In fact, this kind of extrapolation is what got us into the current mess (“house prices have always gone up in the past”; “mortgage default rates have never gone over x%/year”; etc.). ***The Nassim Taleb (Black Swan) books cover these points much better than I can here.***

Solutions/What to do: Assume long run stock returns will be much lower than expected (say, 4 or 5%). **Therefore, save more.** Also, be as diversified as the size of your portfolio allows: stocks, bonds, real estate (eg own small rental properties), gold, different currencies, etc.

If I’m wrong? Yipee, you’ll have a golden retirement and leave some cash to your kids.

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164913 Canadian Capitalist Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:38 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164913 Anon: Realized returns can be quite different from expected returns. Forecasting doesn't mean that something will happen *for sure*, there is always some uncertainty. One example I can provide is 10-year total bond returns. If I buy a 10-year bond today, I can expect with 90% accuracy that the total return over the next 10 years will be the bond's current yield. But there is that 10% chance that my actual experience could be quite different from what I expect today. Some of those black swans you describe are lurking in that 10% chance of being wrong. Andrew: Thanks for the Bogle webinar. I'll be sure to check it out over the weekend. DGI: The Japanese experience alone is a good reason to construct globally diversified portfolios. Pretty much the same reasoning applies to estimating expected MSCI World returns -- current dividend yield (3%) + earnings growth (4% to 5%) = 7% to 8%. Anon: Realized returns can be quite different from expected returns. Forecasting doesn’t mean that something will happen *for sure*, there is always some uncertainty. One example I can provide is 10-year total bond returns. If I buy a 10-year bond today, I can expect with 90% accuracy that the total return over the next 10 years will be the bond’s current yield. But there is that 10% chance that my actual experience could be quite different from what I expect today. Some of those black swans you describe are lurking in that 10% chance of being wrong.

Andrew: Thanks for the Bogle webinar. I’ll be sure to check it out over the weekend.

DGI: The Japanese experience alone is a good reason to construct globally diversified portfolios. Pretty much the same reasoning applies to estimating expected MSCI World returns — current dividend yield (3%) + earnings growth (4% to 5%) = 7% to 8%.

]]> By: Dividend Growth Investor http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164887 Dividend Growth Investor Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:42:16 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164887 I read somewhere a research paper ( don't have the link with me) that showed that if you had created a portfolio of all countries that had functioning stock markets at the beginning of the 20th century and then weighted each country in the portfolio based off its industrial production slice of the total world GDP.. you'd have made about 8% in dollar terms.. I read somewhere a research paper ( don’t have the link with me) that showed that if you had created a portfolio of all countries that had functioning stock markets at the beginning of the 20th century and then weighted each country in the portfolio based off its industrial production slice of the total world GDP.. you’d have made about 8% in dollar terms..

]]> By: Andrew Baechler http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164886 Andrew Baechler Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:33:44 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164886 Earlier this month, John Bogle gave an excellent webinar presentation to the CFA institute. He made some very insightful points about black monday, black swans, the difference between risk and probability, and commentary on present market conditions. It's well worth listening to on the weekend. http://www.cfawebcasts.org/cpe/what.cfm?test_id=822 Earlier this month, John Bogle gave an excellent webinar presentation to the CFA institute. He made some very insightful points about black monday, black swans, the difference between risk and probability, and commentary on present market conditions.

It’s well worth listening to on the weekend.

http://www.cfawebcasts.org/cpe/what.cfm?test_id=822

]]> By: Phil S http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164765 Phil S Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:16:28 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164765 Although I also like to value companies based upon their earnings... There is a big difference between trailing earnings and future earnings. A company with a nice low trailing P/E ratio of 8 is actually a P/E of 24 if their earnings get chopped by 2/3 in a major recession or depression. Or if the profits disappear altogether, then the P/E technically shoots up to infinity (divide by 0 error). While P/Es based on trailing earnings looks pretty nice right now... It may not look very nice when the recession hits us full force as consumer spending drops off a cliff. Although I also like to value companies based upon their earnings… There is a big difference between trailing earnings and future earnings. A company with a nice low trailing P/E ratio of 8 is actually a P/E of 24 if their earnings get chopped by 2/3 in a major recession or depression. Or if the profits disappear altogether, then the P/E technically shoots up to infinity (divide by 0 error).

While P/Es based on trailing earnings looks pretty nice right now… It may not look very nice when the recession hits us full force as consumer spending drops off a cliff.

]]> By: Anon in Montreal http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164750 Anon in Montreal Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:46:47 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164750 Eric: Boggle could be right in both his predictions simultaneously. From last year's level, an investor might get 7% growth. An investor starting today might get 10% growth. No contradiction. CC: "For longer periods, forecasting is fairly easy" ? I'd say survivorship bias has clouded this analysis. Please forecast 20 year investment returns for these investors: Romans c. 400 A.D.; Germans c. 1930 A.D.; Russians c. 1910 A.D.; French c. 1780 A.D.; Japanese c. 1980 A.D.; ... In 1900 the USA was an emerging market. China and India are in that position today, with 7 times the US's population. Their rise will certainly have strong effects on our investment returns. Finally, this guy is a little kooky, but makes some valid points: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crash-course/chapter-1-three-beliefs Eric: Boggle could be right in both his predictions simultaneously. From last year’s level, an investor might get 7% growth. An investor starting today might get 10% growth. No contradiction.

CC: “For longer periods, forecasting is fairly easy” ? I’d say survivorship bias has clouded this analysis. Please forecast 20 year investment returns for these investors: Romans c. 400 A.D.; Germans c. 1930 A.D.; Russians c. 1910 A.D.; French c. 1780 A.D.; Japanese c. 1980 A.D.; …

In 1900 the USA was an emerging market. China and India are in that position today, with 7 times the US’s population. Their rise will certainly have strong effects on our investment returns.

Finally, this guy is a little kooky, but makes some valid points: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crash-course/chapter-1-three-beliefs

]]> By: Canadian Capitalist http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/bogle-expects-stocks-to-return-10/#comment-164740 Canadian Capitalist Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:49:11 +0000 http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/?p=1422#comment-164740 Eric: As long as we remain a capitalist society with corporations acting with a profit motive, I think it is reasonable to assume that earnings will grow in-line with GDP over the long-term. GDP grows by 2%, inflation runs at 2%, so we get 4% earnings growth. It's true that any number of things could happen -- we could have wars or events we can't foresee today. That's the risk part -- we expect returns to range about 7% but there is a possibility that it won't be realized. Eric: As long as we remain a capitalist society with corporations acting with a profit motive, I think it is reasonable to assume that earnings will grow in-line with GDP over the long-term. GDP grows by 2%, inflation runs at 2%, so we get 4% earnings growth. It’s true that any number of things could happen — we could have wars or events we can’t foresee today. That’s the risk part — we expect returns to range about 7% but there is a possibility that it won’t be realized.

]]>