James B. Cloonan is the
founder and chairman of
AAII, a nonprofit organization providing
support, education and information to individuals who manage their own
investments or who wish to more closely oversee their advisers.
In "Investing at Level3," Cloonan rails against virtually all the beliefs
of current theory and practice, claiming that:
- It is very possible
to exceed the average market returns.
- Volatility is not an
appropriate measure of risk for the long-term investor.
- Much of
asset allocation and diversification is not a 'free lunch' and is
overdone at great expense. His book is, at this time, available only through the AAII website.
As to his points, I agree with him on volatility. If you're a
"buy and hold" investor with a time frame of 10 years or longer, then
the markets ups and downs don't really matter. Risk is defined as the
likelihood you'll have the capital you expect when you want it (at some
future long term date), not as the perturbations of the market that
won't cause you to sell anyways.
I also could imagine
agreeing on diversification: the price you pay for adding bonds to an
equity portfolio is that you lower the total yield. People do this for
the relative lack of volatility in bonds or for the predictable income
stream. But if you believe that in the long haul equities will
outperform bonds, then Dr. Cloonan is correct. In the US, from 1926
through 2015, stocks gained 9.9%/year and bonds 5.2%. The volatility
measure that Dr. Cloonan disdains was 19%/year for stocks and 6% for
bonds. Further, the peak to trough draw down in stocks hit 80% and bonds
only 16%.
Yet there have been periods of time when
bonds have outperformed equities. In the 20 year period 1929 to 1949,
and the 40 year period 1969 to 2009, stocks under-performed bonds. Dr.
Cloonan doesn't discuss this.
The tough part for me is
the first claim, of out-performance, and that is entirely because of the
numbers he throws around. Dr. Cloonan claims you can expect a 12%
annual return with his passive strategy, and perhaps 17% with his active
approach. Further, his expectation of "safe" investments as a mix-in,
including Treauries or CDs, is 4% annual return. Credibility shot, on
the ground, not able to move.
As of this writing, the
definition of risk free return, US 10 year Treasuries, pay 1.57%. CDs
can provide a touch more, perhaps 1.6%. Far from 4%. If Dr. Cloonan had
provided a bridge between real market conditions and his claim, then
perhaps things would make sense. He didn't.
Okay, so in
spite of Dr. Cloonan's distinguished background, he set himself up for
less credibility than even the inane talking heads on cable financial
news shows. Does he have anything to offer?
- Individual investors with a long term (10+ year) horizon may safely
ignore the volatility of the market, and are psychologically better off
doing that.
- A market cap weighted approach to ETFs is less useful in the long
term than equal weighting, and Dr. Cloonan pushes the Guggenheim
S&P 500 Equal Weight ETF (RSP), and to a lesser extent the
PowerShares Russell 1000 Equal Weight Portfolio (EQAL). In fact the data
do support that equal weighting (RSP) outperforms cap weighting (SPY).
On the other hand, the amount of draw down is also higher in equal
weighting, presumably because small cap stocks are more subject to
over-reaction in bear markets. In 2008-2009's bear market, RSP was down
more than 10% more than SPY. On the other hand, as Dr. Cloonan points
out, so what: hold on and you'll do fine in the long term (recovery).
- Instead of looking at market drops against peak (the definition of
"draw down"), Dr. Cloonan suggests one look at drops against
expectation. To his example, if your expectation is his 12% return on
equities, and the market has run up - giving you a 40% return, and then
drops a lot, as long as you're current value is equal to or greater than
your expectation line, you're doing great. This seems like a great
psychological tool to help people from panic during inevitable draw
downs.
- You can make more than 12% annually over the long haul - that's the
"passive" approach for lazy investors. But wait a moment: is that even
remotely reasonable? Most folks whom I respect (e.g., Meb Faber, but
really there are very many) expect 4-5% net growth over the next five+
years. So let's say that's because they are large cap focused (yes,
Faber is actually a world view value balanced with trend guy, so he's
already optimizing, but let it go for now), they're missing the better
performance of small caps. Is it reasonable to expect this kind of
doubled performance outcome? Either the folks who expect more moderate
long term growth are dead wrong, or Dr. Cloonan is out on a limb. And
given the absence of any commentary in his book supporting the big
numbers, and already low credibility, well... you know the answer.
So what to make of this? My takeaway is simple: replace some
market cap ETF holdings with equal weighted holdings like RSP, because
the long term performance might be superior, if one can withstand the
impact of an out-sized draw down over time. The rest of it? Might be
brilliant, but might be hogwash, and this book doesn't make it easy to
discern.
http://www.aaii.com/level3