Bonds For The Long Run?

Wharton professor Jeremy Siegel wrote a very popular book in the 1990s called Stocks for the Long Run, in which he made a case for building equity-centric portfolios. Professor Siegal's thesis is that stocks beat bonds over long periods of time by so much that investors must have meaningful exposure to stocks in order to accumulate sufficient wealth for retirement. The fact that stocks have beaten bonds on average by more than 3% per year from 1871 through 2008 would seem to support Siegal's point of view. Further, Siegal maintains that the recent horrendous performance of stocks is exceedingly rare and that investors need to maintain substantial buy-and-hold exposure to equities.

However, not everyone agrees that investors should heavily weight their portfolios toward equities. Boston University professor Zvi Bodie believes that equities are simply too risky over the long run and the core of a retirement portfolio should be Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). He contends that a portfolio of stocks doesn't become less risky the longer you hold it because, historically, there have been multi-decadal periods in which bonds have beaten equities (periods long enough to encompass an individual investors entire investment life). Furthermore, Bodie claims that stocks are a poor way to hedge against an investor's future income needs - which is, after all, the main reason for investing in the first place. Bodie believes that inflation-indexed bonds are the best asset for matching future liabilities.

Now facts are facts and the S&P 500 has outperformed bonds by about 3% over the last 137 years. Why on earth would anyone not want maximum exposure to the stock market if they had a sufficiently long time horizon? Well, that turns out to be the rub - the time horizon. As pointed out by Bodie, bonds have outperformed stocks for long periods of time in the past. In fact, bonds beat stocks over the 68 year period ending in 1871. Bonds outperformed stocks from 1929 to 1949 - a 20-year stretch that saw the stock market lose some 89% of its value at its nadir. Currently bonds have outperformed stocks over a 41-year period going back all the way to 1968! And now comes the $64,000 question: Do you really care that stocks are likely to outperform bonds by about 3% over the very long run if you happen to be the poor slob investing in them during one of those horrible, multi-decade long stock market debacles? After all, average returns are all well and good, but you only get to live your life once! There are no redo opportunities!

But how likely is it that you will be one of those unfortunate investors living through a down period in the stock market? Well, there is a 1-in-20 chance that the S&P 500 will underperform a broad U.S. bond index by 130% over a ten-year period. There is a 1-in-5 chance that stocks will underperform bonds by 50% cumulatively over a ten-year-period. Knowing that, on average, the S&P 500 will outperform a broad bond index by 50% over a 10-year period is of small comfort to those investors who don't happen to get the average stock market return during the period that THEY are invested in the stock market. The fact that the shortfalls in stocks vs bonds over 10-year periods are much greater than the shortfalls generated over a single year is also exactly why Bodie argues that stocks are not less risky over longer periods of time. His point made another way is simply that looking at average returns does not address the question of the magnitude of a shortfall when one does occur. In Bodie's own words from his original 1995 paper, "But as has been shown in the literature, the probability of a shortfall is a flawed measure of risk because it completely ignores how large the potential shortfall might be."

What then to do with your investment portfolio. The reality is that most of us do not have an investment portfolio big enough to stick 100% into bonds - we need the extra capital appreciation kick that will come to us from stocks over 10 and 20 year periods... on average. Yet it seems apparent that heavily overweighting stocks is far too risky as well. Put another way, meaningful exposure to assets other than bonds increases investors chances of successfully funding their retirement by reducing longevity risk - the probability of outliving your assets. Building a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, commodities, and real estate increases the likelihood of creating a sufficient, sustainable income stream during retirement while still being able to withstand a worst-case scenario in the stock market - a worst-case scenario that seems to come along all too frequently!

One last comment: we are writing from the point of view of buy-and-hold investing, which is the same point of view that Professor Siegel has in his book. Biechele Royce Advisors is not a buy and hold investor on behalf of its clients. We add value and control stock market risk by refusing to overpay for a business. We buy good companies at great prices and great companies at good prices. We sell those same companies when they return to fair value. Our price discipline and focus on stockpicking gives us a big advantage over buy-and-hold investors during secular bear markets!

It's the Government Stupid!

Public opinion appears to blame the free market system for the current state of affairs in which we find ourselves. Voters have turned overwhelmingly to the federal government for answers to the economic malaise that exists throughout the 50 States. The Obama administration has spent hundred of billions of dollars already and pledged trillions more in an effort to get consumers spending and the economy expanding once again - to the applause of a majority of U.S. citizens. Yet, it is the misguided fiscal and monetary policies of the last 50 years (with the exception of a brief period in the 1980s) that have culminated in the worst recession since the Great Depression. It is the continued application of those policies that will almost certainly lead to more economic pain in the coming decades. Americans must get a clue! It is the Federal Government which bears overwhelming responsibility for the current mess. It is the Federal Monster that must be reigned in and subjugated to the will of the free people of the United States of America, or most of us will die poor.


Not interested in politics? You should be. Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions, among the most important of which are how to allocate scarce economic resources. Politics, when left to run amok, can ruin an economy, as has happened in Zimbabwe, where inflation is running at 11,200 percent per annum. The United States is not immune to hyperinflation and, in fact, may be barreling head on into just such an environment. Highly inflationary environments are not typically good investing environments. Wealth preservation becomes problematic to say the least, never mind wealth creation.


Right now the markets are running nicely and many economists and political pundits are declaring victory over the recession that has been with us now since sometime in 2007 (the precise start of the economic contraction is still open to debate and will likely be moved back closer to 2006 (once the government is finished massaging the data for political purposes and the academics move in to correct the record). The folks at ECRI say that their leading indicators are pointing toward a very strong recovery in the economy; they are far less sanguine about the chances of a sustainable recovery.

The problem is that the Obama Administration is not addressing the underlying structural problems with our economy, choosing instead to simply stimulate the economy with additional credit, which may have positive short term consequences, but is unlikely to provide a lasting source of economic expansion. We have too much debt; the government is loading more debt on at a furious rate. We have too little manufacturing; the government is doing nothing to address the hollowing out of American industry, which has occurred over the last 30 years. We are fighting two wars, but do not have the money to pay for either. The cold war is over. We need to pull out of most parts of the world. We are not the world's policeman; there is no money in our Treasury for it and the world does not reward us for it.

Get the Federal Government out of state and local affairs. Shut down the giant spending machine that is increasingly sapping our national vitality and robbing us of our individual initiative. Get government out of business so that businessman can compete against one another, rather than having to compete against a government that can change and manipulate the rules at will to ensure supremacy. Let American ingenuity have free reign once again. Let small businesses grow unfettered by government interference! Job growth will follow. Real income growth will follow (Real income is currently below 1973-1975 recession levels.)

The stock market isn't likely to keep its gains. The consumer is 70% of the economy and the consumer has no money to spend other than what the federal government is handing out. The economy is highly likely to slip back into recession more or less as soon as the federal government stops giving people money to spend. The profit recovery implied by the stock market rally from the March lows is unlikely to materialize. We are entering silly season in the stock market - that period where the boys on Wall Street underpin the market in an effort to maximize year-end bonuses. The most likely outcome of this secular bear market rally is a nasty sell-off sometime early next year, perhaps around the March time-frame.

We are maintaining our price discipline by refusing to pay up for businesses that are no longer undervalued, and by taking profits on companies that are up 40% or more since the March lows (business valuations do not change so rapidly as that in the real world). We are acknowledging the lunacy of our federal government's (this isn't a Democrat/Republican thing by the way - both parties are responsible) fiscal and monetary policy by favoring tangible assets over financial, and international assets over domestic.

We strongly urge investors to tread with extreme caution over the next six months as the government's massive spending winds down and the underlying structural problems reassert themselves. The piper has not yet been paid for 30 years of over consumption, over spending, and easy credit.