Real Asset Allocation

"The market tends to be priced in a way that if you want to try to outperform, you have to take the risk of looking like an idiot," according to Ben Inker, the head of asset allocation at Boston-based global money manager Grantham, Mayo, van Otterloo & Co. (GMO has approximately $107 billion under management). And looking like an idiot can get you fired in the money management business, which means the markets are not efficient, since money manager behavior is predictable. Career risk is real and money managers do make decisions to avoid taking on career risk. It is far better to lose money together than make money alone. Likewise, it is important to stay up with the Jones when the market is rising. Falling behind the pack in a bull market can get you fired as well. Mutual funds are currently fully invested, with cash levels back to the 2007 lows. Its a curious decision mutual fund managers have made to go "all in" right now given the demonstrably overvalued market and the obvious catalysts for a correction/bear market, unless you understand that it is career risk that is driving the train, not investment risk. Inker's quote bears repeating because it is the alpha and omega of money manager behavior. "The market tends to be priced in a way that if you want to try to outperform, you have to take a risk of looking like and idiot." Inker goes on to explain that to outperform you have to deviate from your benchmark, and that increases the risk of under performance and, in the extreme, looking like and idiot and getting fired. It is no coincidence that fully 75% of the so-called actively managed funds are actually closet indexers according to academics (closet indexers claim to actively manage their funds but actually mimic their benchmark, leaving investors to pay high fees for something they could get for a fraction of the cost by simply investing in index funds). And what is the impact on the market as a result of the career-risk factor? Markets exhibit herd-like behavior, which leads to momentum, and money flowing into whatever strategy is doing best, according to Inker. Valuations rise to extremes within the better performing asset classes and sectors until the gravitational pull of replacement cost exerts itself. Replacement cost (Tobin's Q is a very good long term measure of the relationship between the market and replacement cost) eventually always brings the market back to fair value, but typically with an overshoot to the downside first (as the herd exits in mass, ignoring valuations on the way down just as it did on the way up). Biechele Royce Advisor (like GMO) increases allocations to assets and sectors AFTER they have dropped and decreases allocations to assets and sectors AFTER they have risen, in order to take advantage of a HUGE inefficiency in the markets created by career risk. However, we primarily let individual securities lead us to our over and under weights, using big picture considerations to provide a context for our valuation decisions. In other words, rather than making a broad call on an asset class, we instead do basic business valuation in order to buy good companies at great prices. Likewise we let basic business valuation drive our sell decision, making sure we exit a position once the company has returned to fair value.

Variable Annuities - the New Snake Oil

The cliche of the snake oil salesman is deeply embedded in American cultural in the form of frequent depictions in the movies of those fast talking salesmen touting their wares to a crowd of curious onlookers. Most of you probably have seen a scene from a western in which the smooth talking dandy pitches his wonderful elixir as "good for whatever ails you!" Variable annuities with a guaranteed minimum wealth benefit (GMWB) are increasingly sold in much the same manner. Insurance agents and fee-based "advisors" increasingly push variable annuities on anyone and everyone, regardless of their age, income, and wealth. Frequently these salesmen don't even understand what they are selling, only that they get BIG commissions for selling them. Are you a 78 year-old single woman with Alzheimer, but with $1.3 million in the bank? No problem! You NEED a variable annuity with a GMWB rider. A couple in your mid-60s with two defined benefit plans between you? No problem! You need TWO variable annuities and you definitely need to replace the ones you were already sold in your Roth IRAs with two brand new ones that are waaaaay better! Why are they better? Because they are NEW and generate another commission for ME! The truth is that variable annuities are one of the most oversold products out there because of their big commissions, not because of their actual performance. Now here's a dose of reality courtesy of Dr. Michael Edesess (advanced mathematics and economics), Louis Mittel of Advisor Perspectives, and Robert Huebscher. Variable annuities under perform a passively managed fixed income portfolio by almost 1.60% annually on average based on modeling 100,000 trials using random date-of-death Monte Carlo simulations. In fact, a passive fixed income strategy has a higher internal rate of return (IRR) for all life spans through 113 years of age. The variable annuity returns just can't make up for their higher fees and the cost of the longevity insurance embedded in the product over shorter periods of time. Of course, insurance industry sponsored research "shows" that variable annuities are superior to passively managed fixed income portfolios. However insurance industry studies are flawed to say the least. For instance, industry studies assume that an investor will live to be 90 years of age 100 percent of the time even though the actual probability is only 19%. As well, insurance industry studies "show" that variable annuity income will keep pace with inflation even though inflation has averaged 3% over the last century and the actual nominal median average income increase for variable annuities is only 0.5% per year (far below insurance industry claims). So the next time the snake oil salesman comes a calling, "JUST SAY NO!" Biechele Royce Advisors could sell you variable annuities and make those big commissions, but instead chooses to do the right thing by building you properly diversified stock and bond (fixed income) portfolios to help you achieve a successful retirement. Best Regards, Chris Christopher Royce Norwood, CFA Biechele Royce Advisors, Inc.

Valuations Matter

The table below summarizes very nicely why we continue to view the U.S. stock market as high risk and low return. We have been projecting since the beginning of the year that a 10% to 20% pullback was likely sometime in the first two quarters of 2010 . We think the events in Japan are now serving as a catalyst and believe the correction has begun. The S&P 500 is down 6.2% peak to trough currently and we expect it to fall to at least 1200 before the current pullback is over. A correction to the 200-day moving average would result in a decline of about 12% and is the minimum we expect at the moment. A deeper correction back to 1100 is certainly possible. Biechele Royce will continue to buy good companies at great prices as they come available.

TABLE

10-year S&P 500 total returns by P/E level

***Shiller P/E is currently 24***

Shiller Avg Annual Return

Below 12 16.0%

12 to 16 14.3%

16 to 20 10.3%

20 to 24 6.6%

Above 24 3.5%

5-year S&P 500 total returns by P/E level

***Shiller P/E is currently 24***

Shiller Avg Annual Return

Below 12 16.5%

12 to 16 12.4%

16 to 20 9.3%

20 to 24 11.6%

Above 24 3.2%

(Note the jump in five-year returns for valuations in the 20 to 24 range: it is the result of short-term momentum in bubble markets. The S&P 500 hasn't seen Shiller P/Es at or above 24 except for a very brief period in 1929, and then during the current bubble years encompassing 1999 to the present.)

Please feel free to call or e-mail with questions about the current investing environment...

Regards,

Christopher Royce Norwood, CFA

Biechele Royce Advisors, Inc.

Dividend Paying Stocks Are Superior

Dividend paying stocks outperform with lower volatility. Put another way... non-dividend paying so-called growth stocks are inferior investments. Now that might come as a surprise to many of you who've been suckered into buying growth stocks by your fee-based (stockbroker) advisors (either directly or via growth mutual funds), but the empirical evidence is irrefutable. You are better off buying "stodgy" dividend paying stocks because you will make more MONEY with less RISK.

The latest in a string of studies done by the academic world has once again verified that dividend-paying stocks are better investments than the zero dividend crew. Specifically, a study done by Dr. C. Thomas Howard (Reiman School of Finance) for the period January 1973-September 2010, shows that companies which grew their dividend out performed dividend cutting stocks by more than 10% annually. Companies that merely maintained their dividend outperformed companies with no dividend by 5.29% annually. Let's do some Q&A...

Would you rather have $24,267 or $9,285? Would you rather have $21,288 or $11,977? The first number is what you'd accumulate from 1973 thru September of 2010 if you stuck to dividend growing stocks and made an initial $10,000 investment. The second number represents dividend cutting stocks while the third amount is a portfolio of no change dividend paying stocks and the final number are the GROWTH companies that pay no dividend. Kinda makes you wonder why the brokers are always pushing growth stock mutual funds on you doesn't it?

But it gets even better! You can have the $24,285 portfolio with less risk - as measured by volatility. Dividend growing stocks had a standard deviation of 17.6% versus a standard deviation of 26.6% for zero dividend paying stocks. Standard deviation is a measure of volatility which means lower is better.

Now some of you might point out that there is a tax penalty associated with dividends in non-qualified accounts (qualified accounts such as IRAs, 401(k)s and 403(b)s don't pay taxes and aren't impacted). And you'd be right. However, the out performance of dividend paying stocks more than compensates you for holding them - EVEN IN A TAXABLE
ACCOUNT.

The bottomline (once again) is that investors are far better off buying dividend paying stocks (directly if possible to cut out the mutual fund fees) rather than the high-flying, zero dividend paying growth stocks that are typically pushed by the commissioned based salesmen passing themselves off as investment advisors.

Biechele Royce Advisors buys good companies at great prices. We are currently focusing even more than normal on high-quality dividend paying stocks in our equity portfolios. Fair value for the S&P 500 is between 800-900 and we expect the market to exhibit increased volatility over the next few years as the current cyclical bull market ends and the secular bear market resumes.

The Current Rally

So there I was rereading my last blog and I could sorta kinda understand why some of my readers e-mailed me to sarcastically thank me for my gloomy outlook. To those readers and everyone else let me proclaim...

The world is NOT coming to an end! (and no that's not a change of mind on my part.) My intention in my last blog was to make sure everyone is aware that the economy is sick and likely to stay that way for a long time given the crushing debt load - both public and private. As well, I wanted to make sure you folks understood that the market risk level is extremely high. However...

You can invest prudently, even in today's overvalued stock market, and earn a positive return over the next 10-year period. But chasing momentum, volatility, or credit risk will likely lead to losses over the long-term unless you happen to be a very good speculator. Fair value for the S&P 500 is somewhere around 800-850 based on a number of very good long-term valuation metrics (which are not widely followed by Wall Street because they have limited use for speculators focusing on short term returns). For instance, investors using Tobin's Q, price to trailing 10-year average earnings, and the long-term dividend growth rate as guidelines would have anticipated the 10-year period of negative stock market returns that began in 2000. Currently those valuation metrics are forecasting a return of 3.5% to 4% during the next 10-year period - a big step up but still well below the long-term historical return of 10%.


The current rally is not based on attractive valuations but rather speculative forces chasing higher risk, lower quality assets, egged on by the Federal Reserve's blatant promises of more money printing. Examining return factors makes it painfully obvious that speculators are chasing stocks with the greatest exposure to market fluctuations, commodities, credit risk, small-cap risk, and volatility while avoiding stocks with reasonable valuations, stability, high-quality earnings, and attractive dividend yields. In fact, looking at thirteen week factor returns tells a compelling story of speculation that, when coupled with an overpriced market, makes it almost inevitable that bad things will eventually happen to those investors choosing to play the risk game.

Return sources for the 13-weeks leading into year-end 2010 from high to low were: Market Beta (Risk) - 17.8%; Raw Materials Beta (Commodity sensitivity) - 17.5%; Credit Spread Beta (Macro Economic Sensitivity) - 14.7%; Small v Large Beta (Style sensitivity) - 12.5%; Silver Beta (Commodity Sensitivity) - 10.9%; Sigma Risk (Volatility) - 10.7%; Operating Cash Flow Yield (Valuation) - (- 4%); EPS Stability (Quality) - (-5.6%); Value v Growth Beta (Style Sensitivity) - (-5.9%); Return on Invested Capital (Profitability) - (-6.6%); Dividend Yield (Valuation) - (-9.3%); 10-Year T-Note Beta (Macro Economic Sensitivity) - (-9.6%); High v Low Quality Beta (Style Sensitivity) - (-15.7%)

Clearly the high risk, low-quality garbage stocks have dominated the rally into year end while lower risk, high-quality stocks have trailed sharply. Tellingly, Operating Cash Flow, Sales/Price, Market Cap, and EBIT/Enterprise value lead all other return factors over the last 10-years, meaning valuation does eventually win out! More specifically, those investors who focus their attention on the underlying value of the businesses in which they are investing will do just fine over the long run as price (eventually) always follows value. Buying good businesses at great prices only adds to both the margin of safety and the ultimate returns. Businesses that are steadily growing cash flows over time create a situation where it is nearly impossible for an investor to lose money - as long as the investor is willing to wait for market prices to reflect underlying values. Which brings us back to current valuation levels....

Given that fair-value for the S&P 500 stands around 800 to 850, it would seem prudent for investors to set aside at least some cash now in order to take advantage of better valuations sometime in the (near?) future. And for those of you reluctant to raise some cash because you're worried about missing the next great bull market? Relax! The gains we are currently experiencing in the market will almost certainly reverse sometime in the next few years and quite possibly in the next few quarters. The fact that net profit margins are currently 50% above their long-term mean (and it is a strongly mean reverting series) all but ensures that corporate profits will begin to disappoint sometime in the next few years (few quarters?) and cause a market sell off back toward fair value. Capital preservation is still the priority of the day and cash is not a dirty four letter word!

Biechele Royce Advisors is holding more cash than normal for its clients. We don't buy stocks unless we can invest in good companies at great prices. We are focused on high-quality, dividend paying stocks in our domestic portfolios and expect to have an opportunity sometime this year to add to our holdings at lower prices.

America Bankrupt/Dangerous Market

We have maintained since late 2007 that both the U.S. and European banking systems are insolvent. Were they required to mark assets to market they would have insufficient assets to cover their liabilities - a basic definition of insolvency. Fortunately for the banks on both continents, central banks have waived the requirement to mark assets to market while the banks attempt to earn enough profits to (eventually) write down bad assets sufficiently to return to solvency. Meanwhile the Federal Reserve has been stuffing its own balance sheet with toxic assets purchased from U.S. banks in an effort to expedite the process. Unfortunately for U.S. taxpayers, the Fed is paying top dollar for toxic assets, ensuring that taxpayers will suffer billions in losses. One example should suffice to make the point. The Fed's Maiden Lane LLC purchased $30 billion from Bear Stearns in order to facilitate Bear's sale to JP Morgan Chase - Jamie Dimon refused to go through with the purchase unless the toxic assets were first removed from Bear Stearn's balance sheet. Outrageously, the Fed allowed Bear to value the assets sold it without so much as a cursory inspection.

The U.S. government is insolvent as well. The number's don't lie! Well, okay they do, but only because government bureaucrats keep changing the accounting treatment to hide the true extent of the situation from the public. The government uses a quasi-cash basis to produce its yearly deficit totals - 2010 is expected to run around $1.3 trillion (almost 10% of GDP!!!) when the numbers are finalized. However on a GAAP basis (using generally accepted accounting principles), the 2010 number is $2.1 trillion - more than 50% higher than the official number. Broader GAAP-based federal deficits that include the unfunded liabilities represented by Social Security and Medicare have been running between $4 and $5 trillion over the last three fiscal years (2010's deficit is approaching $5 trillion).

Now here's the really important part...

The U.S. government can't make up the annual shortfalls through higher taxes as, "there are not enough untaxed wages and salaries or corporate profits to do so," according to Dr. John Williams, a noted private economist. Nor can the government cut spending sufficiently without touching Social Security and Medicare. To wit; the government could cut all other spending and still not eliminate the deficit! The United States will default on some of its liabilities. It is simply a question of when and how. The most likely scenario for default is through a combination of inflation (paying debt off with less valuable dollars) and a reduction in social security and medicare benefits (reneging on promises already made). The public should plan for retirement accordingly...

Meanwhile, the U.S. market is very overbought on a short-term basis and expensive longer term. It is highly likely that we will experience a painful pullback at some point in the next two to four quarters. It is also increasingly likely that the 2011-2013 investing period will result in a loss for the U.S. market and that the next ten years will see returns of only 5% to 6% versus a long run average of between 10% and 11%. Consider the following:

1) S&P 500 more than 8% above its 52 week (exponential) average 2) S&P 500 more than 50% above its 4-year low 3) *Shiller P/E greater than 18 4) 10-year Treasury yield higher than 6 months earlier 5) Advisory bullishness greater than 47% with bearishness less than 27%. (Investor's Intelligence)

“The historical instances corresponding to these conditions are as follows:

1) December 1972 - January 1973 (followed by a 48% collapse over the next 21 months)
2) August - September 1987 (followed by a 34% plunge over the following 3 months) 3) July 1998 (followed abruptly by an 18% loss over the following 3 months) 4) July 1999 (followed by a 12% market loss over the next 3 months) 5) January 2000 (followed by a spike 10% loss over the next 6 weeks) 6) March 2000 (followed by a spike loss of 12% over 3 weeks, and a 49% loss into 2002) 7) July 2007 (followed by a 57% market plunge over the following 21 months)
8) January 2010 (followed by a 7% "air pocket" loss over the next 4 weeks) 9) April 2010 (followed by a 17% market loss over the following 3 months)

10) December 2010 ….?????”

*The U.S. stock market has experienced losses over the following three-year period one-third of the time when Shiller's PE is above 19.5 - the ratio is currently 22.7!

Biechele Royce Advisors is currently overweight cash in its models and is maintaining a strict sell discipline in order to limit price risk in its clients' portfolios. We continue to favor blue-chip, dividend paying stocks in the U.S.

Currency War!

On 11 October we wrote, "The Federal Reserve is going to print more paper dollars, likely beginning shortly after the November elections. The estimates from the folks in the know is a minimum of $500 billion to $1 trillion. The U.S. economy is currently around $14 trillion and public debt is around $12 trillion - so a trillion in freshly printed greenbacks is not small potatoes. Recent comments from the likes of Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Dudley and the recently released FOMC meeting minutes all but assure that the Federal Reserve will act soon and in size. The September/October stock market rally is telling us as much."

NAILED IT!

The Federal Reserve announced on 4 November that they would be buying $600 billion in government bonds beginning immediately and running through the middle of next year. The stated intention is to drive interest rates even lower in an effort to stimulate spending and job creation in order to fight the deflationary threat which the Federal Reserve governers insist is looming. Well, most of the Federal Reserve governers anyway.

In a rare public disagreement with the consensus, FED Governer Warsh announced that he isn't concerned about deflation, citing Dr. Allan Meltzer's position that there is no deflationary threat. Dr. Meltzer, the author of dozens of academic papers and books on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank, issued a scathing critique of the Fed just last week saying, "All this is not relevant now, since there is no sign of deflation in the United States. The Fed's claim that there is a risk of deflation should embarrass it." Meltzer's views carry weight since he is considered one of the world's foremost experts on the development and applications of monetary policy. It's time to take notice when Meltzer derides Federal Reserve policy in such strong terms.

So what is the Federal Reserve up to if it isn't slaying the deflationary dragon?

Well, it is almost a certainty that its real goal is to debase the U.S. dollar, making it easier for the United States to pay back the trillions it owes to its citizens, to the Chinese and other sovereign nations, and also making our exports more competitive in world markets. Of course the U.S. can't publicly admit it is following a classic "beggar thy neighbor" policy. Fed Chairman Bernanke isn't about to own up, nor is Treasury Secretary Geithner. On the contrary, Geithner just appeared on CNBC and said (with a straight face) that, "“THE U.S. WILL NEVER DO THAT. WE WILL NEVER SEEK TO WEAKEN OUR CURRENCY AS A TOOL TO GAIN COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OR TO GROW THE ECONOMY.” …

So is the rest of the world buying the baloney? Not hardly...

China's Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. just cut its credit rating on the U.S. to A+ from AA because of the Fed's plan to purchase bonds to spur growth and inflation. Dagong Global wrote, "The credit outlook for the U.S. is negative amid deteriorating debt repayment capability and a "drastic" drop in the government's intention to repay debt. The Fed's quantitative easing policy will erode the value of the dollar and is against the interests of creditors." Ouch!

And here is what German Finance Minister Schaeuble had to say about QE2 in an interview with Spiegel magazine last week, "I seriously doubt that it makes sense to pump unlimited amounts of money into the markets. There is no lack of liquidity in the US economy, which is why I don't recognize the economic argument behind this measure." He went on to say that, "It's inconsistent for the Americans to accuse the Chinese of manipulating exchange rates and then to artificially depress the dollar exchange rate by printing money."

It would appear that the rest of the world understands very well what is going on. But why should the U.S. consumer care if the rest of the world is getting hosed (with dollars)?

INFLATION!!!!!!

Gold is saying the inflationary threat is real, reaching more than $1400 per ounce before pulling back (temporarily most likely). Although it is always difficult to forecast price levels, it is quite possible that gold will reach $2500 per ounce within a few years if the Federal Reserve continues in its madness. The bottom line though is that inflation is bad for savers and good for debtors and U.S. savers will suffer right along with the Chinese, Germans, and Japanese. Inflation erodes wealth. Inflation destroys middle classes. U.S. citizens will suffer greatly in coming years as their purchasing power is dramatically eroded by the inflationary genie that the Federal Reserve appears determined to let out of its bottle.

Biechele Royce Advisors builds properly diversified portfolios using individual stocks and bonds whenever possible to reduce costs. We are currently overweight tangible assets such as real estate, precious metals, and commodities as well as non dollar assets, including international stocks and bonds. It is our belief that Inflation is coming and it could get pretty ugly if Bernanke and his lunatics continue to run the asylum.