Diversified Investment Strategy

Investment markets over the last quarter have been driven primarily by uncertainties with respect to outcomes in resolving the debt crisis in Europe. As in the United States, Europe has been having its own political gridlock as to its way forward in the face the potential government insolvencies. Most recently, Greece had been the foremost concern. Having been in a severe recession for several years because of budget cuts required per terms of previous financial bailouts by the other countries of the European Union, Greece had called an election to determine whether or not it would stay in the European Union and adhere to the austere budget required by their financial bailout. The alternative was to leave the European Union and default on billions of Euro’s worth of debt. A good portion of this debt was held by major European banks, as well as some major U.S. banks. The fear was that if Greece defaulted, the fallout would be far reaching perhaps undermining the solvency of major global banks and financial institutions. Greece narrowly voted to remain in the Union, but with a significantly divided parliament. No sooner did this occur, than Spain rose to front and center as a problem area. Spain being one of the largest economies in Europe required a new approach to this entire European issue. Germany and France had been forcefully advocating an austere approach to dealing with the over-indebtedness of the countries in the middle of these financial crises. The problem was that the programs of austerity were also damping growth to make it even more difficult for countries like Greece and Spain to deal with their debt problems. Elections in France changed the leadership from Sarkozy to Hollande who was much more sympathetic to relaxing the programs of austerity and do more to stimulate growth. Only Germany’s Angela Merkel remained as the lone, but powerful voice of the austerity programs, and consequently political gridlock. Most recently, Merkel appears to be relaxing her position and the framework of a structural agreement to deal more comprehensively with the issue emerged. Whether the agreement will accomplish this remains to be seen. It did, however briefly, give hope to the investment markets which reacted very favorably to the news.

To compound the uncertainties and the implications surrounding the European financial crisis, lurking in the background, ready to jump forward at any instant, is the financial and economic situation in the United States. More and more frequently, reports are being aired on the mainstream media of an approaching fiscal cliff the United States will be facing at the end of the year. This refers to the prospect of increased taxes and mandatory federal budgets cuts. The outcome is a result of the political gridlock in the United States and is a default position in the event Congress is not able to reach an alternative agreement. Given the extreme ideological polarization of our Congress, the probabilities seem small that an alternative agreement will be reached. There seems to be a fairly wide economic consensus that this is likely to result in the weakening of the already weak US economy. Moreover, even if an agreement is reached, as in Europe, the fixes seem to do little more than “kick the can down the road” a little further without really developing a sustainable solution to very real structural problems. Needless to say, the situation is very complex, and we could continue for some time to discuss it. All of these uncertainties create a very unstable economic and investment environment. The outward appearance is a great deal of volatility as investors swing from the extremes of fear and hope. The relevant question for us is: what is the best investment strategy in this type of environment? There is no shortage of opinion predicting where the investment markets are headed. They range from catastrophic calamity, to the cusp of a new bull market. For over two decades, on a regular daily basis, I consider countless numbers of these viewpoints. I have come to value some commentary and analysis more than others, and I certainly form my own opinions. I have, however, learned several important lessons over the years. One is that no one has a perfect crystal ball. Another is that the reporting media seems to create its own spin. When things are going relatively well, a general impression is created that happy days will never end, creating a type of euphoria. On the other hand, when events turn toward the negative, it sometimes appears that the end of the world is approaching, creating an atmosphere of fear and panic. It is a well documented that investors over-react to news. For example, Dalbar Inc. is a company which studies investor behavior and analyzes investor market returns. The results of their research consistently show that the average investor earns below average returns. For the twenty years ending 12/31/2010 the S&P 500 Index averaged 9.14% a year. The average equity fund investor earned a market return of only 3.83%. While I cannot absolutely dismiss either of the extreme outcomes from occurring, my observation has been that the fundamental principle of risk management, diversification, should still serve as the foundation for a prudently managed investment portfolio. This does not mean that the portfolio will be resistant to all market downturns, and it does not mean that diversification adjustments should never occur. It does suggest, however, maintaining focus and investment discipline is a critical component of navigating what are sometimes, very stormy seas.

Looking forward, it would be great to say that the worst is behind us. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case. It is likely that the global economy and investment environment will get worse before it gets better. It will require patience and fortitude whatever the investment allocation is. The silver lining, however, is that unless you believe the world will be ending as a result of these issues, the foundation of future economic health is being established. Despite the grim shorter term picture, my opinion is that the global economic challenges and issues now being confronted will be worked through and resolved, and that the world will not end.

A Review Primer on the Components of Diversification – if needed

The four broad categories, or asset classes, of investments are cash, bonds, or equities. Included within these categories are such things as real estate, commodities such as energy, food, as well as precious metals. Each has its own particular characteristic strengths and weaknesses, and consequently a prudent risk management approach would not allocate 100% to any one of these asset classes.

If we consider cash, for example money market funds, we recognize that this can provide liquidity and stability, but very little investment gain. It is not without risk. In fact, when interest rates are as low as they are today, the risk is known as purchasing power risk. This means that if you have $100,000 in an account today, and $100,000 in the account one year from now, will the $100,000 one year from now be able to purchase what is can purchase today. If inflation is running at 2.5%, one year from now you will have a guaranteed loss of 2.5% in the purchasing power of your account. Currently, by the government’s statistics, this is around the range inflation is running, other independent analysts believe the real inflation number is higher. And some analysts believe that the future rate of inflation will be significantly higher. This suggests to me that while it makes sense to have a portion of an investment portfolio in cash, or cash-like investments such as a money market, 100% would probably be unbalanced in failing to address the unique risks of cash.

This brings us to bonds. Bonds, in general, have traditionally been considered a conservative investment. This is a broad generalization, and it is important to understand some of the unique characteristics of bonds to appreciate their role in an investment portfolio. An attractive characteristic of bonds is that they pay interest on a regular basis, which is of course if the issuer continues to have the ability to pay. The risk that the issuer may not be able to continue paying the interest, as well as the principal at maturity is known as solvency risk. Depending upon the type of bond this risk can be higher or lower. Historically, government of developed economies had been considered low risk, with the United States having the least solvency risk. Municipal bonds have also been considered safe, conservative investments. These days we hear of the developed country bonds being less safe because of over-indebtedness, as well as municipalities in the United States declaring bankruptcy. Another risk of bonds is known as interest rate risk. This is the risk that if interest rates increase, bonds already owned will decline in value. Some investors say this is not a problem because if they do not sell the bonds until they mature, they expect to receive all of their principal back, as well as the promised interest payments. What these investors neglect to consider is that if interest rates increase, it is usually for a good reason, such as higher inflation. They are stuck with lower interest paying bonds they had previously purchased. The bottom line is that bond can also decline in value, sometimes significantly. In historically low interest rate environments, as we currently have, this risk is elevated. These risk management implications imply that while bonds are an important part of an investment portfolio, they also should not represent 100%, and the portion of an investment portfolio that is in bonds should itself be diversified with respect to the types of bonds and the unique risks for each type.

This brings us to equities, or stocks. As with bonds there are a wide range of offerings, as well as a wide range of approaches to investing in them. They have their own unique set of risks, as well as presenting opportunities. Despite regular variations in value, sometime significantly so, they offer income opportunities through dividend payment, and/or growth opportunities through their increase in value. Needless to say they can also decline in value. With a diversified investment position, for example in fund of utility companies, the main risk seems to be primarily psychological. The belief that, for example, that all of the strongest and largest utility companies in a fund will simple become worthless is placing a disproportionate weight on the occurrence of something with an extremely small probability of happening. Despite periodic declines in value, sometimes having nothing to do the real merit of the investment itself, these funds can pay annual dividends of 4% per year or more. In an environment where interest rates are so low, having some component of a portfolio in equities, or stocks, is part of a well diversified portfolio. One way in which the potential volatility can be managed is by having a smaller percentage.

It is interesting to note that some of the same investors in bonds who claim that it does not matter if the bond declines in value because they intend to hold the bond until maturity, will consider it unacceptable to own a utility fund paying 4% or more because of the potential for it to decline in value.

Nonetheless, each type of investment has its own unique set of risks as well as opportunities. There is no one safe harbor. The best overall way to construct and manage a portfolio is with a diversified selection of different types of investments. In some cases, there will be significant declines in value. Some investors believe it to be possible to time when the declines and when the increases are coming, thereby avoiding declines while riding the increases up. Even if this were consistently possible, and there is reason to doubt this, from a prudent investment decision-making perspective, there needs to be some rational decision-making basis, other than an environment of fear and panic driving the markets. With the outcome of so many hugely impactful global issues pending resolution, trying to respond to these unresolved issues offers little other than randomness as a foundation. This is unacceptable, and argues all the more strongly, for holding a well structured portfolio comprised of cash, bonds and equities despite the volatility, and periodic declines.

If Only One Investment Could Be Made

The following is a piece I contributed to the investment website Seeking Alpha:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/213381-just-one-etf-safe-haven-concerns-favor-gold-producers-inflation-or-not?source=email

One of the basic functions of money is as a store of value. If the viability of this function becomes impaired, it is important to consider where economic value will be best preserved, or even increased. When making investment decisions, the objective is, at a minimum, to preserve value, and if we choose wisely, to increase the real value of our net worth. Implicit in the idea of value is what preserves and increases our purchasing power Because of the privileged position the US dollar has held as the reserve currency of the world, the mystique of power and safety has become an assumed fact in the perception of most financial players. In my opinion, it would be an error of judgment to assume that the United States has been divinely exempted from the laws of economics, or that the US dollar has any value other than a faith based presumption of economic entitlement.

There is a growing awareness that a fundamental structural shift has occurred, or is in the process of occurring in the power arrangement of the global economy. Events of recent years should have served as a wakeup call that placing blind faith in institutions such as investment banks, banks, insurance companies and governments is likely to be hazardous to an investor’s financial health. One thing that should be abundantly clear is that financial imprudence at all levels of our society, and throughout the world, has became institutionalized into an acceptable form of conduct. Imprudent lending, and imprudent borrowing, has created a vicious destructive cycle of over-consumption and over-indebtedness. As with many extreme indulgences, when the party is over, we are left with a big hangover and a big cleanup job. Right now the United States in particular, and the world economy, in general, has one gigantic hangover, and a daunting clean up job.

With a trillion dollar plus budget deficit, the United States will need likely need to borrow over $70 billion per month from foreign sources in order to continue funding its operations. The question that must be asked now is: How willing and how able will these foreign funding sources be to continue loaning money to the United States to fund its budget deficit? Many of these countries are having a more difficult financial time themselves in the present financial turbulence. Many of these countries were, prior to this financial turbulence, considering reducing the amount of money being loaned to the United States. In addition, because of this financial crisis the credit worthiness of the United States has deteriorated, and there are alternative places where these countries can deploy their financial resources which may be more directly beneficial to themselves. The conclusion is inescapable that a potential funding crisis will be one of the major consequences of the current attempt to contain this financial crisis.

Governments of the world have made massive commitments toward maintaining financial and economic stability. On a global scale, trillion of dollars have been committed to financial and economic stabilization. Each time a government responds to a financial crisis in an industry, business, another sovereign county, or municipality, the financial hole gets deeper. Looking forward to what pending financial crises of global significance crises are likely to emerge, there is no shortage of candidates. On the front burner is the unfolding European financial meltdown. A prudent view would be to assume that as bad as it looks, it is likely to be much worse when one factors in the amplification effect of derivative positions likely held by systemically important institutions. On the back burners, waiting for their chance to emerge are the rapidly deteriorating conditions of the pension systems, the FDIC, as well as state and local municipalities.

The biggest player is the US Government itself. The trillion dollar plus budget deficit projected indefinitely into the future does not even take into consideration expensive contingencies, which seem to inevitably arise, such as natural and man-made disasters, wars, and other Black Swan events which will necessitate additional funding requirements. How will all the unfunded liabilities and current operating expenses be paid for? One might argue that incurring these expenses is necessary, but there are also consequences.

That there will be increasing insolvency, massive economic displacement, and economic restructuring is appearing to be more and more a given. We are at a global economic watershed point. A recent book, This Time Is Different, by two eminent economists, professors Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, is based upon a compilation and analysis of data looking at government’s financial behavior over the past 800 years. Among their conclusions is a pattern which emerges as a constant. Governments overspend, over borrow, and then default. The two basic methods of default are an outright refusal to pay their debts, or an implicit default. In an implicit default the intent is to debase the currency with the objective of repaying existing indebtedness with a lower value currency, in effect, an attempt to inflate away the real value of a currency.

Given the current operating deficits, as well as future liabilities, the United States is on a trajectory that is financial unsustainable. Considering the position of the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world, the question of default must be addressed by an investor who considers that somehow events occurring in the world matter to the investing results achieved. In my view, an outright default by the United States of its debt is a probability so small as to be insignificant. On the other hand, an implicit default, where the United States attempts to inflate its way out of its financial hole is extremely likely, especially when there is no limit as to how much money the government can create.

If we assume, for purposes of discussion, that this is the direction in which economic history will move, it becomes useful to consider some of the implications of this scenario for asset deployment purposes. While there is a great deal of discussion regarding the demise of the US dollar, it is often followed by consideration of other currencies as a safe harbor refuge. This may be a false sense of security. One of the reasons for the US dollar's problem is the lack of monetary discipline because of the fiat nature of the currency, the same problem exists with other currencies. There appears to be an inherent instability with a fiat monetary system. Consequently, in my opinion, it is a mistake to believe that other currencies might be anything other than a temporary refuge.

It is the consequences that follow which will provide both the hazards, as well as the long term opportunities from an investment and financial planning perspective. It is exactly here that both the risks and the opportunities reside. In my estimation, the outcome of these circumstances will result in escalating interest rates, which is another version of credit availability reduction, and a damper on economic growth. This would be an unacceptable outcome for our government whose interests are critically tied to economic growth. The policy response will be an attempt to create vast amounts of money in order to effectively devalue debt, and consequently the dollar. Current economic policy discussion focuses on a debate as to whether we are looking at a deflationary or inflationary future. In my opinion, while I harbor the view that we will experience a severe hyperinflationary and stagnant economic future, I consider this to be somewhat of a secondary consideration. A more primary consideration, which is, and will continue to shape investor behavior, will be the economic uncertainty and dislocation which arises, whether it is inflationary or deflationary. This economic instability is already creating a greater shift in the view of what is perceived as a more desirable asset class to act a as reserve of reservoir of economic value.

Considering assets which might best retain or increase in value, it is clear that current market behavior suggests there is growing recognition that investors have starting voting with their feet. One investment areas which has highlighted these opportunities is precious metals, in particular gold. The evidence derived from reports of shortages of gold coins to the increase in bullion reserves by central banks such as China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia, make a compelling case that we are not witnessing merely a speculative thrust at a trading position, but rather a sustainable shift in perception of an asset that will withstand the rigors of the economic storms we are facing.

Aside from owning gold directly, there are now opportunities with exchange traded funds such as GLD, to take positions that very much mimic the economic characteristics expected of a currency. In my analysis, this provides a compelling reason to expect the demand for gold to continue to increase. It follows that if one expects the demand for gold to increase, the value of those entities which hold reserves of gold, as well as the productive capacity to bring it to market, can be expected to be beneficiaries of these circumstances. It is from that perspective that if I had to choose only one investment, I would select GDX, an ETF of gold miners as my investment of choice.

What Could Go Wrong

One thing I have learned from over twenty years of investment decision making, and corroborated during the experiences of my younger years working in research laboratories, is that no matter how well thought out and rational a position is, it does not necessarily mean that is what is. As a consequence, it is important to examine and identify where the potential risks lie in our expectations. The year 2008 gives provides us with a great opportunity to examine what happened to gold during that time of extreme financial duress.

Deleveraging caused massive indiscriminate selling pressure. Institutions were forced to raise capital to meet their regulatory requirements. At the same time the credit markets froze up, making capital very difficult to acquire. This made the situation even worse. Hedge funds are investments for institutions and very wealthy individuals. They operate by borrowing huge amounts of money using their invested positions of stocks, bonds, and the more esoteric derivative investments as collateral. Some of these funds borrow 30-40 times the amount of actual dollars directly invested in them by their investors. The lenders who provide this money to the hedge funds have lending requirements which require the hedge funds to come up with more money if the value of their investments drops too much. During the financial turmoil, the decline of the investments in these hedge funds forced the hedge fund managers to start selling their investments whether they considered them good investments or not. This amplified the overall selling pressure and made a bad situation even worse. It did not matter whether an investment had merit or not, it was going down, and gold did likewise. It is certainly possible for this to occur again. It should also be noted that GDX seems to trade more like a stock than GLD, hence one might expect higher volatility. One of the only assets which did well in 2008 in comparison was US Treasury debt, due to the perception of safety.

If we fast forward to the emerging European crisis of 2010 and examine market conditions, we can see growing investor perception recognizing gold as a safe harbor. Additionally, the gut reaction of flocking to the US dollar as a safe harbor seems to be becoming somewhat more muted. In my view, I see this as a growing trend that will greatly benefit GDX over time. By the same token, does this suggest to me that it would be appropriate to bet the family farm on this position? Absolutely not! Even if an investor sees merit in my analysis, each individual investor needs to evaluate his own risk tolerance and circumstances to arrive at an appropriate allocation to GDX even if it is the only investment position they are taking.