|
Last week the Wall Street Journal published an article that
(assuming it wasn't a clever satire) perfectly illustrates the train wreck
that's in store for clients of mainstream money managers.
In the first-person-confessional style that's becoming popuar in the financial
press, the reporter laments his diminished 401(K):
My company retirement accounts, despite what I thought was a relatively
conservative mix, were down close to 35% in early March from the fall of
2007. That, in turn, forced me to do some painful thinking about how much
risk I can stomach on my family's behalf, and how much money we can expect
to have in retirement.
My conclusion: My longtime portfolio allocation of 50% stocks and 50% bonds
wasn't safe enough. I've already begun gradually trimming back my stock position
each time the market rises. When I'm done with this transition -- and it
could take a couple of years -- I will have a portfolio that can better ride
out storms. But it will also be a portfolio less likely to produce a big
nest egg.
...For me, the market crash has been truly humbling. To be honest, I thought
I had bulletproofed my portfolio a decade ago when I switched from all equities
to the 50/50 portfolio. My 401(k) rode out the market downturn of the early
2000s with little damage. Bond prices rose, blotting out much of the losses
from stocks.
...When the Dow neared 6500 in early March and seemed poised to drop further,
I decided holding 50% stocks was simply too risky in a turbulent era. I concluded
30% was the right level. At that point, I had about 42% in stocks because
of the market losses. Dropping my equities allocation to 30% would have meant
selling a big slug of stocks at the bottom and locking in my losses. That
didn't seem smart. So I waited for the market to rise. After the Dow rose
above 7200, I sold off a bit of stock. After it topped 8000, I sold off a
bit more. And I've sold some more on two other days since then when the market
posted big gains.
I still have the same amount of money stashed in stocks as I had in early
March, thanks to the market's rise. But I own a lot more bonds. I don't plan
to resume buying stocks until they shrink back to 30% of my portfolio. It's
not exactly a formula for getting rich. If stocks rocket up, I won't benefit
to the same degree I would have under my old 50/50 portfolio. But I've come
to the conclusion that I value minimizing my losses in bad times more than
maximizing my gains in good times.
There are several flawed assumptions buried in this poor guy's story. But
for now let's focus on the big one: the idea that stocks and bonds offer predictable
long-term risks and returns. Financial planners base this comforting theory
on the experience of the six decades since the end of World War II. To them,
this constitutes the "normal" market.
The problem is that those six decades weren't normal. On the contrary, they
were unique: history's greatest credit bubble. During this bubble, governments,
armed with fiat currencies that they could create out of thin air, printed
more and more paper each year, which made it easy for consumers and businesses
to borrow and spend. Companies were able to sell more at ever-higher prices
and report correspondingly higher earnings, which translated into higher stock
prices. The early stages of a credit bubble are like this, with everything
seeming just a little easier than it was for Mom and Dad.
To hide the effects of their depreciating currencies, governments then started
massaging their official statistics (see Shadowstats.com for
the real, more ominous numbers). The result was a world of rising debt and
illusory price stability, in which stocks went up 10% or so each year and bonds
protected their owners from the occasional recession. Hence the idea that you
just have to find the right mix of these two asset classes and you'll be, as
the Journal puts it, bulletproof.
Unfortunately, the fun part of the bubble is over. Today's governments have
(or believe that they have) no choice but to ramp up the printing presses to
prevent a cascade failure of the global financial system. This will accelerate
the decline in fiat currency values beyond the power of official obfuscation.
The markets will catch on, and traders will dump the dollar, yen, and euro.
Because bonds pay a fixed amount each year, they depend on the value of their
underlying currency. Destroy the currency through excessive borrowing and printing,
and bonds cease to be safe. Soon, even "risk-free" bonds like U.S. Treasuries
will come to be seen as a trap, a sort of financial roach motel in which your
savings check in but don't check out.
Which means the millions of shell-shocked investors who are behaving like
the Journal reporter, loading up on bonds for safety, are about to wave goodbye
to what little they have left.
BUY
OFFSHORE GOLD AND SILVER AT GOLDMONEY
|