Stock Watch
Why Not to Quit Stocks Altogether
Millions of investors are pulling their money out of this market, but that doesn't mean you should follow the crowd. Stocks are still right for many portfolios.
By Jeffrey R. Kosnett, Senior Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance
August 25, 2010
When an otherwise dull report on mutual fund flows becomes the lead story in Sunday’s New York Times, it behooves investors to pay attention. Citing data from the Investment Company Institute, the mutual fund industry’s trade group, the Times’ August 21 article reported that investors withdrew a “staggering” $33 billion from domestic stock funds in the first seven months of 2010, and it raised the question of whether the numbers suggested a long-term shift in investor psychology.
That your friends, neighbors and countrymen have grown wary -- if not sick -- of stocks shouldn’t come as a surprise. In the wake of ten years of negative returns (the result of two devastating bear markets), a surge in volatility that culminated in the May 6 “flash crash,” and the remarkably strong performance of Treasury bonds, it’s no wonder that millions of investors have been pulling money out of the lagging category of assets and moving it into something that has done so much better.
But that doesn’t mean that the turn-tail crowd is doing the right thing. Yes, the stock market is more prone than ever to terrifying accidents. But there’s no way to build anything resembling a diversified investment plan sans stocks. For more on why you shouldn’t abandon stocks, read on.
For starters, the supposedly safe alternatives aren’t especially appealing. The national average interest rate on a five-year CD is 1.8%. A few banks advertise 2.5%. Such a deal! If there’s any inflation at all and your money is in a taxable account, you make between nothing and next-to-nothing. Even in a tax-deferred account, you may even come out behind.
With interest rates falling steadily since April, bond funds have delivered handsome total returns (bond prices and yields move in opposite directions). Consider Vanguard Long-Term Treasury Fund (symbol VUSTX), which, as the name indicates, owns Treasury bonds with long maturities. Year-to-date through August 24, the fund returned a remarkable 20.2%.
But as yields fall, opportunities for additional gains diminish and risks rise. The ten-year Treasury note, which yielded 4% in April, yielded a bit more than 2.5% at the close of trading on August 24. The Vanguard fund’s duration, a measure of interest-rate risk, stands at 12.8 years. That means if long-term interest rates rise one percentage point, which is not out of the question by this time next year, the fund’s share price will likely fall about 12.8%. No matter how bad you think the economy is, it isn’t so awful that the government and the financial markets can keep the cost of credit near zero forever.
Getting back to stocks, corporate America is doing quite well, thank you. According to Thomson One, 75% of the companies in Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index beat analysts’ estimates in the second quarter. All told, S&P 500 earnings were up 38% from the same period in 2009.
Clearly, companies can’t continue to produce this kind of growth in a sluggish economy. But judging from the way investors have been pummeling stocks lately, they seem to think that a double-dip recession is in the cards and that, consequently, the bottom is about to fall out of earnings (between the market’s April 23 peak and the August 24 close, the S&P 500 dropped 13%). Kiplinger’s disagrees. We expect growth in gross domestic product of 2.8% this year and 3.4% next year -- not exactly signs of a roaring economy but not terrible, either. If the economy does continue to grow moderately, stocks look reasonably priced, at worst -- and they may prove to be downright cheap. At the August 24 close, the S&P 500 traded at just a shade below 12 times estimated earnings for the next four quarters.
Of course, it is unnerving to see stock indexes fall 2% or more in one day or 5% in a week when traders get spooked by a small rise in unemployment claims or by a housing-sales figure that is slightly less than expected. We would prefer investors to focus on real progress at places like 3M (MMM), which has an amazing array of new products, or Caterpillar (CAT) and Deere (DE), which remained profitable through the Great Recession and are seeing big increases in sales in emerging nations.
This is a great time to be looking at companies that pay large, secure dividends. You don’t have to look far to find stocks that yield more than Treasury bonds do or even more than a company’s own bonds. Moreover, a company can boost its dividend every year, while a bond or a CD generally pays you the same amount year after year (that’s why they’re called fixed-income investments). Plenty of good companies whose share prices have been stagnant for years regularly increase their payouts by 10% or more annually. These include Caterpillar, IBM (IBM), Illinois Tool Works (ITW), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ), Pepsico (PEP) and Wal-Mart Stores (WMT).
Until now, we’ve been focusing on the U.S. economy. Let’s not forget that the engine of economic growth today is the world’s emerging nations, such as China and India. It’s almost quaint to talk about China as a developing country. It has just overtaken Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. According to Bank of America Merrill Lynch, 20% of the S&P 500’s profits came from abroad 15 years ago. Today, the figure is 40%, including 15% from emerging economies.
What does all this mean for you as an investor? If you have enough money to last through retirement and old age, sure, go ahead and cut back on risk by trimming your allocation to stocks. But do not eliminate your stock positions entirely. Most investors -- especially those under age 55 -- should keep as much in stocks as their tolerance for risk (that is, short-term losses) permits.
The Kiplinger 25, the list of our favorite no-load mutual funds, is a great place to start. Funds such as Fairholme (FAIRX), Fidelity Low-Priced Stock (FLPSX), Harbor International (HIINX), T. Rowe Price Equity Income (PRFDX) and T. Rowe Price MidCap Growth (RPMGX) have delivered market-beating returns over the past ten years, and for the most part their shareholders have shown discernment by sticking with them. Of course, these funds will almost certainly lose value in a severe market downturn. If you’re looking for bear-market protection, consider FPA Crescent (FPACX), whose manager often bets against the market with some of his fund’s assets, or Arbitrage Fund (ARBFX), which invests in takeover targets and exhibits almost no correlation to the overall market.
Getting back to that New York Times article, it evokes another prominently displayed article about the stock market from more than 30 years ago. The cover story on the August 13, 1979, issue of BusinessWeek magazine was called “The Death of Equities.” While the article was not a perfect contrarian indicator -- it took until 1982 before the great, 18-year-long bull market began -- the piece and its over-the-top title did no favors to those who took it seriously enough to abandon stocks forever.
Topics:
- Comments
- RSS
Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy


Reader Comments (13)
Posted by: Kurt Anderson at 08/25/2010 06:23:53 PM
The issue is not market performance. The issue is DISGUST with the crooked ways of the market "professionals". The market has been severely damaged by the egregious sins committed over so long a time period and not punished last year. The US Government was shown to be toothless or just not caring about all the sins of this industry and its "professionals". Professional Crooks, I say. We need to put rules in place that have teeth. Break a rule and go to jail. Make the Treasury Department or whoever responsible for PROTECTING the American INVESTORS, not the Crooks who were protected last year and since 1932.
Posted by: Rohit at 08/26/2010 11:37:09 AM
Fairly simplistic article. Earnings have rebounded from abysmal levels in part due to further cost cutting and inventory restocking. Sustained top line growth is needed to keep earnings growing which is difficult with an aging population, high unemployment and unsustainable debt levels. When you add to that excessive compensation paid to senior managers and stock options that dilute EPS you can see that the only people getting rich are managers - at the expense of stockholders. Many retailer investors (unlike the writer of this article) seem to understand that. There is certainly a fear factor which is driving investors to bonds but even in that space investment grade corporates paying 5% maybe a safer way to play a healthy (but not growing) domestic market
Posted by: AK at 08/26/2010 02:10:58 PM
The flip side of this article is "why you SHOULD quit stocks now" - or at least until the near term fog of uncertainity clears up. The realtive flat return on cash trumps the daily downward drip of the stock market. I'll take the flat return for the rest of this year. After the Washington trash gets cleaning out in November, perhaps my confidence will improve to ths point where I'll consider a return to Wall Street
Posted by: Dr. Danie Martin at 08/26/2010 03:02:20 PM
Spoken like someone who makes their living off the market. Given that no one knows what boneheaded thing the administration will do tomorrow to change the game rules, given that we're spending trillions of dollars we don't have, given that the world's largest economy is being managed by people who have no idea how business really works-why would anyone in their right mind feel that the stage is set for corporate growth and therefore buy stocks? The Dow is on the way down, friends, and so is America.
Posted by: Limoman at 08/27/2010 07:46:33 AM
I agree Jeff..I've been getting the past 40 yrs performance report charts of from 100% Treasuries to 100% S&P500 index for decades now and the Age Old 60/40 still is the best over-all.. for Growth Portfolio's and a 40/60 -30/70 best for Post Retirement. I found the #1 reason no investment Portfolio works? The Person Running it! We, the Amatures are our Worse Enemy! Best solution? Either Hire a FA or Use BALANCED FUNDS. I choose the Balanced Funds after not being able to 'Stick to the program" running a Port of Indexes.. technically, They Do work, but in the Real World? We Humans Aren't UnImmootional Machines and we're Greedy and Fearfull ..we are Suckers to Chase Performance and Chicken when things get Bad..( sell in Bear markets). Balanced Funds or hire someone.. that is a Machine to run it for you..Just like the Lawyers ,Tax Accountants and Auto Mechancis.... They Made the whole system so complex, only they can somewhat figure out the Mess they created.. and we know they did this on purpose, so we Have to use/hire them! Self Preservation if you will and lining their Pockets with Our $..
Posted by: Alan at 08/27/2010 12:21:06 PM
The one thing that is certain is that the more people advise a plan (get out of stocks -- go whole hog in stocks, buy commodities, etc.) the nearer we are to the end of that proving to be a successful way to maximize investments. The only perfect vision is hindsight. While one grimaces when part of their portfolio "goes south," the people who have both gained AND lost the most have been focused on one area. If they picked correctly they gained a wad. If they chose the wrong target, they were badly damaged or destroyed. Either way, they took extra risk. Accepting risk and adding emotion is a recipe for disaster, most of the time. The prudent plan is to diversify. Win some, lose some and have faith that as a whole, life's problems will incrementally improve, even if slowly and with bumps. Or bury it in the back yard! A second certainty is that nobody has the exact answer -- so again, place several bets and reduce risk.
Posted by: Matt Turner at 08/27/2010 12:32:53 PM
When a stock can trade hundreds of thousands of shares between .9550 and .9551 pps, which stagnates share price more considering float, There you have an issue with the SEC regulations. What value is .001? Nothing. Not one share should ever be allowed to trade at a fraction of a cent, becuase a fraction of a cent is not redeemable. It is not legal tender. It is not admissable as payment for anything.
Posted by: Jeff Kosnett at 08/27/2010 12:52:30 PM
Hi, your correspondent here. Reactions: Rohit: Certain types of companies, such as in export-oriented manufacturing, agribusiness and technology are expanding the top line and not just living off cost cuts. And not all cost cutting is firing people and cutting back on pensions and suchlike. There are a bunch of supply-chain and production efficiencies that help with margins, but as they say in baseball, "they don't show up in the box score." And I agree that corporate bonds that pay 5% are great to hold, but they'd be better if you bought them two years ago. A bunch of such bonds have risen in price from 100 to 120, while the stock doesn't budge. AK-- most of the return in stocks is from dividends and they are substantial, and we'll wait and see about what companies do with all their cash. Dr. Martin-- I don't make my living off the market and if you were aware that 40% of S&P 500 profits now originate overseas, you might change your mind that the "U.S. is on the way down" It's our challenge to produce the goods and services the world needs and wants, since they have the money to buy much more. The whole world has become a much more prosperous place and we are better off for it. Thanks for your comments.
Posted by: Don in COS at 08/27/2010 01:27:03 PM
How long am I going to live? At age 64, I don't have "time" to watch the market "fix itself." Furthermore, I have very little confidence that I'll be around long enough to ever regain what I've "lost" to this point. Thank God I had the sense to move most of my portfolio into annuities before the DC decided to take the "socialist" route for our country. November cannot come quickly enough! At least I'm getting 5.5% from copanies that durvived the "Great Depression."
Posted by: dorothy micheal at 08/28/2010 08:28:11 AM
The economy stupid. Why can't federal reserve incentivize the non-toxic banks to build their asset and do the basic job of credit creation. any bank with no exposure to CRedit swaps are good candidates to take a big chunk of the finance market and help galvanize the job market in the process. there are several ways to do this. but definitely not by encouraging more stimulus to toxic banks, that is one thing for user. small banks with clean assets can grow big in this market. it is up to the Fed to come up with the rule book in this regards. why let things get worse phd candidate
Posted by: Greg Wyler at 08/29/2010 05:25:47 PM
...Your article is pure cheerleading...The only good news is, after reading the posts, so many people saw write through this. If you believe what you say, you need to spend some time in serious reflection....It is you, and people like you, who claim to be experts and push others to hand you your money (...the advertising from those who do...). You never guarantee your words or the downside. Consider your statements: "But theres no way to build anything resembling a diversified investment plan sans stocks."- this is absolutely not true. First- you use the wrong words by claiming buying a stock is "investing". the public markets are gambling...Second- there are lots of non-stock places to put your money. Even a decent grade bond will give you a fixed percent if you hold it to maturity - with a lower risk. You could pay off your house and reduce your mortgage interest costs (thus - guaranteed long term positive gains), (if) you could put the money in the bank and be assured it will be there when you need it. Put your money in public stocks and you risk losing the principal. Is that a good thing to do with your retirement savings that you count on? Will you pay the mortgage of the person who has nothing left in their 401k? "The national average interest rate on a five-year CD is 1.8%. A few banks advertise 2.5%. Such a deal!" That is a much better deal than losing 10% of principal, wouldn't you agree? Your statements assume there is no risk in stocks as you only mention them as having upside....
Posted by: Jeff Kosnett at 08/31/2010 09:54:18 AM
JK, author of this column, here again, with some more replies. Don, if you bought all annuities, I hope you either laddered them or bought them before interest rates went to the current extremely low levels. If you're locked in at a very low rate for ther rest of your life, you're exposed to significant inflation risk. Dorothy, there is a lot of potential credit, but consumers don't want to borrow, most businesses are deleveraging, and corporations are also able to tap the bond market at extremely favorable rates for 10 years and longer, which is more appealing than bank credit. Greg, equity is a key part of any diversified investment plan, but diversified leaves lots of room for bonds, real estate, cash, and even a little gold if that's your taste. Banks that advertise 2.5% should hold down the enthusiasm with which they claim these are great or wonderful rates; the difference over the market won't change anyone's life. As for bonds, see my columns in Cash in Hand here on Kiplinger.com. I love bonds and everyone should have some. Trouble is, right now, you can easily pay 120 for a particular bond that can be called in a few years at 100, and if you do, you've lost not 10% but 20% of your principal. In August, 2010, the reality is that bonds have rallied to the point where they are expensive while stocks are languishing.
Posted by: monkeyfurball at 09/20/2010 10:27:39 PM
I kept buying stock index funds and individual stocks all through the recession and continue to do it today. Much of what I bought in 2008 is up 100-200% or more. Nothing I purchased is up less than 50% in that time. You cannot afford to be a coward when the stock market goes on sale. There are millions of DOOMERS and jerks who constantly call you a fool for buying like I did, even to this day they are under every rock. These people are part of the herd that lost money and continues to lose big time by staying out of the market. They deserve what they have received----nothing.