Did you know that December 11, 2018 marked the 10-year anniversary of the day Bernie Madoff was charged with securities fraud? His colossal $64 billion dollar scheme came crashing down.

While there is certainly nothing to celebrate about the anniversary, there are lessons to learn. Ranking toward the top of our priority list, we should do all we can to prevent history from repeating itself, at least to the same magnitude.

Madoff’s Manipulative Mind Games

One of the telltale signs of Madoff’s malfeasance is easy to describe, but treacherously tricky to catch when it’s happening to you. Madoff was famous (now infamous) for supposedly employing stock options to deliver unwavering returns, year after year after year, no matter what the market was doing.

Think Houdini. When a supposed gentleman with impeccable credentials is masterfully managing your money like none other, it becomes difficult to recognize what has to be a sleight of hand. A potent mix of your own behavioral biases sees to that. Plus, Madoff’s set-up lacked any of the checks and balances you should demand from your advisor. Without an independent third party custodian reporting directly to you (such as Schwab, for our clients), it’s too easy for a con artist to fabricate a reality that doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, while magic is entertaining, losing your wealth to a deception is no fun at all.

Bottom line, if any money manager claims to be delivering constant, consistent stock market returns for years at a time while the markets swing up and down, you can almost certainly assume something’s amiss.

Back to Evidence-Based Reality

Unfortunately, these kinds of tricksters put us real advisors at a disadvantage. Unlike Madoff’s portfolios, ours won’t deliver magically positive percentages every month of every year – or even every year. Instead, we employ evidence-based investing to guide us through markets whose expected long-term returns are typically delivered in unpredictable fits and starts.

That means, as a realistic investor, you must be willing to tolerate the risks involved when you Take the Long View®. This does not mean you must accept excessive risk. There are a number of ways to manage the downturns while maximizing expected returns:

• Avoid concentrated risks by employing broad, global diversification instead of trying to pick individual stocks or time the market’s movements.
• Establish enough liquid (spendable) reserves to tide you through market downturns without being tempted or forced to unwind your long-term investments.
• Judiciously seek higher returns when warranted by tilting your equities toward expected sources of added risk and return – such as small-cap value stocks.

Likely vs. Certain = Reality vs. Fantasy

Are we SURE our approach is going to work? Do we KNOW, for example, that small-cap value stocks WILL provide premium returns over time?

We cannot be certain. After all, the value premium has disappointed during the past decade. Ten years might tempt even a resolute investor to waiver.

However, while we cannot be certain, we can shoot for most likely, based on the strongest, longest-term evidence we can find. In that context, the evidence clearly informs us that a decade of underperformance in any given asset class is not only possible but is periodically expected.

As this chart from Dimensional Fund Advisors demonstrates, since 1926, the value premium has outperformed growth 84% of the time across nearly 1,000 overlapping 10-year timespans. This means, 16% of the time (during around 160 decade-long periods), it has not.

If you’d like to ponder this phenomenon at greater length, here’s the Dimensional paper from which we extracted this chart.

We also encourage you to read “Factor Fimbulwinter” by Corey Hoffstein of Newfound Research. Admitting that the recently “disappearing” value factor (as measured by price-to-book) could well signify either the death of the premium, or simply a decade of expected variance, Hoffstein calculated how long it should take to be able to determine which conclusion was correct. The answer: 67 years.

He concludes (emphasis ours):

“The problem at hand is two-fold: (1) the statistical evidence supporting most factors is considerable and (2) the decade-to-decade variance in factor performance is substantial. Taken together, you run into a situation where a mere decade of underperformance likely cannot undue the previously established significance. … In investing, factor return variance is large enough that the proof is not in the eating of the short-term return pudding.”

Larry Swedroe also recently analyzed the durability of various investment factors and reached similar conclusions. In his article, he observed:

“[O]ne of the greatest problems preventing investors from achieving their financial goals is that, when it comes to judging the performance of an investment strategy, they believe that three years is a long time, five years is a very long time and 10 years is an eternity.”

Planning for Uncertainty

Of course most of us don’t have 67 years to wait before we decide whether a market factor is a sure winner or loser. Favoring reality over fantasy, here’s what we suggest:

1. Incorporate the most robust academic evidence suggesting which risk/return factors to favor.
2. Tilt your globally diversified portfolio toward those factors (as needed to reflect your unique goals).
3. Stick to the plan for a long, long time; avoid acting on hopes or fears, favoring only judicious adjustments when warranted.

What’s the alternative? While Madoff is history, we can point to any number of unsavory schemes that continue to be perpetrated by a seemingly never-ending supply of similar scoundrels. So whatever you do and whoever’s advice you choose to take, here’s one tip worth taking to heart: Always be wary of a “sure bet.”

Imagine this: You walk into a grocery store and buy a bag of apples priced at $1.50 – no sales tax. You hand the cashier two $1 bills. He hands you $0.40 in change and wishes you a nice day.

“Wait,” you say. “Don’t you owe me another dime?

“Oh, no,” he replies cheerfully. “I always keep a little extra for myself. I hope you don’t mind.”

As wrong as this may sound for the produce aisle, similar practices go on every day in muni and corporate bond markets, where they’re called markups and markdowns. Essentially, these are the commissions a bond broker/dealer takes out of your account for executing your trades. You incur a markup cost when you buy a bond and a markdown cost when you sell.

That last one is especially confusing, since a “markdown” usually means you’re getting a discount. Here, it means less money is heading into your pocket. And unless you have access to a (costly) Bloomberg terminal or similar resource, plus the details of your own trade, it’s usually an expense you never knew you incurred. Even with Bloomberg, here’s a peek at what a typical bond screen there looks like. Not so simple to decipher.

Given the relatively opaque nature of bond pricing, here’s how a typical transaction might work: Say you receive a nice, clean trade statement informing you that your bond broker just purchased a muni bond for your portfolio for $10,200 and sold one out of your portfolio for $9,800. Seems clear enough.

But here’s what may really have happened: The market rate of the bond you bought for $10,200 was actually only $10,000; the broker charged you a $200 markup and kept the difference. The bond you sold actually fetched you a market rate of $10,000, but the broker charged you a $200 markdown. For both trades, you paid the broker a relatively steep 2% fee.

We’re not suggesting bond brokers should work for free. One way they earn their keep is by charging you to transact your trades. That’s fair. But we’re less enthused about the relative lack of transparency on the amounts being charged.

This is especially concerning, since individual, retail traders are far more likely to incur higher transaction costs than large, institutional investors can command (such as a mutual fund company managing a fixed income fund). As described in this Vanguard report, “[I]n the municipal bond market, the bid-ask spread for a “retail” trade (less than $100,000 per bond) is typically higher than that for an institutional trade—sometimes substantially so.”

In the stock market, transaction fees are clearly disclosed on every trade confirmation. Plus, current stock prices are widely available to look up online, using any number of free services. It’s easy to see if the prices at which you bought or sold were vastly different from the “rack rate.” If transaction fees get out of line, you should be able to catch that too.

Compared to the stock market, the going price for bonds is much harder to find (again, usually requiring a costly Bloomberg subscription or similar service). And transaction costs are often hidden away within the totals on your trade confirmations. This makes it more difficult to tell whether or not you’ve received a fair deal.

Fortunately, over time, we’ve seen improvements in bond market pricing data and transaction cost disclosures. Last May, new regulations went into effect, requiring brokers to disclose markups and markdowns on bonds they sell to retail investors (that’s you) within the same trading day in which they bought them. The disclosures are reported to you after the trade has occurred.

That’s a start. But why not always require markup/markdown disclosures, for all types of bond trades? While we’re at it, why not require markup/markdown fees be disclosed in advance, in case you would like to do your due diligence on costs before you’ve already incurred them?

These are good questions. We hope, over time, they will be answered with continued clarifying action, until bond trades are at least as transparent and competitively priced as we see in the stock markets.

In our ongoing effort to clarify and simplify, we keep the financial jargon to a minimum. But even where we may succeed, you’re likely to encounter references elsewhere that can turn valuable information into mumbo-jumbo. Consider us your interpreter. Today, we’ll explore correlation, and why it matters to investing.

A Quick Take: Correlation Helps People Invest More Efficiently

Expressed as a number between –1.0 and +1.0, correlation quantifies whether, and by how much two holdings have behaved differently or alike in various markets. If we can identify holdings with weak or no expected correlation among one another, we can combine these diverse “pieces” (individual investments) into a greater “whole” (an investment portfolio), to help investors better weather the market’s many moods.

Correlation, Defined

As suggested above, correlation is more than just a quality; it’s also a quantity – a measurement – offering two important insights along a spectrum of possibilities between –1.0 and +1.0:

1. Correlation can be positive or negative, which tells us whether two correlated subjects are behaving similar to or opposite of one another.
2. Correlation can be strong or weak (or high/low), which tells us how powerful the similar or opposite behavior has been.

Correlation, Applied

Most investors are aware of the benefits of diversification, or owning many, as well as many different kinds of holdings. A well-diversified portfolio helps you invest more efficiently and effectively over time. Diversification also offers a smoother ride, which helps you better stay on course toward your personal financial goals.

But in a world of nearly infinite possibilities, how do we:

• Compare existing funds – If one fund is expected to perform a certain way according to its averages, and another fund is supposed to perform differently according to its own averages, how do you know if they’re really performing differently as expected?
• Compare new factors – What about when a researcher claims they’ve found a new factor, or source of expected returns? As this University of Chicago paper explains, “factors are being discovered almost as quickly as they can be packaged and sold to the waiting public.” How do we determine which are actually worth considering out of the hundreds proposed?
• Compare one portfolio to another – Even perfectly good factors don’t always fit well together. You want factors that are not only strong on their own, but that are expected to create the strongest possible total portfolio once they’re combined.

Correlation is the answer to these and other portfolio analysis challenges. By quantifying and comparing the behaviors and relationships found among various funds, factors and portfolios, we can better determine which combinations are expected to produce optimal outcomes over time.

Correlation, Concluded  

Heeding correlation data is a lot like having a full line-up on your favorite sports team. If each player on the roster adds a distinct, useful and well-played talent to the mix, odds are, your team will go far. Similarly, your investment portfolio is best built from a global “team” of distinct factors, or sources of returns. A winning approach combines quality components that exhibit weak or no correlation among or between them across varied, long-term market conditions.

Let us know if we can use our experience and expertise to help you build a more diversified and less correlated portfolio.