February 2010


The decade that just ended was an extraordinarily cruel one for investors, offering little or no return for the whole ten years. We almost had a recovery after the technology meltdown of 2000, but those gains disappeared in the credit-crunch-driven bear market of 2008/2009.

Against this backdrop of investor pain, a few mutual funds managed to do exceptionally well. One in particular, a U.S. fund called CGM Focus Fund, had an impressive 18.8% compounded return*. Anyone lucky enough or smart enough to pick that fund must have been handsomely rewarded – you’d assume.

The fund’s track record is undisputed, but let’s take a look at what its investors actually earned. Did they pocket that 18%? Sadly, no. The typical investor in this fund got a negative 11% return. In case you think that was a misprint, let me say it again: the typical CGM investor actually LOST 11%.

How can that be? The reason is one of the little-known facts about investing: there’s usually a big gap between “investment” performance, and “investor” performance. The culprit, as is often the case, is investor behaviour. If you buy an investment when it’s hot, then panic and sell it when things take a downturn, you often end up with a terrible result.

The CGM Focus Fund is a case in point. It had a remarkable performance, growing 85% over the course of a single year. Seeing this great result, eager investors piled into the fund. The following year, though, the fund dropped some 44% – and many of those same investors piled out. The fund then had another stellar year, prompting investors to return in droves – again, after the gain had already been made.

You can see a pattern here: the huge gap between investment return and investor return is more a matter of investor behaviour than market dynamics. This is true of both relatively obscure funds and stocks, and well-known ones. Look at any top-performing mutual fund, and the data tells the same story: capital flowing in at the peaks, and pouring out at the troughs.

In our present CNN-driven market culture, where trades can be made with the click of a mouse, it seems silly to stay with an investment when it’s losing money. Surely there’s a five-star fund someplace else that’s making money, while yours isn’t moving – so it seems sensible to sell the underperformer and get into the “right” investment.

The hard fact is, though, that markets reward investors for gritting their teeth and hanging in. If you look at any broad market index, like the S&P500, you’ll see extraordinary long-term returns. In 1970, the S&P500 stood at 72 points. Today, the figure is 1100 points. That’s money growing fifteen times! And if dividends were reinvested, you could add another few hundred percent.

Unfortunately, most investors don’t get that kind of massive return. Most of us seem to be hard-wired to behave badly when it comes to owning stocks. We either take extraordinary risk and choose just a few, instead of buying a diversified portfolio, or else we do diversify, but then buy at market peaks and sell at market troughs.

This isn’t because investors are dumb. We’re just responding to our defensive instincts: we can’t bear to see our hard-earned capital apparently melt away in a bear market. That’s too painful; we all prefer not to suffer.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from a lifetime of work studying the markets; it’s that the most successful investors are those who learn to live with the pain of a bear market. A good, diversified portfolio works best over long periods: twenty years is good, thirty years is even better.

During thirty years time, we can count on at least another four or five bear markets. For those of us who plan to live a long time, that’s great news. If we’re smart, we can reap big returns from that “risk premium.” All we have to do with our sensibly diversified portfolio is not sell.

*source: Morningstar

Alan MacDonald is an investment advisor with Richardson GMP Limited. Alan helps investors with over $500,000. of assets make smart decisions about money. For more information please visit www.alanmacdonald.ca or email Alan at Alan.Macdonald@RichardsonGMP.com.

The opinions expressed in this report are the opinions of the author and readers should not assume they reflect the opinions or recommendations of Richardson GMP Limited or its affiliates.

Richardson GMP Limited, Member CIPF

Richardson is a trade-mark of James Richardson & Sons, Limited. GMP is a registered trade-mark of GMP Securities L.P. Both used under license by Richardson GMP Limited.

It can be tough to involve a spouse in the family portfolio. In many households there’s a natural division of labour; and if one person always looks after the finances, there’s little motivation for the other spouse to get involved.

That’s often a mistake, though, because a portfolio is very different from other shared tasks. For one thing, the stakes are much higher: the outcome of investment strategies affects everybody’s life. Consider the worst-case scenario: what if the person who manages the portfolio dies suddenly? The surviving spouse may have little experience at making important investment decisions, yet will have to do so almost immediately.

So it always makes sense for both spouses to be involved, but that’s not always easy. I’ve personally witnessed a few failed efforts. There was the case of Bill and Mary, for instance. Mary, the spouse who manages the portfolio, drags Bill, who prefers to stay out of investment talk, to a portfolio review. He’s disgruntled at being there, and the conversation is mostly between Mary and the advisor (me).

We talk about what stocks are up, which are down, and what might happen over the coming year to interest rates, oil and exports. Meanwhile, Bill is fighting back yawns at the boredom of it all. On the way home, he tells Mary he’d rather chew tinfoil than sit through another review. Mary is annoyed because a) it feels as though her hard work on behalf of the family is unappreciated, and b) she can’t understand why Bill refuses to take an interest in something so important to both of them.

My opinion is that Bill isn’t really uninterested in financial matters—he just isn’t interested in this particular aspect. When you think about it, conversations about the details of asset price movements and market forecasts are secondary to larger issues such as goals, risk tolerance and family priorities.

So here’s a different approach to spousal participation: move the conversation away from the nitty-gritty of market performance. Leave your financial advisor out of it for the time being, and just ask your spouse these general questions:

• What are you worried about when it comes to money?

• What are the best opportunities we have right now?

• What advantages do we have as a couple in dealing with money?

• What do we want to do for family members such as kids, parents or relatives?

• Where would we like to be in ten years? Twenty years?

• Where do you want to live in ten years?

• What kind of work will we be doing in ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years?

• What do we want to do for the world at large?

• How much will we need to finance all those aims?

• How should we go about getting there?

Once you’ve had that conversation, it’s not hard to create an investment policy. Short-term objectives require risk-free investments; long-term objectives can handle riskier assets. You might also get a clearer idea about each other’s retirement plans. More to the point, your spouse can finally see the utility of the family portfolio: in his/her mind, it’s now linked to personal objectives. Now you’re ready to talk about how those market blips and tips will serve your family goals.

Alan MacDonald is an investment advisor with Richardson GMP Limited. Alan helps investors with over $500,000 of assets make smart decisions about money. For more information please visit www.alanmacdonald.ca or email Alan at Alan.Macdonald@RichardsonGMP.com.

The opinions expressed in this report are the opinions of the author and readers should not assume they reflect the opinions or recommendations of Richardson GMP Limited or its affiliates.

Richardson GMP Limited, Member CIPF

Richardson is a trade-mark of James Richardson & Sons, Limited. GMP is a registered trade-mark of GMP Securities L.P. Both used under license by Richardson GMP Limited.