|
Posted by on July 15, 2008, 6:30 pm
A survey of professional investors in the U.S.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959703 found that
their average estimate of the equity risk premium (ERP) over 10-year
Treasury bonds was about 3.5% a year . One-year implied volatility for
the S&P 500 is about 25%, and one-month implied volatility is about
28% (as measured by VIX). Risking about 20% a year to earn 3.5% seems
like insufficient reward for risk to me.
The question is whether expected returns are higher when volatility is
above average, as it is now. It's also possible that the 3.5% ERP
estimate is too low, although many academics have come to similar
conclusions. If nominal GDP rises at say 6% a year, (3% nominal, 3%
real) and dividend yields stay at 2% it's tough to envision stocks
returns being 12% a year, implying 10% annual price appreciation,
since then the ratio of stock market capitalization to GDP would
increase without bound.
As a financial professional I am forced to follow the markets daily,
and seeing one's net worth bounce around by 1 to 2% a day for a 3.5%
annual reward is even more unpleasant. OK, partly I'm just grumbling
about the recent market action, but I think it would be interesting to
see how suggested asset allocations for an investor depend on
one's estimates for stock market volatility and return.
Stock market volatility is especially painful because stock returns
tend to be worse in "bad" states of the world, for example states with
soaring commodity prices, collapsing banks, and rising unemployment.
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
|
|
Posted by Elizabeth Richardson on July 15, 2008, 7:44 pm
>
> Stock market volatility is especially painful because stock returns
> tend to be worse in "bad" states of the world, for example states with
> soaring commodity prices, collapsing banks, and rising unemployment.
>
Another bear? Goody, goody. Come on bears, get out in the open, the more of
you, the better. A distinct lop-sidedness of either bears or bulls is a
contrarian indicator. Lots of bears means we're near a bottom, just as when
there are too many bulls, we're near a top.
Elizabeth Richardson
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
|
|
Posted by Douglas Johnson on July 16, 2008, 1:15 pm
>Another bear? Goody, goody. Come on bears, get out in the open, the more of
>you, the better. A distinct lop-sidedness of either bears or bulls is a
>contrarian indicator. Lots of bears means we're near a bottom, just as when
>there are too many bulls, we're near a top.
Then you'll love this. My favorite contrarian indicator is the American
Association of Individual Investors (AAII) investor sentiment poll. It measures
how the members feel about the market over the next six months.
Currently it is:
Bullish 22.17% -- the long term average is 39.2%
Neutral 22.66% - the long term average is 31.6%
Bearish 55.17% - the long term average is 29.3%
Here's the juicy part:
Bullish:
Max: 75.0% (1/6/2000), Min: 12.0% (11/16/1990)
Neutral:
Max: 62.0% (6/3/1988), Min: 8.0% (12/14/2000)
Bearish:
Max: 67.0% (10/19/1990), Min: 6.0% (8/21/1987)
So the bulls set a record high and the bears set a record low just before the
2000 debacle The bear minimum was just before the 1987 crash and the bull
minimum was just before the 1991 boom.
So, bears, bring it on. There is enough doom and gloom that I am starting to
think there might be a bottom somewhere. Not soon, I am always too early on
this kind of thing.
Just a brief plug for the AAII. I've been a member for over 20 years. Their
Journal publishes a whole range of articles on personal finance, not just
investing. They are unbiased and without a sales agenda. See their web site at
www.aaii.org
-- Doug
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
|
|
Posted by David Moore on July 16, 2008, 4:41 pm
I'm not sure how much subjective estimates of the equity risk premium
are worth. Here are my notes on the Dimson et al. study of data for
the entire 20th century:
(The equity risk premium is ...)
Extremely variable annually, roughly normal mean 7.7% std dev 19.6.
Geometric 1900-2000 5.8% over bills. Same ballpark internationally.
Ten-year premia: arithmetic 5.8% with std dev 5.4%, geometric 5.6%.
NOTE lower than most previous studies due to longer time frame.
David
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
|
|
Posted by Ron Peterson on July 17, 2008, 1:04 am
On Jul 15, 5:30 pm, beliav...@aol.com wrote:
> A survey of professional investors in the
U.S.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959703found that
> their average estimate of the equity risk premium (ERP) over 10-year
> Treasury bonds was about 3.5% a year . One-year implied volatility for
> the S&P 500 is about 25%, and one-month implied volatility is about
> 28% (as measured by VIX). Risking about 20% a year to earn 3.5% seems
> like insufficient reward for risk to me.
As one who is investment portfolio is heavy in equities, I feel that
volatility.
> The question is whether expected returns are higher when volatility is
> above average, as it is now. ...
I think that high volatility is being driven by professional investors
managing the different funds and won't be going away without
legislation. Investment returns are driven by how profitable the
companies are and how much is left for the stock holders, not the
volatility of the stock price.
> As a financial professional I am forced to follow the markets daily,
> and seeing one's net worth bounce around by 1 to 2% a day for a 3.5%
> annual reward is even more unpleasant. OK, partly I'm just grumbling
> about the recent market action, but I think it would be interesting to
> see how suggested asset allocations for an investor depend on
> one's estimates for stock market volatility and return.
That 3.5% extra return will result in almost 100% more after 20 years,
so it's a no brainer.
> Stock market volatility is especially painful because stock returns
> tend to be worse in "bad" states of the world, for example states with
> soaring commodity prices, collapsing banks, and rising unemployment.
A person can now invest in most countries of the world through ADRs
and ETFs reducing risk, but not much reduction in volatility.
--
Ron
--------------------------------------
Misc.invest.financial-plan is a moderated newsgroup where Moderators strive
to keep the conversations on-topic for financial planning. Other posting
guidelines include a request for brevity and another for trimming posts to
which we respond. For all of the other tips and suggestions, see "FROM THE
MODERATORS: Posting to misc.invest.financial-plan", a weekly post now on the
Newsgroup.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Great book on Equity Risk Premium: Goetzmann and Ibbotson | November 28, 2006, 1:02 pm |
| bankruptcy risk score | March 12, 2007, 4:56 am |
| Asset allocation and risk tolerance | May 16, 2007, 5:05 am |
| Roth conversions in 2010 -- political risk | March 8, 2007, 3:44 pm |
| Equity Premium | January 1, 2007, 6:02 am |
| Nevada annuity premium taxes | June 22, 2008, 7:35 am |
| medicare premium based on pre-retirement income? | August 10, 2007, 9:55 am |
| Equity returns since 12/31/1999 | April 18, 2007, 2:17 pm |
| Home equity loan | September 30, 2007, 7:06 pm |
| Mortgage or Equity loan from home own outright | January 10, 2008, 3:25 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap