Posts filed under ‘Themes – Trends’
There have been numerous factors contributing to this bull market, even in the face of a slew of daunting and exhausting headlines. Contributing to the advance has been a steady stream of rising earnings; a flood of price buoying stock buybacks; and the all-important gift of growing dividends that keep on giving. Bonds have benefited to a lesser extent than stocks over the last five years in part because bonds lack the gift of rising dividend payouts. Life would be grander for bondholders, if the issuers had the heart to share generous news like this:
“Good day Mr. & Mrs. Jones. As your bond issuer, we value our mutually beneficial relationship so much that we would like to reward you as a bond investor. In addition to the 2.5% we are paying you now, we have decided to increase your annual payments by 6% per year for the next 20 years. In other words, we will increase your $2,500 in annual interest payments to over $8,000 per year. But wait…there’s more! You are such great people, we are going to increase the value of your initial $100,000 investment to $450,000.”
Does this sound too good to be true? Well, it’s not…sort of. However, the scenario is absolutely true, if you invested $100,000 in S&P 500 stocks during 1993 and held that investment until today. Unfortunately, the gift giving conversation above would be unattainable and the furthest from the truth, if you invested $100,000 into bonds. Today, if you decided to invest $100,000 in 20-year government bonds paying 2.5%, your $2,500 in annual payments will never increase over the next two decades. What’s more, by 2034 your initial principal of $100,000 won’t increase by a penny, while inflation slowly but surely crushes your investment’s purchasing power.
To illustrate the magical power of dividend compounding at a 6% CAGR, here is a chart of the S&P 500 dividend stream over the 21-year period of 1993 – 2014:
The trend of increasing dividends doesn’t appear to be slowing either. Here is a table showing the number of S&P 500 companies increasing their dividend payouts:
|COUNT OF DIVIDEND ACTIONS YEAR-TO-DATE||INCREASING THEIR DIVIDEND|
Source: Standard and Poor’s
As I mentioned before, while dividends have more than tripled over the last twenty years, stock prices have gone up even more – appreciating about 4.5x’s (see chart below):
With aging demographics increasing retirement income needs, it comes as no surprise to me that the percentage of S&P 500 companies paying dividends has increased from 71% (351 companies) in 2001 to 84% (423 companies) at the end of Q3 – 2014. Interestingly, all 30 members of the Dow Jones Industrial Average currently pay a dividend. If you broaden out the perspective to all S&P Dow Jones Indices, you will discover the strength of dividends is particularly evident over the last 12 months. During this period, dividends increased by a whopping +27%, or $55 billion.
This trend in increasing dividends can also be seen through the lens of the dividend payout ratio. It is true that over longer timeframes the dividend payout ratio has been coming down (see Dividend Floodgates Widen) because of share buyback tax efficiency. Nevertheless, more recently the dividend payout ratio has drifted upwards to a range of about 32% of profits since 2011 (see chart below):
There’s no disputing the benefit of rising stock dividends. Baby Boomers, retirees, and other long-term investors are increasingly reaping the rewards of these dividend gifts that keep on giving.
Other Investing Caffeine articles on dividends:
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs) including SPY, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Baron Rothschild, an 18th century British nobleman and member of the Rothschild banking family, is credited with the investment advice to “buy when there’s blood in the streets.” Well, with the Russell 2000 correcting about -14% and the S&P 500 -8% from their 2014 highs, you may not be witnessing drenched, bloody streets, but you could say there has been some “scrapes on the sidewalk.”
Although the Volatility Index (VIX – a.k.a., “Fear Gauge”) reached the highest level since 2011 last week (31.06), the S&P 500 index still hasn’t hit the proverbial “correction” level yet. Even with some blood being shed, the clock is still running since the last -10% correction experienced during the summer of 2011 when the Arab Spring sprung and fears of a Greek exit from the EU was blanketing the airwaves. If investors follow the effective 5-year investment playbook, this recent market dip, like previous ones, should be purchased. Following this “buy-the-dip” mentality since the lows experienced in 2011 would have resulted in stock advancing about +75% in three years.
If you have a more pessimistic view of the equity markets and you think Ebola and European economic weakness will lead to a U.S. recession, then history would indicate investors have suffered about 50% of the pain. Your ordinary, garden-variety recession has historically resulted in about a -20% hit to stock prices. However, if you’re in the camp that we’re headed into another debilitating “Great Recession” as we experienced in 2008-2009, then you should brace for more pain and grab some syringes of Novocaine.
If you’re seriously considering some of these downside scenarios, wouldn’t it make sense to analyze objective data to bolster evidence of an impending recession? If the U.S. truly was on the verge of recession, wouldn’t the following dynamics likely be in place?
- Two quarters of consecutive, negative GDP (Gross Domestic Property) data
- Inverted yield curve
- Rising unemployment and mass layoff announcements
- Declining corporate profits
- Hawkish Federal Reserve
The reality of the situation is the U.S. economy continues to expand; the yield curve remains relatively steep and positive; unemployment declined to 5.9% in the most recent month; corporate profits are at record levels and continue to grow; and the Fed has communicated no urgency to raise short-term interest rates in the near future. While the current headlines may not be so rosy, and the Ebola, eurozone, and Chinese markets may be giving you heartburn, nevertheless, the stock market has steadily climbed a wall of market worry over the last five years.
As the great Peter Lynch stated (see also Inside the Brain of an Investing Genius), “Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” Stated differently, Value investor Seth Klarman noted, “We can predict 10 of the next two recessions,” which highlights pundits’ inabilities of accurately predicting the next downturn (see also 100-Year Flood ≠ 100-Day Flood). As Lynch also adds, rather than trying to time the market, it is better to “assume the market is going nowhere and invest accordingly.”
Now may not be the time to dive into stocks headfirst, but many stocks have fallen -10%, -20%, and -30%, so it behooves long-term investors to take advantage of the correction. It’s true that buying when there is “blood in the streets” is an optimal strategy, but facts show this is a difficult strategy to execute. Rather than get greedy, long-term investors may be better served by opportunistically buying when there are “scrapes on the sidewalk.”
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
The oft-quoted tenet that diversification should be the cornerstone of any investment strategy has come under assault in the third quarter. As you can see from the chart below, investors could run, but they couldn’t hide. The Large Cap Growth category was the major exception, thanks in large part to Apple Inc.’s (AAPL) +8% appreciation. More specifically, seven out of the nine Russell Investments style boxes were in negative territory for the three month period. The benefits of diversification look even worse, if you consider other large asset classes and sectors such as the Gold/Gold Miners were down about -14% (GDX/GLD); Energy -9% (XLE); Europe-EAFE -6% (EFA); Utilities -5% (XLU); and Emerging Markets -4% (EEM).
On the surface, everything looks peachy keen with all three major indices posting positive Q3 appreciation of +1.3% for the Dow, +0.6% for S&P 500, and +1.9% for the NASDAQ. It’s true that over the long-run diversification acts like shock absorbers for economic potholes and speed bumps, but in the short-run, all investors can hit a stretch of rough road in which shock absorbers may seem like they are missing. Over the long-run, you can’t live without diversification shocks because your financial car will eventually breakdown and the ride will become unbearable.
What has caused all this underlying underperformance over the last month and a half? The headlines and concerns change daily, but the -5% to -6% pullback in the market has catapulted the Volatility Index (VIX or “Fear Gauge”) by +85%. The surge can be attributed to any or all of the following: a slowing Chinese economy, stagnant eurozone, ISIS in Iraq, bombings in Syria, end of Quantitative Easing (QE), impending interest rate hikes, mid-term elections, Hong Kong protests, proposed tax inversion changes, security hacks, rising U.S. dollar, PIMCO’s Bill Gross departure, and a half dozen other concerns.
In general, pullbacks and corrections are healthy because shares get transferred out of weak hands into stronger hands. However, one risk associated with these 100 day floods (see also 100-Year Flood ≠ 100-Day Flood) is that a chain reaction of perceptions can eventually become reality. Or in other words, due to the ever-changing laundry list of concerns, confidence in the recovery can get shaken, which in turn impacts CEO’s confidence in spending, and ultimately trickles down to employees, consumers, and the broader economy. In that same vein, George Soros, the legendary arbitrageur and hedge fund manager, has famously written about his law of reflexivity (see also Reflexivity Tail Wags Dog). Reflexivity is based on the premise that financial markets continually trend towards disequilibrium, which is evidenced by repeated boom and bust cycles.
While, at Sidoxia, we’re still finding more equity opportunities amidst these volatile markets, what this environment shows us is conventional wisdom is rarely correct. Going into this year, the consensus view regarding interest rates was the economy is improving, and the tapering of QE would cause interest rates to go significantly higher. Instead, the yield on the 10-Year Treasury Note has gone down significantly from 3.0% to 2.3%. The performance contrast can be especially seen with small cap stocks being down-10% for the year and the overall Bond Market (BND) is up +3.1% (and closer to +5% if you include interest payments). Despite interest rates fluctuating near generational lows with paltry yields, the power of diversification has proved its value.
While there are multiple dynamics transpiring around the financial markets, the losses across most equity categories and asset classes during Q3 have been bloody. Nonetheless, investing across the broad bond market and certain large cap stock segments is evidence that diversification is a valuable time-tested principle. Times like these highlight the necessity of diversification gain to offset the current equity pain.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold positions in AAPL, BND, and certain exchange traded funds (ETFs), but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in EEM, GDX, GLD, EFA, XLE, XLU, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Like many other bloggers and pundits, I have amply pontificated on the relative attractiveness of the stock market. For years, cash and gold hoarding bears have clung to the distorted, money-losing Shiller CAPE P/E ratio (see CAPE Smells Like B.S.), which has incorrectly signaled investors to stay out of stocks and miss trillions of dollars in price appreciation. Apparently, the ironclad Shiller CAPE device has been temporarily neutralized by the Federal Reserve’s artificially cheapening money printing press policies, just like Superman’s strength being stripped by the nullifying powers of kryptonite. The money printing logic seems so elegantly sound, I felt compelled to encapsulate this powerful relationship in an equation:
Interests Rate Cuts + Printing Press On = Stocks Go Higher
Wow, amazing…this is arithmetic any investor (or 3rd grader) could appreciate! Fortunately for me, I have a child in elementary school, so I became emboldened to share my new found silver bullet equation. I initially received a few raised eyebrows from my child when I introduced the phrase “Quantitative Easing” but it didn’t take long before she realized Rate Cuts + QE = Fat Piggy Bank.
After the intensive tutorial, I felt so very proud. With a smile on my face, I gave myself a big pat on the back, until I heard my child say, “Daddy, after looking at this squiggly S&P 500 line from 2007-2014, can you help my brain understand because I have some questions.”
Here is the subsequent conversation:
Me: “Sure kiddo, go ahead shoot…what can I answer for you?”
Child: “Daddy, if the Federal Reserve is so powerful and you should “not fight the Fed,” how come stock prices went down by -58% from 2007 – 2009, even though the Fed cut rates from 5.25% to 0%?”
Child: “Daddy, if stock prices went down so much after massive rate cuts, does that mean stock prices will go up when the Fed increases rates?”
Child: “Daddy, if Quantitative Easing is good for stock prices, how come after the QE1 announcement in November 2008, stock prices continued to go down -25%?”
Child: “Daddy, if QE makes stocks go up, how come stock prices are at all-time record highs after the Fed has cut QE by -$70 billion per month and is completely stopping QE by 100% next month?”
Child: “Daddy, everyone is scared of rate increases but when the Fed increased interest rates by 250 basis points in 1994, didn’t stock prices stay flat for the year?”
Me: “Uhhhh….” (See also 1994 Bond Repeat)
What started as a confident conversation about my bullet-proof mathematical equation ended up with me sweating bullets.
Math 101A: Low Interest Rates = Higher Asset Prices
As my previous conversation highlights, the relationship between rate cuts and monetary policy may not be as clear cut as skeptics would like you to believe. Although I enjoy the widely covered Shiller CAPE discussions on market valuations, somehow the media outlets fail to make the all-important connection between interest rates and P/E ratios.
One way of framing the situation is by asking a simple question:
Would you rather have $100 today or $110 a year from now?
The short answer is…”it depends.” All else equal, the level of interest rates will ultimately determine your decision. If interest rates are offering 20%, a rational person would select the $100 today, invest the money at 20%, and then have $120 a year from now. On the other hand, if interest rates were 0.5%, a rational person would instead select the option of receiving $110 a year from now because collecting a $100 today and investing at 0.5% would only produce $100.50 a year from now.
The same time-value-of-money principle applies to any asset, whether you are referring to gold, cars, houses, private businesses, stocks, or other assets. The mathematical fact is, all else equal, a rational person will always pay more for an asset when interest rates are low, and pay less when interest rates are high. As the 200-year interest chart below shows, current long-term interest rates are near all-time lows.
The peak in interest rates during the early 1980s correlated with a single digit P/E ratio (~8x). The current P/E ratio is deservedly higher (~16x), but it is dramatically lower than the 30x+ P/E ratio realized in the 2000 year timeframe. If none of this discussion makes sense, consider the simple Rule of 20 (see also The Rule of 20 Can Make You Plenty), which states as a simple rule-of-thumb, the average market P/E ratio should be equal to 20 minus the level inflation. With inflation currently averaging about 2%, the Rule of 20 implies an equilibrium of ~18x. If you assume this P/E multiple and factor in a 7-8% earnings growth rate, you could legitimately argue for 20% appreciation in the market to S&P 2,400 over a 12-month period. It’s true, a spike in interest rates, combined with a deceleration in earnings would justify a contraction in stock prices, but even under this scenario, current index values are nowhere near the bubble levels of 2000.
After six long years, the QE train is finally grinding to a halt, and a return towards Fed policy normalcy could be rapidly approaching. Many investors and skeptical bears have tried to rationalize the tripling in the market from early 2009 as solely due to the cheap Fed money printing machine. Unfortunately, history and mathematics don’t support that assertion. If you don’t believe me, perhaps a child may be able to explain it to you better.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own a range of positions in certain exchange traded fund positions, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Investors love round numbers and with the Dow Jones Industrial index recently piercing 17,000 and the S&P 500 index having broken 2,000 , even novice investors have something to talk about around the office water cooler. While new all-time records are being set for the major indices during September, the unsung, tech-laden NASDAQ index has yet to surpass its all-time high of 5,132 achieved 14 and ½ years ago during March of 2000.
A lot has changed since then. Leading up to the pricking of the technology bubble, talks of an overhyped market started as early as December 5, 1996, when then Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan made his infamous “irrational exuberance” speech.
“But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade?”-Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve Chairman 1987 – 2006)
On that date, the S&P 500 closed at NASDAQ 1,300. A little over three years later, before values cratered by -78%, the index almost quadrupled higher to 5,132. Looked at from a slightly different lens, here is how the major indexes have fared since Greenspan’s widely referenced speech almost 18 years ago:
Despite the world’s most powerful banker calling stock prices irrational, the Dow & S&P have almost tripled in value (+164% & +167%, respectively) and the NASDAQ has almost quadrupled (+251%). The 80%+ outperformance (excluding dividends) is impressive, but reasonable if you consider this increase amounts to about a +7.2% compounded annual appreciation value. Investors have experienced a lot of heartburn over that long timeframe, but for any buy-and-holders, these returns would have trounced returns realized in alternative safe haven vehicles like CDs, savings accounts, or bonds.
Price: The Almighty Metric
There are many valuation metrics to evaluate but the most universal one is the Price/Earnings ratio (P/E). Just as in the process of assessing the value of a car, house, or stock, the price you pay is usually the most important factor of the purchase. The same principle applies to stock indexes. The cheaper the price paid, the greater probability of earning superior returns in the future. Unfortunately for investors in technology stocks, there was not much value in the NASDAQ index during late-1999, early-2000. Historical P/E data for the NASDAQ index is tough to come by, but some estimates pegged the index value at 200x’s its earnings at the peak of the 2000 technology mania. In other words, for every $1 in profit the average NASDAQ company earned, investors were willing to pay $200…yikes.
Today, the NASDAQ 100 index (the largest 100 non-financial companies in the NASDAQ index), which can serve as a proxy for the overll NASDAQ index, carries a reasonable P/E ratio of approximately 20x on a forward basis (24x on a trailing basis) – about 90% lower than the peak extremes of the NASDAQ index in the year 2000.
Although NASDAQ valuations are much lower today than during the bursting 2000 tech bubble, P/E ratios for the NASDAQ 100 still remain about +20% higher than the S&P 500, which begs the question, “Is the premium multiple deserved?”
As I wrote about in the NASDAQ Tech Revolution, you get what you pay for. If you pay a peanut multiple, many times you get a monkey stock. In the technology world, there is often acute obsolescence risk (remember Blackberry – BBRY?) that can lead to massive losses, but there also exists a winner-takes-all dynamic. Just think of the dominance of Google (GOOG/L) in search advertising, Microsoft (MSFT) in the PC, or Amazon (AMZN) in e-commerce. It’s a tricky game, but following the direction of cash, investments, and product innovation are key in my mind if you plan on finding the long-term winners. For example, the average revenue growth for the top 10 companies in the NASDAQ 100 averaged more than +100% annually from the end of 1999 to the end of 2013. Identifying the “Old Tech Guard” winners is not overly challenging, but discovering the “New Tech Guard” is a much more demanding proposition.
In the winner-takes-all hunt, one need not go any further than looking at the massive role technology plays in our daily lives. Twenty years ago, cell phones, GPS, DVRs (Digital Video Recorders), e-Readers, tablets, electric cars, iPods/MP3s, WiFi mobility, on-demand digital media, video-conferencing, and cloud storage either did not exist or were nowhere near mainstream. Many of these technologies manifest themselves into a whole host of different applications that we cannot live without. One can compile a list of these life-critical applications by thumbing through your smartphone or PC bookmarks. The list is ever-expanding, but companies like Twitter (TWTR), Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), Uber, Netflix (NFLX), Priceline (PCLN), Yelp, Zillow (Z), and a bevy of other “New Tech Guard” companies have built multi-billion franchises that have become irreplaceable applications in our day-to-day lives.
Underlying all the arbitrary index value milestones (e.g., Dow 17,000 and S&P 2,000) since the 1990s has a persistent and unstoppable proliferation of technology adoption across virtually every aspect of our lives. NASDAQ 5,000 may not be here quite yet, but getting there over the next year or two may not be much of a stretch. Speculative tendencies could get us there sooner, and macro/geopolitical concerns could push the milestone out, but when we do get there the feeling of NASDAQ 5,000 déjà vu will have a much stronger foundation than the fleeting euphoric emotions felt when investors tackled the same level in year 2000.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own AAPL, GOOG/L, AMZN, NFLX bonds (short the equity), FB (non-discretionary), MSFT (non-discretionary), PCLN (non-discretionary) and a range of positions in certain exchange traded fund positions, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in TWTR, Uber, YELP, Z, or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Investing in the stock market can be quite stressful, especially during periods of volatility…but investing doesn’t have to be nerve-racking. Investing legend T. Rowe price captured the beneficial sentiments of growth investing beautifully when he stated the following:
“The growth stock theory of investing requires patience, but is less stressful than trading, generally has less risk, and reduces brokerage commissions and income taxes.”
What I’ve learned over my investing career is that fretting over such things as downgrades, management changes, macroeconomic data, earnings misses, geopolitical headlines, and other irrelevant transitory factors leads to more heartache than gains. If you listen to a dozen so-called pundits, talking heads, journalists, or bloggers, what you quickly realize is that all you are often left with are a dozen different opinions. Opinions don’t matter…the facts do.
Finding Multi-Baggers: The Power of Compounding
Rather than succumbing to knee-jerk reactions from the worries of the day, great long-term investors realize the benefits of compounding. We know T. Rowe Price appreciated this principle because he agreed with Nobel Prize winning physicist Albert Einstein’s view that “compounding interest” should be considered the “8th wonder of the world” – see also how Christopher Columbus can turn a penny into $121 billion (Compounding: A Penny Saved is Billions Earned).
People generally refer to Warren Buffett as a “Value” investor, but in fact, despite the Ben Graham moniker, Buffett has owned some of the greatest growth stocks of all-time. For example, Coca Cola Co (KO) achieved roughly a 20x return from 1988 – 1998, as shown below:
If you look at other charts of Buffett’s long-term holdings, such as Wells Fargo & Company (WFC), American Express Co (AXP), and Procter & Gamble – Gillette (PG), the incredible compounded gains are just as astounding.
In recent decades, there is no question that stocks have benefited from P/E expansion. P/E ratios, or the average price paid for stocks, has increased from the early 1980s as long-term interest rates have declined from the high-teens to the low single-digits, but the real lifeblood for any stock is earnings growth (see also It’s the Earnings, Stupid). As growth investor extraordinaire Peter Lynch once said:
“People may bet on hourly wiggles of the market but it’s the earnings that waggle the wiggle long term.”
As Lynch also pointed out, it only takes the identification of a few great multi-bagger stocks every decade to compile a tremendous track record, while simultaneously hiding many sins:
“Fortunately the long-range profits earned from really good common stocks should more than balance the losses from a normal percentage of such mistakes.”
The Scarcity of Growth
Ever since the technology bubble burst in 2000, Growth stocks have felt the pain. Since that period, the Russell 1000 Value index – R1KV (Ticker: IWD) has almost doubled in value and outperformed the Russell 1000 Growth index – R1KG (Ticker: IWF) by more than +60% (see chart below):
Although the R1KG index has yet to breach its previous year 2000 highs, ever since the onset of the Great Financial Crisis (end of 2007), the R1KG index has been on the comeback trail. Now, the Russell 1000 Growth index has outperformed its Value sister index by an impressive +25% (see chart below):
Why such a disparity? Well, in a PIMCO “New Normal & New Neutral” world where global growth forecasts are being cut by the IMF and a paltry advance of 1.7% in U.S. GDP is expected, investors are on a feverish hunt for growth. U.S. investors are myopically focused on our 2.34% 10-Year Treasury yield, but if you look around the rest of the globe, many yields are at multi-hundred year lows. Consider 10-year yields in Germany sit at 0.96%; Japan at 0.50%; Ireland at 1.98%; and Hong Kong at 1.94% as a few examples. This scarcity of growth has led to outperformance in Growth stocks and this trend should continue until we see a clear sustainable acceleration in global growth.
If we dig a little deeper, you can see the 25% premium in the R1KG P/E ratio of 20.8x vs. 16.7x for the R1KV is well deserved. Historical 5-year earnings growth for the R1KG has been +52% higher than R1KV (17.8% vs. 11.7%, respectively). Going forward, the superior earnings performance is expected to continue. Long-term growth for the R1KG index is expected to be around 55% higher than the R1KV index (14% vs 9%).
In this 24/7, Facebook, Twitter society we live in, investing has never been more challenging with the avalanche of daily news. The ultra-low interest rates and lethargic global recovery hasn’t made my life at Sidoxia any easier. But one thing that is clear is that the investment tide is not lifting all Growth and Value stocks at the same pace. The benefits of long-term Growth investing are clear, and in an environment plagued by a scarcity of growth, it is becoming more important than ever when reviewing your investment portfolios to ask yourself, “Got Growth?”
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients hold long positions in KO/PG (non-discretionary accounts) and certain exchange traded fund positions, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in TWTR, FB, WFC, AXP, IWF, IWD or any other security referenced in this article. No information accessed through the Investing Caffeine (IC) website constitutes investment, financial, legal, tax or other advice nor is to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.