Posts tagged ‘Jason Zweig’
The Teflon Market
At the pace of all this head-scratching going on, our population is likely to turn completely bald. One thing is for certain, nothing has scratched this Teflon stock market. If you want to have fun with a friend, family member or co-worker, just ask them how they feel about politics and then ask them how stocks have done this year? You’re bound to get some entertaining responses. Despite a Congress that has a lower favorability rating than cockroaches, lice, root canals, and colonoscopies , the S&P 500 index is up a whopping +22% and the NASDAQ index + 30% this year, both records. The USA Today ran with the Teflon theme and had this to say:
“This year alone the stock market has survived the recent brush with a U.S. debt default. It has also survived a government shutdown. Tax hikes. Government spending cuts. The threat of war. Terror at the Boston Marathon. A spike in interest rates. Plunging Apple shares. Stock exchange glitches. Fears of a less-friendly Federal Reserve. And a narrow escape from going over the “fiscal cliff.” Nothing bad seems to stick.”
The reason nothing is sticking to this Teflon market is because the market is more sensitive to reality rather than perception. Here are some come current discrepancies between these two states:
Perception: The economy is on the verge of a recession. Reality: The economy has grown GDP for 15 of the last 16 quarters. The private sector has added about 7.5 million jobs and the unemployment rate has been cut by about three percentage points.
Perception: Corporations are struggling. Reality: Corporations are actually posting record profits; increasing dividends significantly; buying back stock; and registering record profit margins.
Perception: The Federal Reserve controls the economy. Reality: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has little to no influence on decisions made by companies like Google Inc (GOOG), Facebook Inc (FB), McDonald’s Corp (MCD), Tesla Motors Inc (TSLA), and Target Corporation (TGT) (see also The Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread). Interest rates are actually higher than when QE1 (quantitative easing) was first implemented, yet growth persists.
These types of mental mistakes occur outside the realm of financial markets as well. For example, most people fail to correctly answer the question, “Which animal is responsible for the greatest number of human deaths in the U.S.?”
A.) Alligator; B.) Bear; C.) Deer; D.) Shark; and E.) Snake
The ANSWER: C) Deer.
Deer colliding into cars trigger seven times more deaths than alligators, bears, sharks, and snakes combined, according to Jason Zweig at the Wall Street Journal (see also Alligators & Airplane Crashes). Other mental disconnects include the belief that planes are more dangerous than cars. In fact, people are 65 times more likely to get killed in your own car versus a plane. Also, misconceptions exist that guns are more dangerous than smoking, or that tornadoes are more dangerous than asthma – both beliefs wrong.
Party Not Over Yet
Long-time followers and readers of Investing Caffeine know that I’ve been an active participant in this bull market that started in 2009, evidenced by my critical views of Armageddonists like Peter Schiff, John Mauldin, Nouriel Roubini, Meredith Whitney, and other doom & gloomers.
I fully recognize there’s no honor in being Pollyannaish or a perma-bull just for the sake of it. However, it’s also very clear that excessive fear exercised by many investors proved very painful as S&P 500 level 666 has exploded to 1,744. The extreme panic that reached a pinnacle in 2009 has now morphed into an insidious skepticism (see Sentiment Pendulum ). Investor emotions continually swing from fear to greed, and with the political shenanigans going on in Washington DC, the skeptical pendulum has a long way before reaching euphoric levels. Or stated differently, the pre-party is over (see my article from earlier this year, Those Who Missed the Pre-Party), but the DJ is still playing and the cops aren’t here to break up the party yet.
I agree that we’ve had a Teflon market for a handful of years. There have been a few minimal scratches and a few hand burns along the way, but for the most part, those investors who have stayed invested and ignored the endless manufactured crisis headlines have been rewarded handsomely. Investing in stocks will always cause some heartburn, but if you don’t want your long-term retirement to get grilled, seared, pan-fried, or flambéed, then you want to make sure you still have some stocks in your Teflon pan.
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), AAPL and GOOG, but at the time of publishing, SCM had no direct position in FB, TGT, TSLA, MCD, 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 the information to be relied on in making an investment or other decision. Please read disclosure language on IC Contact page.
Organizing Your Investment Basket
With the Easter bunny relaxing after a busy holiday, kids from all over are given the task of organizing the candy and money collected during their hunts. Investors are also constantly reminded that their portfolio eggs should not be solely placed in one basket either. Instead, investors are told to diversify their investments across a whole host of asset classes, geographies, styles, and sizes. In other words, this means investors should be spreading their money across commodity, real estate, international, emerging market, value, growth, small-cap, and large-cap investments. As Jason Zweig, journalist from a the Wall Street Journal points out, much of the diversification benefits can be achieved with relatively small change in the position count of a portfolio:
“As many studies have shown, at least 40% of the variability in returns can be reduced by moving from a single company to 20. Once a portfolio contains 20 or 30 stocks, adding more does little to damp the fluctuations in wealth over time.”
But wait. Going from one banking stock to 20 banking stocks is not going to provide you with the proper diversification you want or need. Rather, what is as important as investing across asset class, geography, style, and size, is to follow the individual stock strategies of guru Peter Lynch. In order to put his performance into perspective, Lynch’s Fidelity Magellan fund averaged +29% per year from 1977 – 1990 – almost doubling the return of the S&P 500 index for that period.
More specifically, to achieve these heroic returns, Lynch divided the stocks in his fund into the following categories:
Slow Growers: This group of stocks wasn’t Lynch’s favorite because these companies typically operate in mature industries with limited expansion opportunities. For these single-digit EPS growers, Lynch focused more on identifying high dividend-paying stocks that were trading at attractive valuations. In particular, he paid attention to a dividend-adjusted PEG ratio (Price-to-Earnings Growth). A utility company would be an example of a “Slow Grower.”
Stalwarts: These are large established companies that still have the ability to achieve +10% to +12% annual earnings growth regardless of the economic cycle. Lynch liked these stocks especially during recessions and downturns. Valuations are still very important for Stalwarts, and many of them pay dividends. An investor may not realize a “home run” with respect to returns, but a +30% to 50% return over a few years is not out of the question, if selected correctly. Former examples of “Stalwarts” include Coca Cola (KO) and Procter & Gamble (PG).
Fast Growers: This categorization applies to small aggressive firms averaging about +20% to +25% annual earnings growth. While “Fast Growers” offer the most price appreciation potential, these stocks also offer the most risk, especially once growth/momentum slows. If timed correctly, as Lynch adeptly achieved, these stocks can increase multi-fold in value. The great thing about these “Fast Growers” is they don’t have to reside in fast growth industries. Lynch actually preferred market share gainers in legacy industries.
Cyclicals: These companies tend to see their sales and profits rise and fall with the overall economic cycle. The hyper-sensitivity to economic fluctuations makes the timing on these stocks extremely tricky, leading to losses and tears – especially if you get in too late or get out too late. To emphasize his point, Lynch states, “Cyclicals are like blackjack: stay in the game too long and it’s bound to take all your profit.” The other mistake inexperienced investors make is mistaking a “Cyclical” company as a “Stalwart” at the peak of a cycle. Examples of cyclical industries include airline, auto, steel, travel, and chemical industries.
Turnarounds: Lynch calls these stocks, “No Growers,” and they primarily of consist of situations like bail-outs, spin-offs, and restructurings. Unlike cyclical stocks, “Turnarounds” are usually least sensitive to the overall market. Even though these stocks are beaten down or depressed, they are enormously risky. Chyrysler, during the 1980s, was an example of a favorable Lynch turnaround.
Asset Plays: Overlooked or underappreciated assets such as real estate, oil reserves, patented drugs, and/or cash on the balance sheet are all examples of “Asset Plays” that Lynch would consider. Patience is paramount with these types of investments because it may take considerable time for the market to recognize such concealed assets.
Worth noting is that not all stocks remain in the same Lynch category. Apple Inc. (AAPL) is an example of a “Fast Grower” that has migrated to “Stalwart” or “Slow Grower” status, therefore items such as valuation and capital deployment (dividends and share buyback) become more important.
Peter Lynch’s heroic track record speaks for itself. Traditional diversification methods of spreading your eggs across various asset class baskets is useful, but this approach can be enhanced by identifying worthy candidates across Lynch’s six specific stock categories. Hunting for these winners is something Lynch and the Easter bunny could both agree upon.
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) and AAPL, but at the time of publishing SCM had no direct position in KO, PG, Chrysler, Fidelity Magellan, 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.
Alligators, Airplane Crashes, and the Investment Brain
“Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or think sanely under the influence of a great fear…To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.” – Bertrand Russell
Fear is a powerful force, and if not harnessed appropriately can prove ruinous and destructive to the performance of your investment portfolios. The preceding three years have shown the poisonous impacts fear can play on the average investor results, and Jason Zweig, financial columnist at The Wall Street Journal presciently wrote about this subject aptly titled “Fear,” just before the 2008 collapse.
Fear affects us all to differing degrees, and as Zweig points out, often this fear is misguided – even for professional investors. Zweig uses the advancements in neuroscience and behavioral finance to help explain how irrational decisions can often be made. To illustrate the folly in human’s thought process, Zweig offers up a multiple examples. Here is part of a questionnaire he highlights in his article:
“Which animal is responsible for the greatest number of human deaths in the U.S.?
A.) Alligator; B.) Bear; C.) Deer; D.) Shark; and E.) Snake
The ANSWER: C) Deer.
The seemingly most docile creature of the bunch turns out to cause the most deaths. Deer don’t attack with their teeth, but as it turns out, deer prance in front of speeding cars relatively frequently, thereby causing deadly collisions. In fact, deer collisions trigger seven times more deaths than alligators, bears, sharks, and snakes combined, according to Zweig.
Another factoid Zweig uses to explain cloudy human thought processes is the fear-filled topic of plane crashes versus car crashes. People feel very confident driving in a car, yet Zweig points out, you are 65 times more likely to get killed in your own car versus a plane, if you adjust for distance traveled. Hall of Fame NFL football coach John Madden hasn’t flown on an airplane since 1979 due to his fear of flying – investors make equally, if not more, irrational judgments in the investment world.
Professor Dr. Paul Slovic believes controllability and “knowability” contribute to the level of fear or perception of risk. Handguns are believed to be riskier than smoking, in large part because people do not have control over someone going on a gun rampage (i.e., Jared Loughner Tuscon, Arizona murders), while smokers have the power to just stop. The reality is smoking is much riskier than guns. On the “knowability” front, Zweig uses the tornadoes versus asthma comparison. Even though asthma kills more people, since it is silent and slow progressing, people generally believe tornadoes are riskier.
The Tangible Cause
Deep within the brain are two tiny, almond-shaped tissue formations called the amygdala. These parts of the brain, which have been in existence since the period of early-man, serve as an alarm system, which effectively functions as a fear reflex. For instance, the amygdala may elicit an instinctual body response if you encounter a bear, snake, or knife thrown at you.
Money fears set off the amygdala too. Zweig explains the linkage between fiscal and physical fears by stating, “Losing money can ignite the same fundamental fears you would feel if you encountered a charging tiger, got caught in a burning forest, or stood on the crumbling edge of a cliff.” Money plays such a large role in our society and can influence people’s psyches dramatically. Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio observed, “Money represents the means of maintaining life and sustaining us as organisms in our world.”
The Solutions
So as we deal with events such as the Lehman bankruptcy, flash crashes, Greek civil unrest, and Middle East political instability, how should investors cope with these intimidating fears? Zweig has a few recommended techniques to deal with this paramount problem:
1) Create a Distraction: When feeling stressed or overwhelmed by risk, Zweig urges investors to create a distraction or moment of brevity. He adds, “To break your anxiety, go for a walk, hit the gym, call a friend, play with your kids.”
2) Use Your Words: Objectively talking your way through a fearful investment situation can help prevent knee-jerk reactions and suboptimal outcomes. Zweig advises to the investor to answer a list of unbiased questions that forces the individual to focus on the facts – not the emotions.
3) Track Your Feelings: Many investors tend to become overenthusiastic near market tops and show despair near market bottoms. Long-term successful investors realize good investments usually make you sweat. Fidelity fund manager Brian Posner rightly stated, “If it makes me feel like I want to throw up, I can be pretty sure it’s a great investment.” Accomplished value fund manager Chris Davis echoed similar sentiments when he said, “We like the prices that pessimism produces.”
4) Get Away from the Herd: The best investment returns are not achieved by following the crowd. Get a broad range of opinions and continually test your investment thesis to make sure peer pressure is not driving key investment decisions.
Investors can become their worst enemies. Often these fears are created in our minds, whether self-inflicted or indirectly through the media or other source. Do yourself a favor and remove as much emotion from the investment decision-making process, so you do not become hostage to the fear du jour. Worrying too much about alligators and plane crashes will do more harm than good, when making critical decisions.
Read Other Jason Zweig Article from IC
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, 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.
More Eggs in Basket May Crack Portfolio
NOT putting all your eggs in one basket makes intuitive sense to many investors. Burton Malkiel, Princeton Professor, economist, and author, summed it up succinctly, “Diversity reduces adversity.” Diversification acts like shock absorbers on a car – it smoothens out the ride on a bumpy financial road (read more on diversification). Jason Zweig, Wall Street Journal writer, acknowledges the academic findings that underpin these diversification benefits by stating the following:
“As many studies have shown, at least 40% of the variability in returns can be reduced by moving from a single company to 20. Once a portfolio contains 20 or 30 stocks, adding more does little to damp the fluctuations in wealth over time.”
Despite the evidence, Jason Zweig explores the conventional views on diversification more closely.
Turning the Diversification Concept on its Head
Zweig, not satisfied with the standard thinking on the topic, decided to explore the work of Don Chance, a finance professor at the Louisiana State University business school. Professor Chance asked more than 200 students to consecutively select stocks until they each held a portfolio of 30 positions. Here are two of the main findings:
1) Averages Hold Firm: On average, for the group of students, diversifying from a single stock to 20 reduced portfolio risk by roughly 40% – just as would be expected from the academic research.
2) Individual Portfolios Riskier: After the first few initial stock picks, for each individual portfolio, were made from a list of large cap household names (e.g., XOM, SBUX, NKE), Professor Chance found in many instances students dramatically increased portfolio risk. These students juiced up the octane in their portfolios by venturing into much smaller, more volatile stock selections.
Deceiving Diversification
Gur Huberman, a Columbia Finance Professor also points out a tendency for investors to clump stock selections together in groups with similar risk profiles, thereby reducing diversification benefits. Diversifying from one banking stock to 20 banking stocks may actually do more damage. Statistically, Zweig points out, “Thirteen percent of the time, a 20-stock portfolio generated by computer will be riskier than a one-stock portfolio.”
Professor Chance found similar results according to Zweig:
“One in nine times, they [students] ended up with 30-stock portfolios that were riskier than the single company they had started with. For 23%, the final 30-stock basket fluctuated more than it had with only five stocks.”
Diversified Views on Diversification
Chance and Huberman are not the only professionals to question the benefits of diversification:
Warren Buffett: A diversification skeptic declares, “Put all your eggs in one basket and then watch that basket very carefully.” Alternatively, Buffett says, “Diversification is protection against ignorance.”
Peter Lynch: He referred to diversification as “deworsification,” especially when it came to companies diversifying into non-core businesses.
Charlie Munger: “Wide diversification, which necessarily includes investment in mediocre businesses, only guarantees ordinary results.”
Zweig’s Solution:
“If you want to pick stocks directly, put 90% to 95% of your money in a total stock-market index fund. Put the rest in three to five stocks, at most, that you can follow closely and hold patiently. Beyond a handful, more companies may well leave you less diversified.”
Portfolio diversification and concentration have been issues studied for decades. As you can see, there are different viewpoints regarding the benefits. As Zweig establishes, through the research of Don Chance, putting more eggs in your basket may actually crack your portfolio, not protect it.
Read Complete WSJ Jason Zweig Article
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, but at time of publishing had no direct positions in XOM, SBUX, BRKA/B or NKE. 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.
Avoid Chasing Your 401k Tail
David Laibson, a professor of economics at Harvard University, has done extensive research on the savings habits of Americans in their 401k retirement accounts. What he discovers is that workers, like a dog chasing their tail, allocate more of their investments to the areas that have done well and sell the underperforming segments. In short, workers attempt to “time the market.”
Professor Laibson demonstrates this pyramiding strategy has not worked out so well and provides the following advice:
“We know that individual investors are terrible in terms of their market timing. They tend to buy at the tops, they tend to sell at the bottoms. So don’t try to time the market. Don’t think about recouping – just think about a long term strategy.”
That long term strategy he advocates entails a diversified allocation of stocks and bonds that reduces exposure to equities as a person gets older. In short, he says, “Hold a diversified portfolio appropriate for your age.”
He advises those aged in their 20s and 30s to allocate nearly 100% of their portfolio to equities, or investments with commensurate risk. Alternatively, if investors don’t want to adjust the allocation themselves, people should consider life-cycle funds or Self Directed 401k options (Read story here). For those in retirement, he recommends a portfolio with the following characteristics:
“30, 40, 50% should be equities, more as you’re younger…simply hold a long term portfolio with less and less allocation to equities as you age.”
Jason Zweig, a journalist at The Wall Street Journal, recently chimed in with similar thoughts on performance chasing:
“…to buy more of what has gone up, precisely because it has gone up, is to fall for the belief that stocks become safer as their prices rise. That is the same fallacy that led investors straight into disaster in 1929, 1972, 1999, 2007 and every other market bubble in history.”
There are many different strategies for making money in the market, but a plan based solely on emotion is doomed for failure – Professor Laibson’s data supports that assertion. So the next time you are considering re-allocating the mix of investments in your 401k, implement a disciplined, systematic approach. That approach should include the following:
1) Invest Your Age in Fixed Income Securities. John Bogle, Chairman at Vanguard Group, has long made this argument, with the balance placed in equities. For example a sixty year old should have 60% of their assets in bonds and 40% in stocks. This rule of thumb is a good starting point, but the picture becomes cloudier once you account for other assets such as real estate, convertible bonds, and income generated from private businesses.
2) Periodically Rebalance. Rather than investing more into outperforming areas, harvest your gains and redeploy into underperforming segments of your asset allocation. There obviously is an art to knowing “when to hold them and when to fold them,” nonetheless I concur with Professor Laibson that chasing winners is not the proper strategy.
3) Diversify. Spread your assets across multiple asset classes, segments, and styles, including equities, fixed income, commodities, real estate, inflation protection, growth, value, etc. Too much concentration in any one category can really come back to haunt you.
The key to successful retirement planning is to implement an unemotional systematic approach, so you don’t end up chasing your 401k tail.
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
*DISCLOSURE: At the time of publishing, Sidoxia Capital Management and some of its clients owned certain exchange traded funds, but had no direct positions in any other security referenced.
Stock Market Nirvana: Butter in Bangladesh
Hallelulah to Jason Zweig at The Wall Street Journal for tackling the subject of data mining through his interview with David Leinweber, author of Nerds on Wall Street. All this talk about Goldman Sachs, High Frequency Trading (HFT) and quantitative models is making my head spin and distorting the true value of data modeling. Quantitative modeling should serve as a handy device in your tool-box, not a robotic “black box” solely relied on for buy and sell recommendations. As the article points out, all types of sites and trading platforms are hawking their proprietary tools and models du jour.
The problem with many of these models, even for the ones that work, is that financial market behavior and factors are constantly changing. Therefore any strategy exploiting outsized profits will eventually be discovered by other financial vultures and exploited away. As Mr. Leinweber points out, these models become meaningless if the data is sliced and diced to form manipulated relationships and predictive advice that make no sense.
Butter in Bangladesh: To drive home the shortcomings of data mining, Leinweber uses a powerful example in his book, Nerds on Wall Street, of butter production in Bangladesh. In searching for the most absurd data possible to explain the returns of the S&P 500 index, Leinweiber discovered that butter production in Bangladesh was an excellent predictor of stock market returns, explaining 75% of the variation of historical returns. The Wall Street Journal goes onto add:
By tossing in U.S. cheese production and the total population of sheep in both Bangladesh and the U.S., Mr. Leinweber was able to “predict” past U.S. stock returns with 99% accuracy.
For some money managers, the satirical stab Leinweber was making with the ridiculous analysis was lost in translation – after the results were introduced Leinweber had multiple people request his dairy-sheep model. “A distressing number of people don’t get that it was a joke,” Leinweber sighed.
Super Bowl Crystal Ball: Leinweber is not the first person to discover the illogical use of meaningless factors in quantitative models. Industry observers have noticed stocks tend to perform well in years the old National Football league team wins the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, this year we had two “old” NFL teams play each other (Pittsburgh Steelers and Arizona Cardinals). Oops, I guess we need to readjust those models again.
Other bizarre studies have been done linking stock market performance to the number of nine-year-olds living in the U.S. and another linking positive stock market returns to smog reduction.
Data Mining Avoidance Rules:
1) Sniff Test: The data results have to make sense. Correlation between variables does not necessarily equate to causation.
2) Cut Data into Slices: By dividing the data into pieces, you can see how robust the relationships are across the whole data set.
3) Account for Costs: The results may look wonderful, but the model creator must verify the inclusion of all trading costs, fees, and taxes to increase confidence results will work in the real world.
4) Let Data Brew: What looks good on paper might not work in real life. “If a strategy’s worthwhile,” Mr. Leinweber says, “then it’ll still be worthwhile in six months or a year.”
Not everyone has a PhD in statistics, however you don’t need one to skeptically ask tough questions. Doing so will help avoid the buried land mines in many quantitative models. Happy butter churning…
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
Ooops…Siegel Data Questioned
Professor Jeremy Siegel is well-known in large part due to his famed book, “Stocks for the Long Run,” which Siegel uses as a foundation for his assertion that stocks have dramatically outperformed bonds since 1802. Siegel has four versions of his book, but the basic conclusion is that stocks have averaged about a 7% annual return (approximately 10% after accounting for inflation) versus around 4% for bonds, over a two hundred plus year timeframe. One problem – the validity of 69 years of the data (1802 – 1870) are now being questioned.
Any Utopian study or mathematical model is only as valuable as the data that goes into it. “Garbage in” will result in “garbage out.” According to a Wall Street Journal article (Does Stock-Market Data Really Go Back 200 Years?) written by Jason Zweig, the index data used by Siegel was too narrow on an industry basis and involved too few stocks (e.g., primarily banks, insurance and transportation stocks). In addition, the reliability of the conclusions is being second guessed because the data used by Professor Siegel starting back as far as 1802 were compiled decades ago by two separate economists, Walter Buckingham Smith and Arthur Harrison Cole.
According to Zweig, another area of concern is the fluctuating dividend yield used by Professor Siegel:
In an article published in 1992, he estimated the average annual dividend yield from 1802-1870 at 5.0%. Two years later in his book, it had grown to 6.4% — raising the average annual return in the early years from 5.7% to 7.0% after inflation. Why does that matter? By using the higher number for the earlier period, Prof. Siegel appears to have raised his estimate of the rate of return for the entire period by about half a percentage point annually.
I’m sure Professor Siegel has a rebuttal to all these accusations, but we’ll just have to wait and see how credible the response is. Maybe Siegel’s next book will be entitled, “Bonds for the Long Run”?
Wade W. Slome, CFA, CFP®
Plan. Invest. Prosper.
DISCLOSURE: Sidoxia Capital Management (SCM) and some of its clients own certain exchange traded funds, 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.
Investing Caffeine 
