Five Bits of Conventional Wisdom to Ignore
Question everything.
The longer I write this column, the less faith I have in conventional financial wisdom.
We all rely on rules of thumb and generally accepted notions because we don't have time to research every financial issue and probe every assumption. Life is just way too short.
Yet conventional financial wisdom often doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. Here are five ideas I have tossed out in recent years.
1. Money Pit
Many folks say their home is the best investment they ever made. That may indeed be true, thanks to the extraordinary tax advantages of owning your own home and the forced savings that come with those monthly mortgage payments.
? Podcast: Some conventional wisdom that's not so wise
But if homes are a great investment, they aren't an investment in the conventional sense. To understand why, ask yourself one simple question: If this pile of bricks is such a financial bonanza, where's the cash?
As with many investments, your home's return comes in two parts, price appreciation and income. If you live in your own home, the income takes the form of "imputed rent," the fact that you get to live in the place rent-free.
This imputed rent is enormously valuable. Still, you aren't collecting cash that is fattening your bank account. In fact, every year, money pours out the door, in property taxes, maintenance expenses, homeowner's insurance and mortgage payments.
Similarly, your home's price appreciation probably hasn't put much cash in your pocket. Local property sales may indicate you have made big money.
To cash in on your home's gain, however, you would need to trade down to a less-expensive place. Not many people ever make this move.
Even retirees who "trade down" often end up buying homes that, while smaller, cost just as much as the larger house they left.
2. Counting Down
Like real estate, the financial markets are supposedly one of America's great wealth-creation machines. But I have reluctantly concluded that most investors make little or no money.
Suppose you own a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds that delivers 6% a year. Subtract two percentage points for investment costs, and you will be down to 4%. Lose 25% of that after-cost gain to taxes, and your return will be 3%. What if inflation comes in at 3%? In real terms, you aren't making any money.
Sure, the numbers look better if you minimize taxes and clamp down on costs. But how many folks really do that?
It isn't just the math that makes me think investors are struggling to make money. It is also the emails I get.
I hear from far too many readers who feel burned by their brokers, or burned by the market, or burned by their own foolishness. Combine these poor investment decisions with the brutal impact of costs, taxes and inflation, and the picture is pretty darn bleak.
3. Fair Game
The more you trade, the more bad decisions you can potentially make. And most people trade way too much. Indeed, every day on Wall Street, millions of investors ask the same question: Is it a buy or is it a sell?
I, too, am constantly chewing over this question. It hasn't got me very far. For instance, I was convinced real-estate investment trusts and bonds would have a rough time in 2004. It didn't happen. So I figured the rough patch would hit in 2005. Yet both sectors again have made money for investors this year.
It's finally dawning on me that, instead of presuming that every market sector is a buy or a sell, it's smarter to assume that everything is fairly valued. Subsequent events will prove this assumption to be ridiculous, as some sectors skyrocket while others plummet.
But because picking winners and losers is so difficult, it's more sensible to assume that current market prices aren't that out of whack with underlying values -- and that you should neither overdose on a sector nor avoid it entirely.
4. Commitment Counts
I used to agonize over what percentage of a portfolio should be allocated to, say, emerging-market stocks, or high-yield junk bonds, or large U.S. companies. But now, whenever somebody asks me how much to allocate to a particular sector, I usually respond that -- within reason -- it doesn't much matter.
Yeah, this takes some explaining. If you tap into a broad market segment using a well-diversified mutual fund, you can be pretty confident that you will make decent money over 30 years. Moreover, over those 30 years, there probably won't be a radical difference in performance between, say, U.S. stocks and foreign stocks, or between, say, intermediate-term government bonds and intermediate-term corporate bonds.
With that in mind, you shouldn't fret too much over your precise allocation to large stocks, small stocks, foreign stocks, REITs, corporate bonds, government bonds and other market sectors. Instead, what counts is commitment.
In other words, whether you allocate 15% or 30% of your stock portfolio to foreign markets probably won't make a whole heap of difference over the next 30 years -- provided you stick with your target percentage. The danger: You get greedy or fearful, trade in and out of your foreign funds and end up missing out on the sector's handsome long-run gains.
5. Standing Pat
Conventional wisdom says that as you age, you should shift toward bonds and tilt your stocks toward established dividend-paying companies. I used to agree with this notion. I don't anymore.
Who says we grow more risk-averse as we age? True, retirees should have a decent amount in bonds.
But by the time folks quit the work force, they often have years of investment experience under their belts, so they are less rattled by stock-market turmoil. Result: You could imagine a nervous 30-year-old who keeps 60% in stocks -- and a veteran 70-year-old who is comfortable with the same allocation.
Similarly, I don't think retirees should shift into blue-chip stocks, because they will end up heavily invested in one sector. Granted, these stocks have a reputation for safety. But if blue-chip stocks suffer a rotten 10-year run, retirees will dearly wish they had opted for true safety -- by spreading their portfolios across a much broader array of stocks.
颠覆五大传统投资观念
人要学会质疑一切。
我写这个专栏的时间越长，就越对那些传统的理财观念失去信心。
每个人都凭自己的经验法则办事，并处之泰然。我们没时间研究每个金融问题，验证每个假设，因为生命太短暂了。
不过，一些传统的投资观念常常经不起推敲，下面是近些年来被我唾弃掉的五个传统理财观点。
1、房子是投资
很多人说他们买的房子是自己做过的最好投资，这一点也许没错，因为拥有自己的房产后能在税收方面获益良多，而且每月还贷也成为一种强制储蓄。
不过，即使房产是项不错的投资，它也和传统意义上的投资不同。要明白其中道理，只需问自己一个简单问题：如果这堆砖石砌成的东西真是个好投资的话，那赚到的钱在哪里？
和许多投资一样，你拥有房产的收益体现在两个方面：升值和收入。如果房产由你自己居住，那收入体现为“假设租金”，因为你住在里面其实是免收租金的。
这种假设租金能体现出很大一部分房屋的价值。不过，你并未得到任何现金来使银行存款不断增长。事实上，每年你反而要付出很多钱，如地产税、维修费用、家庭财产保险和抵押贷款等。
同样，虽然你的房产可能升值，但你口袋里可能并未增加很多现金。当地的房产交易情况只能让你感觉到地产增值可能带来的高额收益。
然而，要卖掉房子兑现这种收益，你得先搬到一个相对便宜的地方去。很多人其实都没有这么做。
即使对于这样做的一些退休人士，经常发生的情况也是：虽然他们买下的新房子面积要小一些，但花费其实跟原有房产是一样的。
2、金融市场是摇钱树
与房地产相似，金融市场常被视为美国的赚钱机器之一。不过，我不得不做出这样一个结论：大多数金融市场投资者根本没赚到钱。
假设你拥有一个股票和债券配比平衡的投资组合，年收益为6%；从中减去2%的投资成本，则收益降为4%；再扣除25%的所得税，收益降为3%。如果通货膨胀率也是3%呢？以实际收益来看，你根本一分钱也没赚到。
当然，如果你尽量避税，并减少投资成本，那结果看上去会好一些。但有几个人能做到这两点呢？
我并非仅靠加减法就得出投资者不赚钱的这个结论，我收到的电子邮件也验证了同样的事实。
很多读者来信说他们觉得自己被证券经纪人、市场或自己的愚蠢判断给蒙了。这些错误的投资决策，再加上成本影响、税收和通货膨胀等因素，投资者的窘迫处境可见一斑。
3、价格不体现价值
你交易的次数越频繁，决策失误的次数也越多。大多数投资者的交易过于频繁，事实上，每天在华尔街市场都有几百万投资者在问同一个问题：买还是卖？
我本人也经常问这个问题，但结果并不能让我满意。举例而言，我以为2004年房地产投资信托基金和债券的日子会不好过，但事实却恰恰相反。然后我又以为这种情况会发生在2005年，但这两个领域的投资者今年的收益都不错。
最后我领悟到一点，不要以买入或卖出的投机观点看待市场中的每个部分，而要假设一切估价都是合理的。当然，市场中的实际情况会让这种假设看起来有些荒谬，因为有些部分的价格确实会飙升，而另一些会暴跌。
然而，由于太难判断哪些价格会上扬或下跌，因此更理性的做法是假设目前的价格水平与实际价值相差无几－－这样你才不会轻易放弃某一板块，或对另一板块情有独锺。
4、投资组合要注重配比
我过去经常为投资组合中的配比问题苦恼不已，比如新兴市场的股票该占多少，垃圾债券该占多少，或美国大型股该占多少。但现在如果有人问我如何配置特定投资的比例，我通常的回答是：只要理性分配，其实结果都差不多。
我来解释一下。如果你通过一个投资组合较为多元化的共同基金投资广泛的市场领域，那你可以很自信地说，未来30年的平均收益应该是不错的。而且，从30年的跨度来看，各个对应领域的投资收益应该区别不大，如美国本土股票和海外市场股票之间，中期政府债券和中期企业债券之间等等。
因此，你不必为大型股、小型股、海外股、房地产信托投资基金、企业债券、政府债券和其他市场投资之间的配比问题烦恼。实际上，坚定信念才是关键。
也就是说，无论你把投资组合中海外市场的占比设为15%还是30%，从30年的跨度来看两者的收益区别并不大－－前提是你在30年中始终遵循既定的比例。其间的风险是：如果你过于贪心或过于害怕，从而加大或减持海外基金，其结果就会是失去了该投资的长期收益机会。
5、年龄越大越要避免风险
传统观点认为，随著年龄增长，你应该把投资重点转到债券上，股票也应选择那些能定期支付红利的成熟公司。我曾经认同这种观点，但现在已时过境迁。
谁说年纪越大就越要避免投资风险？退休后，我们的投资组合中要有不少债券，这个观点没有错。
但当人们退休时，他们已有很多年的投资经验，行事不太会受股市波动的左右。结果就是：一个30岁的人把60%的资金用来购买股票的话，他可能因股市动荡而坐立不安；但一个70岁的人也如此投资的话，则能处变不惊。
同样的道理，我认为退休人士不应该转而购买蓝筹股，因为这样他们会被套牢在一种类股里。诚然，蓝筹股以稳健安全著称，但如果蓝筹股连续10年表现不佳，退休人士一定希望自己当初选择的是真正意义上的安全－－将投资组合分配到多元化的各种类股之中。
