The primary objective of this formula is to limit risk of loss, in the spirit of the chapter "Margin of Safety" as the Central Concept of Investment from The Intelligent Investor" by Benjamin Graham (a foundational researcher/practitioner of investment practice; see also, e.g., https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/07/grahamprinciples.asp). However, it does have more potential for gains than fixed-percentage stock allocations because it allows for stock to increase in value as its price rises between "buy" and "sell" margins.
How to use this calculator:
Note well that this formula applies only to assets that are held as long-term investments; short-term investments (whose principal must fund expenditures that are only a few years away) are more advisably allocated to low-volatility assets (ultra-short term bonds, money market funds, CDs, TIPS, etc.). One ought to take the least risk with whatever they cannot afford to lose!
| Question | Answer | Term |
|---|---|---|
| What is the "Shiller PE Ratio" on https://www.multpl.com/? (Read from frame below.) | \( 1 / \textbf{ S} \) | |
| What is the percentage "10 Year Treasury Rate" on https://www.multpl.com/? (Read from frame below.) | % | \( \textbf{B} \) |
| What is the minimum percentage of stock that you would consider for long-term investments, e.g., 0-40% (default 6%)? | % | \( \textbf{Mi} \) |
| What is the maximum percentage of stock that you would consider for long-term investments (except when stock price is exceedingly high), e.g., 60-100% (default 85%)? | % | \( \textbf{Ma} \) |
| Regarding risk-tolerance, how much decline in the portfolio value can you tolerate if the S&P 500 price retreats to its historically expected level, e.g., 5-35% (default 25%)? | % | \( \textbf{H} \) |
| How much beyond the percentage limit may your portfolio drift before you trade, e.g., 0-10% (default 6%)? | % | |
| What is the historical percentage "10 Year Treasury Rate"? (Choose 4.14% for 20th century data (standard) or 5.90% for two centuries of data (experimental).) | % | \( \textbf{T} \) |
This page computes:
Why might one not rather choose to use a fixed-percentage stock allocation like the 60:40 stock:bond ratio that is recommended by so many financial advisors? The answer is that fixed-percentage allocations don't provide as much protection against reduced returns when stock returns are weak (or even negative).
An analysis supporting this assertion (along with explanation of the expressions implemented by this calculator) may be found at:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=4746302That analysis may be summarized as follows:
Minimum investment returns are of primary importance to funding retirement expenses from a portfolio of volatile assets. Prolonged periods of low yields have at times had severe effects on minimum 20-year returns. Is there a strategy that can mitigate weak medium-term returns more effectively than fixed-percentage stock allocations?
Benjamin Graham allowed for fluctuation in the proportion of a portfolio invested in common stock. Considering his "Margin of Safety" principle for stock purchases and its complement for stock sales, one might adjust the stock percentage of the portfolio based on both the earnings yield of stock and the current yield of bonds, facilitating capital appreciation by avoiding trading until the present yield of the purchased security is substantially greater than that of the sold security. Precautions may be required when stock prices exceed historically sustainable levels.
A simple formula implementing such a "Yield-Based Asset Ratio" hypothetically would have had a minimum real compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 1.92% for 20-year intervals since 1911 when allocating between 10-year US Treasury bonds and the S&P 500 index, considerably higher than would have been observed for 6%, 60%, and 85% stock allocations (CAGR -2.33%, -0.41%, and 0.09%, respectively). Results suggest that a fixed-percentage stock allocation may not offer the best protection of returns and principal for interval lengths of 11 or more years. Volatile assets pose undue risk to their principal value over the short term.
I think that the non-retiree might do well during the "wealth accumulation" phase to consider (and avoid) the effect of losses on overall accumulation. Indeed, that served me well during the five years preceding my retirement, which I think is no accident because Benjamin Graham's ideas are at the root of the approach presented here.
For a moderately long time horizon, the performance of the Yield Based Asset Ratio ("YBAR") compares favorably to allocation methods specifying fixed percentages of stock in a portfolio (6%, 60%, and 88%) when considering minimum returns and volatility.
I am not a financial advisor. Do not construe this material as investment advice, a solicitation, or a recommendation to buy or sell any security or investment product; it has been provided for general informational purposes only. Please treat this material with commensurate skepticism, bearing in mind that investment involves risk-of-loss and that future results cannot be predicted. Please seek advice specific to your situation from a competent financial professional. "May you invest with your head, not over it."
I believe that the average financial advisor will advise you to avoid taking such an approach as described here (because they may feel that the principles discussed are unfamiliar or obsolete), but discussing this with your financial advisor may deepen your knowledge of investing, of your needs, and of your advisor's willingness to meet those needs.
Copyright © 2024 by Arthur Copeland Eschenlauer
This presentation is made available to you under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license (CC-BY-SA 3.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/, which means: