The benchmarks lie. Many investors, new and experienced alike, are intent upon "beating the Dow" or "beating the S&P" rather than seeing their capital increase over time. It isn't that difficult to beat the benchmarks. We've done it over 15 years from 1999-2014 and this year the markets, so far, are down 6% to our 1% so we hope to keep that trend alive.
On the other hand, investors who place their faith in buying only companies that are in the benchmarks often find it is difficult to beat the indexes. That's because "the benchmarks lie." Every time a company disappoints the keeper of these benchmarks, S&P Dow Jones Indices (a McGraw Hill Financial subsidiary) they boot it out of the index and replace it with something they consider more "representative."
I don't believe it is a coincidence, however, that "representative" usually equates to rising relative momentum, making the index performance look considerably more attractive—although that index may have a completely different composition than the one you bought before all their changes. As for the companies booted out, they are still in business. However, if you bought a mirrored portfolio of those 30 stocks, you own the same 30, but the index and its ETF clones own a very different index -- and not because the component companies went out of business or failed to meet regulatory requirements.
Assuming S&P Dow Jones Indices is correct in their momentum assessment, the results are regularly skewed upward. So if you obsess over, "why didn't the 30 Dow stocks in my portfolio keep up with the Dow Jones Index?" well, in Nov 1999, did you toss Chevron (NYSE:CVX), Goodyear (NASDAQ:GT), Sears (NASDAQ:SHLD), and Union Carbide out of your portfolio and replace them with Home Depot (NYSE:HD), Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT), and SBC Communications (which a few years later acquired/became AT&T Inc (NYSE:T)?) S&P Dow Jones Indices did.
In April 2004, did you sell AT&T (NYSE:T) (after just 5 years in the index,) Eastman Kodak (NYSE:KODK) (out of bankruptcy now and again trading on the NYSE) and International Paper (NYSE:IP) and instead buy AIG (NYSE:AIG), Pfizer, and Verizon? Or in Sep 2008 sell Altria Group (NYSE:MO) and Honeywell in order to buy Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) and Chevron (which I suppose the indices gurus decided was worthy once again?) In 2009, when Citigroup (NYSE:C) and General Motors (NYSE:GM) stocks were plunging, did you switch to Cisco and Travelers? Or did you exchange AT&T for Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) this year? There are many other examples but you get the idea. "Representative" seems to mean "on its way up" -- though it doesn't always work out that way. A recent anomaly in the last couple years indicates some boot-ees do better than the new inductees, though it remains to be seen if this will continue.
That brings us to an interesting example just yesterday of how trying to read too much into a benchmark can confuse or backfire. The S&P closed down 0.35% and the NASDAQ closed down 0.7% -- but the Dow was up .08%. How come?
Well, the Dow has only 30 components so if one of them soars or plunges on one day it can affect the index out of proportion to its long-term trend. Yesterday it was DuPont (NYSE:DD) that sent the Dow ahead (which will no doubt lead some feckless commentator to claim that, since the Dow means Blue Chips, that the "leadership of the Dow today proves" that the markets will rise.) But the reason the Dow rose as DuPont rose 10% yesterday? The CEO said she would retire, giving rise to speculation the company may be broken up, hardly an event likely to be repeated every day.
The bottom line is that I continue to believe that intelligent stock (and preferred, bond, ETF, CEF and mutual fund) selection remains key to market success, that indexes can be beaten by this approach, and that markets go up and down, meaning there are times to enter trailing stops, adjust your portfolio percentages to include more cash, bonds or hedges. In my next article, I will give some current examples.
Disclaimer: As Registered Investment Advisors, we believe it is essential to advise that we do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as "personalized" investment advice.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement but clearly too often unheeded judging by the number of investors who buy the current #1 mutual fund one year only to watch it plummet the following year.
We encourage you to do your own due diligence on issues we discuss to see if they might be of value in your own investing. We take our responsibility to offer intelligent commentary seriously, but it should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We do our best to get it right, and we "eat our own cooking," but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.