Failures Gonna Fail

I am in a mentally abusive, love/hate relationship with Twitter. On the one hand, it is a toxic cesspool of negativity, fueled by inaction and targeting intolerance, yet blissfully unaware of its own hypocrisy. On the other hand, it is a fascinating glimpse inside the minds of certain people whose public personas vary greatly. Several years ago, Taxicab Confessions was a popular HBO show for its dirty laundry that people would never air in public otherwise. Similarly, Twitter handles are a guise for people to feel enough anonymity to say the things that they have too much civility (or that they lack the courage) to say publicly.

Tweets are limited in characters (pause to accentuate the pun), so Twitter is not an exchange of deeply formed thinking, yet it can provide insight on the reactionary beliefs of its users. If an excited utterance is admissible as an exception to hearsay, then there is some value to this aspect.

That said, I like to analyze certain arguments to pinpoint the fallacy of them. One discussion that captured my attention recently was revolving around the use of phrase "generational wealth." Numerous tweets use generational wealth to portend the elimination of the middle class. Many others use it to discredit good advice, generally treating difficult and impossible as synonymous terms. Then, it seems as though some people will set themselves on fire to prove no one cares that people are burning.

The first problem with generational wealth is that those with it are discredited by those struggling without it. The bigger problem is that the discussions fail to understand the other side’s perspective. I saw a tweet asking users whether more money would solve all their problems. One response noted that “the only people saying no are people with money.” It was true enough, but the irony is that he sounded as though people with money were not reliable sources. To the answer to the question as stated, the only reliable response would be from people with money.

How I read this meme

I spent way too much time thinking about that juxtaposition, and I came to realize that reliable information (such as first-hand knowledge) was disregarded as comminatory. It occurred to me that people without money are under the misconception that *having* money to throw at a problem fixes the problem. The reality (as people with money have experienced) is that is simply not true.

Almost immediately, I made the connection that the arguments surrounding generational wealth should really focus on generational knowledge instead.

I thought back to my childhood, complaining to my mother about whatever money I wasted on a useless endeavor or how much it would cost to repair a mistake, and she would empathetically reply, “Yup, that was an expensive lesson.” For the most part though, my parents steered me in the right direction the first time. Certainly, I have had some expensive lessons in my life, but there were a lot of experiences, especially in terms of personal finances, that I got right the first time. How? Because the first thing I was told to do was the right way to do it (or at least one that had been proven as reliable).

When I worked at Vanguard, I was instructed to share Vanguard’s investment principles (“We Believes”) with our callers as applicable. I am the type of person that, if I am telling someone else to do it, then I want to know that it works. Hence the short stints in selling Variable Universal Life insurance products or in a MLM pyramid. Sure enough, all of Vanguard's We Believes were reliably sound wisdom.

People can discredit my wealth or success through the same means of opportunity or inheritance, but my response is to question whether they actually think I would have received either if I had not proven myself capable of managing them? The catch is that they do not know my parents or grandparents. I do, and the honest answer is that I would not have.

This response works somewhat better than asking someone how they would spend a fictitious inheritance, because the responses are wildly disjointed from their actual actions a lot of the time. Apparently, they think there is a magical number (just above their reach) at which point responsibility begins. "If I had that much money, then I could manage it easily too."

The Full Motley -- 2Q, 2021

I have noticed that the broad stock market seems especially buoyant lately, and I had assigned it to more people keeping cash on-hand, post-2008, and the increased assets within index investing. But recently I started questioning whether that is enough to make the markets be so resilient. Is there another factor? Does reduced “information asymmetry” deserve credit? With social media sites discussing finance and market movements so openly and so broadly, are we less prone to fear of falling markets? Nowadays, we see so many others celebrating the price reductions when markets fall that it would seem logical that less people succumb to panic selling. Do we have a new collective wisdom? I explained (or opined) to friend yesterday about how collective wisdom can reinforce itself, using the antiquated conventional wisdom, “stocks and bonds are inversely related.” The logic was always sound; stock is ownership and bonds are loans, so when owning stocks is a liability, then it is better to own the debt as an asset. However, that belief in this reasoning drove its results, supplying its own proof in its functionality. Nowadays, we do not see stocks and bonds moving in reverse correlation as much. That might be a hard statement to make for as little downward pressure as stocks have suffered in the past 10 years. To act on this observation, I should revise my allocations to move away from the belief that they are inversely related. However, that change will be employed at another time. For now, I stuck to my established allocations - and once again, not much movement in the market. Sure, tech stocks hit a peak in February 2021 and they started driving downward since that time, but (after years of mild underperformance) value stocks have been moving in the opposite direction, and they currently look like Darlings of the Underground Press (to leverage a song title from The Black Crowes, which is apropos on a blog entitled "Wiser Time" ). Will that favor continue? Highly unlikely.

The Full Motley -- 1Q, 2021

For those who do not know me personally, my father died 30+ years ago this month. Recently, I saw some of his paperwork at my mom's place that he had written in the final 18 months of his life. It was calculating his pending retirement, which was anticipated within the subsequent five years (assuming he did not keep working longer to increase his monthly stipend, which I have always held he would have). While reflecting on the paperwork, I realized that this was the closest I would ever get to an adult conversation with my father.

My initial takeaway from what I saw in this paperwork was how his calculations would have failed in today's realities, a meticulously planned future that never panned out. At first, I chalked it off as naivety to the stock markets, but after reflecting a bit longer, I realized that my dismissal foolishly undermined his ability to adapt.

One big pet peeve of mine today is how often macroeconomic discussions online that outright ignore reactive behaviors. We saw it at play most recently within the false narrative of $GME, where the stock price of GameStop rose to bankrupt Melvin Capital Management. The pitch was that if $GME rose to $150, it would bankrupt the hedge fund. The folly was that it assumed a hedge fund would sit idly by as its losses mounted.

I hear other online dimwits proclaim that they will never buy ZEVs because there are not enough recharging stations, as if supply-and-demand would not create that reasonably foreseeable shift. I am waiting to see whether fueling stations will become hybrid models offering both refueling and recharging, but a belief that the number of today's recharging stations would remain static lacks any foresight (or hindsight, for that matter as things have changed when changes occur).

At work, I call it the kaleidoscope effect, where making one change causes ripples that might change the big picture, even unexpectedly. While we cannot plan for those changes, we cannot detail a plan past them either. Unfortunately, this is what happens too often from the collective wisdom of the vocal minority online. I even read articles stating what the $15 minimum wage “would” do while describing what it could do (which I expect to benefit the retirement crisis more than poverty rates). Their goals are based on unrealistic ability to prepare a future from a smörgåsbord, freely selecting which changes they want and what details remains the same (not to mention, determining how the world around them accepts the changes without reacting).

While my father's plans for the future were set on a past reality, his ability to adapt to a changing environment would have determined his success. Once consumer interest rates yielded <4% for 10+ years, his planned reliance on dividends would have required adjusting. Setting plans for 30 years is unreasonable. Things change, especially plans.

If things never changed, then rebalancing would be a futile exercise. But they do, so rebalancing is very worthwhile. That was my task today, moving 2% from my active and passive domestic equities to spread across my domestic bonds and international exposure. It was a small percentage (honestly, the dollar amount moving at first made me expect it would be a higher percentage, so it somewhat surprised me to acknowledge how far that account has appreciated in the past couple years) but it reacted to recent changes. Next quarter, it will react to those changes.

Meaningless Millionaires?

Rich & Famous

As I grew up in the '80s, "millionaire" was synonymous with the pinnacle of success! For those who were millionaires, they had inconceivable buying power (especially compared to us "Okie Yokels," which admittedly would be a misnomer for my family as-is since we were upper-middle class). The residual '70s tag team of "rich & famous" was still a mostly-conjoined pairing. While the 21st century has generated countless celebrities who are "famous for being famous," money and fame was a celebrity formula with origins like the-chicken-or-the-egg debate, where it was hard to ascertain which one provided for the other. Among the most notable examples of the time was Donald Trump himself.

As the late-'90s brought upon such pop cultural references of "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?" and Calloway's "I Wanna Be Rich," that seven-figure threshold started showing signs of accessibility and, for headlines, insouciance. For all intents and purposes, "Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous" spawned an entire network (E!). The term "multi-millionaire" (which had a hat-on-a-hat impact through the mid-'80s) became a noteworthy distinction. Thomas Stanley fully normalized millionaires with his best-selling book, The Millionaire Next Door.

Among today's billionaires

In the past decade, Bruno Mars and/or Travie McCoy made the transition to the next level almost official by dreaming of becoming a "Billionaire." The largest lotteries have started to surpass billion-dollar-jackpots. Forbes reports that there are over 2,000 billionaires in the world today. The media has already started tracking the "race" to becoming the world's first trillionaire (a word only recently recognized by spellcheck). Meanwhile, varying reports estimate that there are 14.6 million to 35 million millionaires in the world today, and that number will only increase as time goes on.

Nowadays, being a millionaire is not the pinnacle of success as it was when I was a kid. Some argue that it has become a relatively meaningless term. Unquestionably, no millionaires are famous for that financial achievement alone. They are no longer considered excessively rich.

That said, becoming a millionaire is still a lofty goal (especially after starting out at $0) for any individual. But, for the youngest Millennials, it is reasonably achievable, even before they turn 40!

Millionaire for Grabs

There are a few recurring benchmarks where your money feels more significant: when you reach a savings goal of $1,000, and again when you hit $2,500, and again when you hit $5,000, then when you reach $10,000. Seemingly, reaching $7,500 instantly sets the mind toward the next marker, instead of marveling at the accomplishment. The process repeats with $25,000, $50,000, $100,000, $250,000, and $500,000, ahead of the still elusive but not exclusive $1,000,000.

Although the inherent prestige of becoming a millionaire is not present, a psychological satisfaction will occur.

My Stock Portfolio

Traditionally, my discussions herein have focused only on my 401(k) at a former employer. In the interest of full disclosure, I have several more investments than those five mutual funds. I have an active 401(k) with my current employer, a Rollover IRA with assets from a prior employer (which coincidentally happens to be my current employer) (it also has a very small past IRA contribution I made one year to shift my tax liability into a refund), a Health Savings Account with my current employer, and a Roth IRA with a brokerage account.

Primarily as a means to further educate myself on the how-to, I have been investing in individual stocks for the past five years. I have 35 active stocks, including one below zero that should close soon (but excluding a couple other inactive stocks that zeroed out). The reason I keep my stock portfolio in my Roth IRA is the tax-advantaged status of the account, so any profits I realize in this account will not be taxed later.

I was curious how my Top 10 holdings would look, if reported the same way mutual funds report theirs, so I mocked up the list below. 

Week-end 10 largest holdings

(75% of total portfolio assets) as of 12/4/2020

1. NVIDIA Corp. $NVDA

2. Tesla Inc. $TSLA

3. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd $BABA

4. Carnival Corp $CCL

5. Visa Inc. $V

6. WP Carey Inc. $WPC

7. Restaurant Brands International Inc. $QSR

8. Slack Technologies Inc. $WORK

9. Stitch Fix Inc. $SFIX

10. World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. $WWE

The brightest red flag is how my Top 10 represents 75% of my total portfolio assets, so the other 25 stocks only average 1% of the total assets each. Not all my Top 10 are huge winners either. Only the top two have >1,000% return. Unfortunately, my initial investments vary among stocks, although the reported Top 10 is strictly a reflection on the current balance. Only seven of my investments have doubled from the original investment, 11 are showing a loss (which excludes a couple stocks that were full losses), and I have pulled my initial investment amount out of four of my current investments (two in the Top 10).

The most meaningful lesson I have learned from investing in individual stocks is the importance of risk/reward scenarios. I am not lamenting my full losses or other losses. I becomes very apparent (especially after creating a spreadsheet of this portfolio) that the risk is limited to 100% while the returns are unlimited. This does not create a risk-free investing scenario, but it shows how huge returns (>1,000%) by one or two investments can exceed the losses in several losers.

To follow up on what I noted as a bright red flag is the poor allocation. If this portfolio were the bulk of my investments, then I would be more concerned about it. As it is, the total portfolio assets represent about 5% of my overall investments, so I am not inclined to manage risks that this top-heavy allocation could present.

The Full Motley -- 4Q, 2020

Risk management is the core of all forms of management. The definition of risk stems from uncertainty, often being classified by sources of uncertainty. Political risk refers to political instability, among other things. Conventional wisdom would suggest that presidential elections increase political instability. Therefore, if I were a betting man, I would have been placing bets that the market's reaction to an inconclusive election last week was erase all of its most recent gains. As we know now, the market's actual reaction was to soar higher! The Dow even set new record highs this week.

I was recently asked whether I thought markets would still be overpriced at 2018 values today. My response was that once I learned the market does not care what I think, I stopped gauging my market moves based on what I think should happen. I would have placed my money on markets retracting from its gains during a depressed job market and an intentional economic slowdown as a response to the global pandemic. Maybe I know better what the market should do than the market itself. Probably not.

Then again, the nature of risk is that the higher the risk, the higher the return. Perhaps it is not fully unreasonable to question this strong reaction in the face of such uncertainty (plus, the majority of the gains I am referencing occurred after most media outlets had projected a winner, and the latest included early reports of a Coronavirus vaccines). Whether or not I know better, it is truly irrelevant and my decisions should not be based on what I think, much less what I think I know.

In market lingo, those "betting men" are called day-traders. The size of their losses can match the size of their gains, and in the end, day trading results in a below average risk-adjusted return.

For wealth preservation, risk management is tantamount to its success. Thus, instead of taking bets on how the markets will react to any given situation, managing the majority of active portfolios through dollar-cost averaging and periodic reallocations will provide better risk-adjusted returns. When the market introduces strong elements of risk or volatility, an emotional response is innate to the human condition.

In my case, this quarterly reallocation consisted wholly of removing increases (approximately 1.3% of total portfolio assets) from all funds except Total Bond Market Index, so I directed those assets into that one fund.

Young & Wise

Conventional wisdom says that wisdom and youth are mutually exclusive. In life, we start off as young & dumb and grow old & wise.

That is, unless everything learned from all those years of life's lessons changes.

Conventional wisdom currently seems to be a liability in today's market, and truly much of that conventional widom no longer applies. Stocks and bonds have lost their inverse relationship. Interest rates have managed to fall below zero for negative rates. Momentum investing is not as precarious as it had been in the past. In short, we are learning a new set of conventional wisdom for the modern market.

The percentage of assets within index funds and ETFs of total money invested in U.S. equities went from 20% in January 2010 to over 50% by January 2020, a change that even outpaced expectations.

There's a false narrative that big banks prey on the individual investors to siphon their money first, as if they collude to share in the profits collectively. The better comparison would be to that of a poker game. Novice investors are the person at the table that cannot spot the sucker (to borrow a well-known adage).

Modern investing practices, however, may dispel that mindset however. If it is not individual investors preying on index funds, keeping large corporations buoyant after a decline, knowing full well that index funds will have to purchase more units to rebalance the large funds.

Some individual investors, and even money managers, hold to their beliefs that the way things have been is how they will be again. No amount of evidence to the contrary will break their thinking. In a way, it's the backfire effect at play. They reject new information that disrupts what they have seen for themselves in the past, what they have known to be true for so long.

Unfortunately, most truths are only true for so long before things change. Prolonged reliance on proven market wisdom creates its own reticence against it, the reluctance to adapt to meaningful changes in an industry sustained on salesmen repackaging the same products with gimmicks to spark FOMO and buy anew. Like the Gold IRA, for example.

Old jaded men who have achieved enough success to comfortably wrest on their laurels lack the proverbial wisdom that age allots them. Instead, the partly naive youth with wide eyes and open minds reap the rewards when systemic changes occur. To this end, they receive the best of both worlds: youth & wisdom. Until things change again.