Compounding – The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Credit: jscreationzs at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

• If you were to invest $5,000 per year for 30 years in a portfolio that averaged 5% per year, you’d end up with around $332,000.
• If you were to invest $5,000 per year for 30 years in a portfolio that averaged 6% per year, you’d end up with around $395,000. 
• If you were to invest $6,000 per year for 30 years in a portfolio that averaged 5% per year, you’d end up with around $399,000. 
• If you were to invest $6,000 per year for 30 years in a portfolio that averaged 6% per year, you’d end up with around $474,000. 

That’s the “miracle” of compounding. Sure, investment returns matter a lot, but as you can see from the examples above, how much you save can matter even more! The good part about compounding savings and investment returns is that slow and steady really can win the asset accumulation race in a big way. You might not think you could ever save up $474,000, but do you think you could save $6,000 this year?

 

Recently my wife and I have been looking at houses, and nothing gives me more indigestion than looking at how much a house costs. I’m not talking about the sticker price; I’m talking about how much a house costs over the life of a mortgage. For those of you who have bought a house, this is usually the number that shows up in the top, right-hand corner of one of your loan documents indicating the total amount expected to be paid over the life of the loan. Once interest is baked in on a thirty-year loan, it’s horrifying to see the difference between the initial sales price and what you will actually end up paying. Interest payments alone could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars! The bad part about compounding interest on a home loan, car loan, student loan, and certainly credit cards is that you keep trying to pay off principal, but you keep getting charged interest. It’s like you have a hole in your bucket. I’ve tried Pepcid, Pepto, and Tums, and the only thing that seems to work is paying off more debt at a faster pace.

 

The ugly part of compounding has to do with the relationship between money and purchasing power. If you have $100,000 in cash and you bury it in the backyard, when you dig it back up, what do you have? That’s right, $100,000. The problem is that while your money was safely hiding underground, there’s a pretty good chance that the cost of goods and services went up (inflation). Think groceries, health care, and education expenses. You might still have the same amount of money, but you are actually poorer than you were because you can no longer buy as many goods and services as you used to since they are now at a higher price. Said another way, your purchasing power has gone down. I don’t see a lot of people burying money in their backyards, but I do see people hold on to exorbitant amounts of cash or an alarming amount of low-interest CDs and bonds. I don’t ever want to take away someone’s “cash blanket,” and I firmly believe that bonds have a place in most people’s investment portfolios to help provide for short-term liquidity needs, reduce overall volatility, and act as an income-producing alternative to stocks. However, just like chocolate cake, too much can be a bad thing. If you have too much invested in cash, CDs, or bonds, your minimal investment returns can lag the rate of inflation, and, compounded over time, you can lose purchasing power even if your assets are slightly growing or staying about the same.

 

That’s the good, the bad, and the ugly truths about compounding.

 

-Tom

 

You Might Be Well Diversified If...

Credit: MR LIGHTMAN

You are probably familiar with comedian Jeff Foxworthy’s “You Might Be a Redneck” routine. If you’re not, you should be! His routine is hilarious, and since I was born and raised in the Southeast, I've seen some of what he is talking about. I’ve seen driveways where it doesn’t look like the boat has left the driveway in 15 years. I’ve seen people whose dog and wallet were both on a chain. I’ve seen yards where if someone mowed them, I believe they might just find a car! It’s funnier when he does it, but you get the point. Either way, it got me thinking about an idea for today’s post…

By now you’ve probably gotten the year-end statements for most of your investment accounts, and if you’ve looked at them closely, you might have noticed 2014 was kind of a weird year for stocks. I say it was a weird year for stocks because some of the classes of stocks had very different returns. U.S. stocks ended up having a pretty good year after some ups and downs, but international stocks finished the year down for the most part. If you took a closer look at U.S. stocks, you likely found that the stocks of large U.S. companies (“large cap stocks”) did pretty well, but the stocks of smaller U.S. companies (“small cap stocks”) were not up nearly as much as their larger counterparts. Small cap stocks were even negative for a good portion of the year!

Statistically speaking, the S&P 500 (an index that represents large cap stocks) was up between 13% and 14% for 2014. The Russell 2000 (an index that represents small cap stocks) was up around 5% for 2014. The MSCI EAFE (an index that represents international stocks) was down around 5% for 2014. Why do I tell you all of this? To share with you that, if you had a stock portfolio filled with large cap stocks, small cap stocks, and international stocks, you probably didn’t end up with the 13% to 14% return “the market” had in 2014 that the television pundits, radio hosts, and investment newsletter writers keep talking about! As Jeff Foxworthy might say, you might be well diversified if you did not end up with the S&P 500’s return!

I’ve also heard it said that you know you are well diversified if there is always part of your portfolio that you are “mad” at. I’m not sure that’s always the case, but there is definitely some merit to that statement. If you were mad at your bonds in 2013 when the stock market roared, I bet you were pretty pleased with them in 2008 and 2009 when the stock market took a dive. If you were mad at your stocks in 2008 and 2009, I bet you have been pretty pleased with them the last five years or so. So all in all, you might just be well diversified if there’s usually a part of your portfolio that you aren’t pleased with.

If what I’ve said so far hasn’t really applied to you because you only own one stock or a couple of stocks, I’d offer two things. First, concentration in a single stock is how you can accumulate and/or evaporate wealth - not preserve wealth. Second, you might be well diversified if you can’t name every holding in your portfolio from memory!

As your friend and someone who wants you to do well and make as much money as you can, I wish you were completely invested in the S&P 500 last year and got that 13% to 14%. However (and please read my next words very carefully), as your humble financial blogger and a financial advisor who believes in the long-term investment strategies of diversification and compounding, I certainly hope you didn’t!

-Tom