When it comes to maximising investment performance, I'm a firm believer that good returns are just as much a result the of shares we don't buy as of those we do. It's easy to put a large dent in the returns from our share investments with just one poor investment decision. So with that in mind, today I'd like to discuss a way which can be used to reduce the number of poor investment decisions which we all make. It's called the Piotroski Method.
The Piotroski Method is a system devised by Joseph Piotroski (of the University of Chicago) as a way of identifying stronger companies from among a group of cheap stocks. The problem with cheap shares is that they are normally cheap for a reason. They are often in poor financial health with poor profitability and in the worst cases are at risk of insolvency.
What Piotroski found was that by avoiding the financially weak cheap shares and concentrating on the financially strong ones, investors could expect higher average investment returns.
When we talk about cheap shares, we mean those which are trading at low price to book ratios (current share price divided by net asset value per share). It's a value investor's bread and butter - sifting through shares which are trading at less than the what the company could (theoretically) be broken up and sold for. But there are many value-traps for the unwary. These companies may be teetering on the edge of bankruptcy or their industry may be in structural decline or ... well, you get the idea.
The beauty of the Piotroski Method is that using a set of signals, you are able to rate a company - give it a score (F_SCORE) based on an objective study of the firm's financial statements. This score, out of 9, tells us what sort of financial shape the company is in. The higher the score, the better. He found that companies scoring an 8 or a 9 gave the best overall average returns.
What follows are each of the criteria or 'signals' which, when added together make up a firm's F_SCORE.
1. Net Profit
Is the company profitable?
Award 1 point if the company made a profit last year.
2. Operating Cash Flow
Is the company able to generate positive cash flow through its operations?
Award 1 point if last year's operating cash flow was positive.
3. Increasing Return On Assets
Is the company becoming more profitable? Is it using its resources more efficiently?
Award 1 point of last year's return on assets was greater than that of the year before.
4. Earnings Quality
We want to make sure a company really is making as much money as it claims and in this department, cash is king. We want to see operating cash flow at least as great as net profit. Otherwise this might highlight accounting irregularities.
Award 1 point if last year's operating cash flow was greater than net profit.
5. Long Term Debt Compared To Assets
We want an in investment where the debt is under control. We are looking for a signal that financial risk is decreasing.
Award 1 point if the ratio of long term debt to assets is less than the previous year's.
6. Improving Current Ratio
Another measure of financial risk. Again we are looking for good news in that the ratio is moving in the right direction.
Award 1 point if the current ratio is greater last year than in the one before.
7. Number Of Shares Outstanding
Does the company need to raise capital to support itself? We want a company which can fund itself internally rather than one which needs to undertake capital raising's to fund 'growth'.
Award 1 point if the number of shares outstanding last year was the same as or less than the figure for the year before.
8. Improving Gross Margin
An increasing gross margin is good news. It means the company has improved its pricing power or reduced its input costs (or both).
Award 1 point if the company has increased its gross margin year on year.
9. Increasing Asset Turnover Ratio
The asset turnover ratio provides some insight into how productive a company is with its assets. A higher ratio indicates improvement in how efficiently the company is operating.
Award 1 point if the asset turnover has increased last year when compared to the year before.
If you want to look into the nitty gritty of the research done by Piotroski then you can read more about it in his research paper - http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedpapers/sp84.pdf.
I should warn you that it is fairly heavy going, but I think it is well worth at least skimming through the research paper. A number of important points from the research struck me.
Piotroski found the out-performance of high F_SCORE stocks over low F_SCORE stocks was greatest among smaller stocks. He also found that the out-performance was inversely correlated with the level of analyst coverage. In other words there was more money to be made in shares which were not closely followed by security analysts.
Out-performance was greatest in the 12 months immediately after formation of the portfolio. It seems that the inefficiencies in pricing don't last terribly long.
In the conclusion, Piotroski points out that he has not necessarily found the optimal set of financial ratios for use in predicting the future performance of value shares. Rather, he has shown that by using historical information to avoid financially weak companies and concentrate of strong ones, investors are able to increase average returns substantially.
It's worth stressing that his research focused on 'value stocks' or high Book to Market stocks (ie. low Price to Book).
martes, 1 de marzo de 2011
FDIC-Insured Bank Accounts Holding Chinese Renminbi (CNY) (RMB)
Reader Jonathan wrote in the tell me that the Bank of China (BoC) is offering FDIC-insured bank accounts that are denominated in renminbi, the official currency of China. Also referred to by the primary unit yuan, you may have heard about how China tightly controls this currency in the news. Since many sources view the yuan as being undervalued relative to the dollar due to artificial exchange rates, some people view holding yuan as a good investment. Here’s how the Bank of China news has played out in financial websites.
The limit a U.S.-based individual customer can exchange is $4,000 a day. From what I have gathered, you open an account and “buy” RMB from Bank of China using your U.S. dollars. Your deposits are FDIC-insured against bank failure, but not losses from currency fluctuations. If you wish to withdraw, you must again exchange your RMB back to USD, leaving you again with dollars. You can’t withdraw any RMB, here or in China. The savings account earns no interest. So any difference will be due to the exchange rate.
According to the Wikipedia entry for Remminbi, academic studies have shown then yuan to be undervalued relative to the dollar using “purchasing power parity analysis”. The Treasury Secretary called it “substantially undervalued” a month ago. Per this article, the rate of 6.5855 CNY to 1 USD set just yesterday (2/16) is a record high, leaving the yuan up 3.6% since last June.
I honestly don’t pay enough attention to currency markets and all the politically-related news to really weight the pros and cons properly. Even if it does seem like the yuan is undervalued right now, but who knows when or how it will be corrected? China sets the exchange rate for the most part, so it could be years or more. During that time, its economy could experience high inflation as well which could make RMB even weaker relative to USD.
I see no sure bet here, just a speculative investment. But if you have a “play money” account capped at 5% of your portfolio like I do at times, this might be one idea that you could drop some bucks on. What do you think?
Update: You can get basically the same thing online at Everbank WorldCurrency Access deposit account. It doesn’t currently earn any interest, and unfortunately there are no interest-bearing CD options available right now either. But it does let you get it renminbi-denominated.
- 1/12 – The Financial Times blog BeyondBRICs brings up the ability to open accounts in yuan, but says “No need to rush out and open a renminbi account just yet.” They note that this ability has actually been around since February 2010, but nobody in the media really noticed.
- 1/12 – The Reuters blog by Felix Salmon picks it up and brings it a step further, pointing out that US officials have said the yuan is overvalued, so that “Chinese revaluation is going to happen at some point, and when it does, you’ll make money”, and “the downside is limited”. More excitement.
- 1/14 – The Wall Street Journal blog ROI joins the fray, stating (1) It’s very unlikely to go down. (2) It’s very likely to go up. (3) You won’t miss out on a lot of interest elsewhere, as nowhere else is paying a lot of interest. (4) It will diversify your portfolio. (5) It may offer you and your family something of a hedge against the decline of the U.S. economy. Can you feel the buzz?
- 2/7 – Time Magazine blog Curious Capitalist has another post on the topic a few weeks later. It provides more detail on what this account does not offer: interest, the ability to withdraw yuan, deposit yuan, write checks, or use debit cards. Basically you can speculate on the conversion rate of USD-CNY and that’s it. More below.
The limit a U.S.-based individual customer can exchange is $4,000 a day. From what I have gathered, you open an account and “buy” RMB from Bank of China using your U.S. dollars. Your deposits are FDIC-insured against bank failure, but not losses from currency fluctuations. If you wish to withdraw, you must again exchange your RMB back to USD, leaving you again with dollars. You can’t withdraw any RMB, here or in China. The savings account earns no interest. So any difference will be due to the exchange rate.
According to the Wikipedia entry for Remminbi, academic studies have shown then yuan to be undervalued relative to the dollar using “purchasing power parity analysis”. The Treasury Secretary called it “substantially undervalued” a month ago. Per this article, the rate of 6.5855 CNY to 1 USD set just yesterday (2/16) is a record high, leaving the yuan up 3.6% since last June.
I honestly don’t pay enough attention to currency markets and all the politically-related news to really weight the pros and cons properly. Even if it does seem like the yuan is undervalued right now, but who knows when or how it will be corrected? China sets the exchange rate for the most part, so it could be years or more. During that time, its economy could experience high inflation as well which could make RMB even weaker relative to USD.
I see no sure bet here, just a speculative investment. But if you have a “play money” account capped at 5% of your portfolio like I do at times, this might be one idea that you could drop some bucks on. What do you think?
Update: You can get basically the same thing online at Everbank WorldCurrency Access deposit account. It doesn’t currently earn any interest, and unfortunately there are no interest-bearing CD options available right now either. But it does let you get it renminbi-denominated.
Stable Value Fund 2011 Interest Rate Announced
If you have a 401(k), 403(b), or similar retirement plan, you may have an investment option called a stable value fund. Sometimes it goes by a different name like Guaranteed Pooled Fund, but they are always marked as a conservative investment. The pitch is basically the higher interest rate of longer-term bonds, with the relatively liquidity and stable principal value of a money market fund. I explored the risks and rewards of stable value funds before and currently hold them as part of my bond allocation.
My specific stable value fund is run by Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company (TFLIC) and offered an interest rate of 3.5% for all of 2010, which was much higher interest than any other similar bond investment was going to pay me. Then they told me that until February 28th, 2011, the interest rate would be 3.0%. Finally, I just received a letter that told me that the interest rate from March 1st to December 31st, 2011 would be lowered to 1.8%.
So, should I stay or should I go? Interest rates continued to drop in 2010, so I did expect them to lower their rate.
Online savings accounts like ING Direct are paying around in the low 1-1.2% APY range, and I have no access to something like that in my 401k. They recently announced a self-directed option through Schwab, although I need to find more details about how much transaction costs would be. The Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund (VFISX) is currently yielding only 0.66%. Taking a look at current Treasury yields shows the 2-year at 0.78% and the 5-year at 2.30%.
So the interest rate itself is still pretty competitive relative to other “safe’ investment options. My other bond alternative inside the account is the huge PIMCO Total Return fund (PTTRX) with a 3.12% yield and 4.8 year duration, which did pretty well for me when I had it but I worry about asset bloat with $240 billion is assets, manager risk, and interest rate risk.
In the absence of any significantly better options, it looks like I’m staying put.
My specific stable value fund is run by Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company (TFLIC) and offered an interest rate of 3.5% for all of 2010, which was much higher interest than any other similar bond investment was going to pay me. Then they told me that until February 28th, 2011, the interest rate would be 3.0%. Finally, I just received a letter that told me that the interest rate from March 1st to December 31st, 2011 would be lowered to 1.8%.
So, should I stay or should I go? Interest rates continued to drop in 2010, so I did expect them to lower their rate.
Online savings accounts like ING Direct are paying around in the low 1-1.2% APY range, and I have no access to something like that in my 401k. They recently announced a self-directed option through Schwab, although I need to find more details about how much transaction costs would be. The Vanguard Short-Term Treasury Fund (VFISX) is currently yielding only 0.66%. Taking a look at current Treasury yields shows the 2-year at 0.78% and the 5-year at 2.30%.
So the interest rate itself is still pretty competitive relative to other “safe’ investment options. My other bond alternative inside the account is the huge PIMCO Total Return fund (PTTRX) with a 3.12% yield and 4.8 year duration, which did pretty well for me when I had it but I worry about asset bloat with $240 billion is assets, manager risk, and interest rate risk.
In the absence of any significantly better options, it looks like I’m staying put.
Zecco Trading Ends Free Trade Offer, Now $4.95 Per Trade
Discount brokerage Zecco Trading announced this weekend that effectively immediately, they will no longer offer 10 free trades per month for those with assets of $25,000 and over. Here is partial text from the e-mail:
Thus ends the final chapter of their “free trades” motto. Let’s not forget that Zecco stood for Zero Cost Commissions. Starting out in 2006, we got 40 trades per month for a balance of $1,000 or $2,500 (I forget). Then that was lowered to 10 free trades per month to balances of $2,500+. Then it was 10 free/mo for balances of $25,000+. I had a lot of hope for the business model behind the free trade community vision of Zecco, and it’s sad to see it end.
But here’s the harsh reality. If you’re going to offer free trades, you’re gonna have to make the money up elsewhere. Historically, a huge source of revenue for discount brokers has been earning interest on idle cash balances. With interest rates being so low, this source of income has dried up. Trading volume is down, so there are less people exceeding the 10 per month limit and paying up for additional trades.
Starting on March 30, 2011, our new commission rates will be:The change is effective immediately for all new customers who have not fully opened their account.
* Equity trades: $4.95 per trade*
* Options trades: $4.95 per trade, plus $0.65 per contract
With this change we are no longer offering 10 free trades per month. As before, there are no minimum balance requirements or inactivity fees to open or maintain a Zecco Trading account.
Thus ends the final chapter of their “free trades” motto. Let’s not forget that Zecco stood for Zero Cost Commissions. Starting out in 2006, we got 40 trades per month for a balance of $1,000 or $2,500 (I forget). Then that was lowered to 10 free trades per month to balances of $2,500+. Then it was 10 free/mo for balances of $25,000+. I had a lot of hope for the business model behind the free trade community vision of Zecco, and it’s sad to see it end.
But here’s the harsh reality. If you’re going to offer free trades, you’re gonna have to make the money up elsewhere. Historically, a huge source of revenue for discount brokers has been earning interest on idle cash balances. With interest rates being so low, this source of income has dried up. Trading volume is down, so there are less people exceeding the 10 per month limit and paying up for additional trades.
Low Cost Stock Broker Alternatives 2011
If you’re thinking about switching online stock brokers, perhaps due to a price increase, here are some low-cost options. To avoid the common $50 to $75 ACAT transfer-out fee for moving your entire portfolio somewhere else, you can sell all your positions, transfer out the cash, and then have them close the account. You may be subject to capital gains taxes. Otherwise, look for a broker that will cover your transfer-out fee.
Still want free trades? WellsTrade still offers 100 free trades per year with assets of at least $25,000. They may be feeling squeezed as well, but with the ability to cross-sell with other Wells Fargo products like checking accounts and credit cards, they are probably still making money. Bank of America also offers free trades, but with a $25,000 cash balance only.
If you’re looking to build a low-cost, index fund portfolio, I would recommend opening a Vanguard Brokerage Services account with their unlimited free trades for all Vangaurd ETFs. Indeed, many other brokers offer some sort of free trades on a limited list of ETFs including Fidelity, Schwab, and TD Ameritrade. I personally like the selection at Vanguard the best.
If you want to trade individual stocks, the rock-bottom low-cost broker appears to be Just2Trade at $2.50 a trade. They never seem to do any promotions.
I also have an account with OptionsHouse at $3.95 a trade which uses the same Penson clearing firm. A FW member TheHimalayas posted that they were allowed to switch over to OptionsHouse with no ACAT fees because of this, but I haven’t verified this myself. I am happy with my OptionHouse account, and the fact that they grandfathered us existing members at $2.95 a trade doesn’t hurt.
OptionsHouse also has a bunch of promos going on. If you open a new account with at least $3,000 and use the code FREE100, you’ll get 100 commission-free trades for stock or option trades executed within 60 days of funding the new account. Alternatively, you can get up to $100 in ACAT fees rebated to you when you transfer your account with a minimum value of $3,000 with the promo code ACAT100REFUND. They also have a 100 free trades + $125 in transfer fee rebates offer for IRAs with the promotion code IRAFREE.
Finally, another solid option at the $4.95 price point is TradeKing. They are currently offering $100 for opening an account with a referral. In addition, TradeKing will credit your account transfer fees up to $150 charged by another brokerage firm when completing an account transfer for $2,500 or more when you send them a copy of your account statement with proof of the transfer charge.
Update: I confirmed that you can combine both Tradeking promotions ($100 refer-a-friend + $150 fee rebate) as long as you satisfy each of their requirements.
Still want free trades? WellsTrade still offers 100 free trades per year with assets of at least $25,000. They may be feeling squeezed as well, but with the ability to cross-sell with other Wells Fargo products like checking accounts and credit cards, they are probably still making money. Bank of America also offers free trades, but with a $25,000 cash balance only.
If you’re looking to build a low-cost, index fund portfolio, I would recommend opening a Vanguard Brokerage Services account with their unlimited free trades for all Vangaurd ETFs. Indeed, many other brokers offer some sort of free trades on a limited list of ETFs including Fidelity, Schwab, and TD Ameritrade. I personally like the selection at Vanguard the best.
If you want to trade individual stocks, the rock-bottom low-cost broker appears to be Just2Trade at $2.50 a trade. They never seem to do any promotions.
I also have an account with OptionsHouse at $3.95 a trade which uses the same Penson clearing firm. A FW member TheHimalayas posted that they were allowed to switch over to OptionsHouse with no ACAT fees because of this, but I haven’t verified this myself. I am happy with my OptionHouse account, and the fact that they grandfathered us existing members at $2.95 a trade doesn’t hurt.
OptionsHouse also has a bunch of promos going on. If you open a new account with at least $3,000 and use the code FREE100, you’ll get 100 commission-free trades for stock or option trades executed within 60 days of funding the new account. Alternatively, you can get up to $100 in ACAT fees rebated to you when you transfer your account with a minimum value of $3,000 with the promo code ACAT100REFUND. They also have a 100 free trades + $125 in transfer fee rebates offer for IRAs with the promotion code IRAFREE.
Finally, another solid option at the $4.95 price point is TradeKing. They are currently offering $100 for opening an account with a referral. In addition, TradeKing will credit your account transfer fees up to $150 charged by another brokerage firm when completing an account transfer for $2,500 or more when you send them a copy of your account statement with proof of the transfer charge.
Update: I confirmed that you can combine both Tradeking promotions ($100 refer-a-friend + $150 fee rebate) as long as you satisfy each of their requirements.
The Impact of Sidelined Cash in Disequilibrium on the Stock Market
The purpose of this note is to reconcile two contrasting viewpoints on how the amount of cash in our economy impacts future stock prices:
A. Sidelined Cash View: An example of the view that cash held in investor accounts matters is Alexander Green's commentary this week: 'In February . . . the decline in stocks was just about over [because] . . . [t]here was more money available to buy shares than at any time in almost two decades. The $8.85 trillion held in cash, bank deposits and money market funds was equal to 74% of the market value of U.S. companies, the highest ratio since 1990, according to the Federal Reserve. . . . [T]here is still over $8 trillion on the sidelines earning next to nothing in short-term deposits. . . . Expect to see cash coming off the sidelines to accumulate shares of the largest, most liquid firms around the globe.'
B. Equilibrium View: The opposite view, that consideration of market equilibrium reveals the "tautology" of speaking about cash on the sidelines, is voiced by John Hussman in his comment this week: '[A]s a result of more than a trillion dollars of new issuance of Treasury securities with relatively short durations, it is a tautology that there is a mountain of what is mistakenly viewed as “cash on the sidelines” invested in these securities. This mountain of “sideline cash” exists and must continue to exist as long as these additional government securities remain outstanding. It is an error to view outstanding debt securities as if they are “liquidity” poised to “flow back into the stock market.” The faith in that myth may very well spur some speculation in stocks, but it is a belief that is utterly detached from reality. The mountain of outstanding money market securities is the result of government debt issuance that must be held by somebody until those securities are retired. It is not spendable “liquidity” – it is a pile of IOUs printed up as evidence of money that has already been squandered. The analysts and financial news reporters who observe this enormous swamp of short-term money market securities, and talk about “cash on the sidelines” as if it is spendable in aggregate immediately reveal themselves to be unaware of the concept of equilibrium and of the nature of secondary markets (where there must be a buyer for every security sold, and a seller for every security bought).'
Which view is right? Is it useful from a trading or investment timing perspective to think of sidelined cash as waiting to flow back into the stock market? Or, does any particular stock transaction involve a mere transfer of cash from buyer to seller and, therefore, leave the aggregate amount of cash in the economy, sidelined or not, unchanged? Further, what is the long-run impact of the amount of cash in our economy, i.e., the money supply, on stock prices?
The Fed, the Treasury and the Private Sector
Three primary parties feature in our analysis: the Federal Reserve ("Fed"), the U.S. Treasury and the private sector. To illuminate essential points, I intentionally employ a "no frills" simplified model of the creation of cash (or, more generally, a broader measure, M2), bonds and stocks in the economy:
1. Cash Creation and Swap: The Fed creates cash (in the amount of 50 units) and swaps it with the Treasury for a like notional amount of newly issued government bonds.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 50, Bonds = -50
(In each of the skeletal balance sheets here and below, the sections shown in bold indicate a change from the immediately prior stage of the analysis.)
2. Deficit Spending: The government uses the cash to finance expenditures such as national security, infrastructure projects, entitlements and other deficit spending. The private sector ends up holding the cash, received from the government through employment and entitlements.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -50
Private Sector: Cash = 50
3. More Bond Issuance: The Treasury issues more bonds, this time to private sector investors instead of to the Fed.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 50, Bonds = -100
Private Sector: Cash = 0, Bonds = 50
4. More Deficit Spending: The government deploys the cash in accordance with its budget, with the private sector again being the recipient of the cash.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -100
Private Sector: Cash = 50, Bonds = 50
5. Entrepreneur-Led Growth: Assisted by years of government spending on infrastructure, enterprising individuals form companies and develop new technologies and products for growing consumer markets. Rising stock prices of these entrepreneurial companies represent new wealth creation, seemingly materializing "out of thin air," but actually resulting from the "value-add" through conversion of natural resources, labor, capital and technology into useful products and services.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -100
Private Sector: Cash = 50, Bonds = 50, Stocks = 100
6. Business Cycle: As the market's perception of future business prospects shifts, stock prices rise and fall. The corresponding aggregate wealth held by the private sector in stocks fluctuates from a cycle low of, say, 75, to a cycle high of, say, 150. At the nadir of the business cycle, the corresponding cash-to-stocks ratio is 50/75 = 67%, while at the peak this ratio is 50/150 = 33%.
7. Government's Rescue Plan: During the depths of an extended recession (i.e., when stocks = 75), the government implements an economic rescue plan, involving
a. Creation of more money (25) by the Fed;
b. The Fed's use of this money to purchase lower credit assets from banks;
c. Banks' use of the proceeds to purchase new bonds from the Treasury.
This plan strengthens bank balance sheets and provides the government with cash for new deficit spending. (By deliberate design, this model parallels the actions taken by the Fed and Treasury over the past half year in dealing with the current financial crisis.)
Fed: Cash = -75, Bonds = 50, Other Assets = 25
Treasury: Cash = 25, Bonds = -125Banks: Bonds = 25, Other Assets = -25
Private Sector: Cash = 50, Bonds = 50, Stocks = 75.
8. Still More Deficit Spending: The government deploys its new cash of 25 as part of a stimulus package to jump-start the economy (cf., Obama's approximately $1 trillion fiscal stimulus package, currently being deployed). As before, the cash ends up in the hands of workers and consumers in the private sector.
Fed: Cash = -75, Bonds = 50, Other Assets = 25
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -125
Banks: Bonds = 25, Other Assets = -25
Private Sector: Cash = 75, Bonds = 50, Stocks = 75.
The result is an increase in the cash-to-stocks ratio to 75/75 = 100%, which is a sign of the gross disequilibrium now inherent in the economy, since the cash-to-stocks ratio is outside of its "normal" range of 33% to 67% shown in Stage 6 of our model.
How Both Views Can Be Right
First, although our model is very simple, it exhibits important monetary, fiscal and economic trends in the U.S. economy:
Within a framework of disequilibrium, let's now examine the situation at the end of Stage 8 of the scenario presented above. Given the new infusion of cash (from a sudden increase in the money supply), the stock market (along with other assets such as real estate) is arguably likely to rise, consistent with the Sidelined Cash view, as investors chase higher returns by buying stocks with the new portion of their "sidelined cash" (now 75, up from the recent figure of 50 in our model). The idea here is that, when enough newly printed aggregate cash from fiscal stimulus makes its way into consumers' and investors' hands, some combination of more consumption and more investment will (eventually) push asset prices higher. Though ostensibly at variance with the Equilibrium view he espouses, Hussman points out that a probable outcome of current government policy is "a near-doubling of the U.S. price level over the next decade," citing Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz's characterization of the government's strategy as "trying to recreate the bubble [in a way] [t]hat's not likely to provide a long-run solution . . . [but instead] says let's kick the can down the road a little bit."
To sum up:
So, we might say that cash is continually rolling off the printing presses at the Fed as our government's deficit expands and the economy grows. This capacity of our government to print money, constrained at any moment but secularly unlimited, provides a large pool of sidelined cash that can jump-start a recessionary economy and, in practice, has an inflationary impact on stock and other asset prices. The ultimate long-run outcome of our government's deficit spending policy and its influence on the relative strength of the U.S. economy versus that of other countries is debatable but, in my opinion, a correct prognosis will involve both a) interpreting "sidelined cash" to include the capacity of the Fed to print new money and b) recognizing that our economy is always in disequilibrium.
A. Sidelined Cash View: An example of the view that cash held in investor accounts matters is Alexander Green's commentary this week: 'In February . . . the decline in stocks was just about over [because] . . . [t]here was more money available to buy shares than at any time in almost two decades. The $8.85 trillion held in cash, bank deposits and money market funds was equal to 74% of the market value of U.S. companies, the highest ratio since 1990, according to the Federal Reserve. . . . [T]here is still over $8 trillion on the sidelines earning next to nothing in short-term deposits. . . . Expect to see cash coming off the sidelines to accumulate shares of the largest, most liquid firms around the globe.'
B. Equilibrium View: The opposite view, that consideration of market equilibrium reveals the "tautology" of speaking about cash on the sidelines, is voiced by John Hussman in his comment this week: '[A]s a result of more than a trillion dollars of new issuance of Treasury securities with relatively short durations, it is a tautology that there is a mountain of what is mistakenly viewed as “cash on the sidelines” invested in these securities. This mountain of “sideline cash” exists and must continue to exist as long as these additional government securities remain outstanding. It is an error to view outstanding debt securities as if they are “liquidity” poised to “flow back into the stock market.” The faith in that myth may very well spur some speculation in stocks, but it is a belief that is utterly detached from reality. The mountain of outstanding money market securities is the result of government debt issuance that must be held by somebody until those securities are retired. It is not spendable “liquidity” – it is a pile of IOUs printed up as evidence of money that has already been squandered. The analysts and financial news reporters who observe this enormous swamp of short-term money market securities, and talk about “cash on the sidelines” as if it is spendable in aggregate immediately reveal themselves to be unaware of the concept of equilibrium and of the nature of secondary markets (where there must be a buyer for every security sold, and a seller for every security bought).'
Which view is right? Is it useful from a trading or investment timing perspective to think of sidelined cash as waiting to flow back into the stock market? Or, does any particular stock transaction involve a mere transfer of cash from buyer to seller and, therefore, leave the aggregate amount of cash in the economy, sidelined or not, unchanged? Further, what is the long-run impact of the amount of cash in our economy, i.e., the money supply, on stock prices?
The Fed, the Treasury and the Private Sector
Three primary parties feature in our analysis: the Federal Reserve ("Fed"), the U.S. Treasury and the private sector. To illuminate essential points, I intentionally employ a "no frills" simplified model of the creation of cash (or, more generally, a broader measure, M2), bonds and stocks in the economy:
1. Cash Creation and Swap: The Fed creates cash (in the amount of 50 units) and swaps it with the Treasury for a like notional amount of newly issued government bonds.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 50, Bonds = -50
(In each of the skeletal balance sheets here and below, the sections shown in bold indicate a change from the immediately prior stage of the analysis.)
2. Deficit Spending: The government uses the cash to finance expenditures such as national security, infrastructure projects, entitlements and other deficit spending. The private sector ends up holding the cash, received from the government through employment and entitlements.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -50
Private Sector: Cash = 50
3. More Bond Issuance: The Treasury issues more bonds, this time to private sector investors instead of to the Fed.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 50, Bonds = -100
Private Sector: Cash = 0, Bonds = 50
4. More Deficit Spending: The government deploys the cash in accordance with its budget, with the private sector again being the recipient of the cash.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -100
Private Sector: Cash = 50, Bonds = 50
5. Entrepreneur-Led Growth: Assisted by years of government spending on infrastructure, enterprising individuals form companies and develop new technologies and products for growing consumer markets. Rising stock prices of these entrepreneurial companies represent new wealth creation, seemingly materializing "out of thin air," but actually resulting from the "value-add" through conversion of natural resources, labor, capital and technology into useful products and services.
Fed: Cash = -50, Bonds = 50
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -100
Private Sector: Cash = 50, Bonds = 50, Stocks = 100
6. Business Cycle: As the market's perception of future business prospects shifts, stock prices rise and fall. The corresponding aggregate wealth held by the private sector in stocks fluctuates from a cycle low of, say, 75, to a cycle high of, say, 150. At the nadir of the business cycle, the corresponding cash-to-stocks ratio is 50/75 = 67%, while at the peak this ratio is 50/150 = 33%.
7. Government's Rescue Plan: During the depths of an extended recession (i.e., when stocks = 75), the government implements an economic rescue plan, involving
a. Creation of more money (25) by the Fed;
b. The Fed's use of this money to purchase lower credit assets from banks;
c. Banks' use of the proceeds to purchase new bonds from the Treasury.
This plan strengthens bank balance sheets and provides the government with cash for new deficit spending. (By deliberate design, this model parallels the actions taken by the Fed and Treasury over the past half year in dealing with the current financial crisis.)
Fed: Cash = -75, Bonds = 50, Other Assets = 25
Treasury: Cash = 25, Bonds = -125Banks: Bonds = 25, Other Assets = -25
Private Sector: Cash = 50, Bonds = 50, Stocks = 75.
8. Still More Deficit Spending: The government deploys its new cash of 25 as part of a stimulus package to jump-start the economy (cf., Obama's approximately $1 trillion fiscal stimulus package, currently being deployed). As before, the cash ends up in the hands of workers and consumers in the private sector.
Fed: Cash = -75, Bonds = 50, Other Assets = 25
Treasury: Cash = 0, Bonds = -125
Banks: Bonds = 25, Other Assets = -25
Private Sector: Cash = 75, Bonds = 50, Stocks = 75.
The result is an increase in the cash-to-stocks ratio to 75/75 = 100%, which is a sign of the gross disequilibrium now inherent in the economy, since the cash-to-stocks ratio is outside of its "normal" range of 33% to 67% shown in Stage 6 of our model.
How Both Views Can Be Right
First, although our model is very simple, it exhibits important monetary, fiscal and economic trends in the U.S. economy:
- The amount of cash in the economy increases over time (from 0 to 75 in our model) as the economy grows and the Fed prints money to provide a currency to accommodate transactions among consumers and producers;
- The amount of government debt increases over time (from 0 to 125 in our model) as the Treasury issues bonds to fund the government's growing budget deficit;
- The value of the stock market rises secularly (from 0 to 100 in our model) as innovation, population growth and economic growth drive aggregate earnings of companies higher;
- Also, stock prices are prone to fluctuations (from 75 to 150 in our model), due to changes in market participants' perceptions of the future business prospects and earnings potential of companies within the economy.
Within a framework of disequilibrium, let's now examine the situation at the end of Stage 8 of the scenario presented above. Given the new infusion of cash (from a sudden increase in the money supply), the stock market (along with other assets such as real estate) is arguably likely to rise, consistent with the Sidelined Cash view, as investors chase higher returns by buying stocks with the new portion of their "sidelined cash" (now 75, up from the recent figure of 50 in our model). The idea here is that, when enough newly printed aggregate cash from fiscal stimulus makes its way into consumers' and investors' hands, some combination of more consumption and more investment will (eventually) push asset prices higher. Though ostensibly at variance with the Equilibrium view he espouses, Hussman points out that a probable outcome of current government policy is "a near-doubling of the U.S. price level over the next decade," citing Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz's characterization of the government's strategy as "trying to recreate the bubble [in a way] [t]hat's not likely to provide a long-run solution . . . [but instead] says let's kick the can down the road a little bit."
To sum up:
- The Sidelined Cash view correctly points out that "cash on the sidelines" can drive stock prices higher; however, by failing to distinguish between aggregate cash in the economy and cash held by individual investors, this view leaves too much room for (mis)interpretation;
- The Equilibrium view is right in pointing out that the aggregate amount of cash in the economy does not change when investors trade stocks with each other; however, this view fails to incorporate the disequilibrating impact of new cash creation by the Fed (and the banking system).
So, we might say that cash is continually rolling off the printing presses at the Fed as our government's deficit expands and the economy grows. This capacity of our government to print money, constrained at any moment but secularly unlimited, provides a large pool of sidelined cash that can jump-start a recessionary economy and, in practice, has an inflationary impact on stock and other asset prices. The ultimate long-run outcome of our government's deficit spending policy and its influence on the relative strength of the U.S. economy versus that of other countries is debatable but, in my opinion, a correct prognosis will involve both a) interpreting "sidelined cash" to include the capacity of the Fed to print new money and b) recognizing that our economy is always in disequilibrium.
How Guessing Market Direction Can Be PREDICTABLY Bad for Your Financial Health
"The game is called probability guessing. . . . [S]ubjects are shown a series of cards or lights which can have two colors, say green and red . . . appear[ing] . . . with different probabilities but otherwise without a pattern. . . . The task of the subject, after watching for a while, is to predict whether each new member of the sequence will be red or green. . . . Humans usually try to guess the pattern, and in the process we allow ourselves to be outperformed by a rat. . . ." (excerpt from Leonard Mlodinow's The Drunkard's Walk--How Randomness Rules Our Lives, 2008)
In a stock market context, the probability guessing game described above would read like this: In any given year, the stock market either rises (green) or falls (red). If we look over the past six decades, from 1950 through 2009, we find that during the sequential decades (1950s, 1960s, and so on) the S&P 500 Index rose in 8, 6, 7, 9, 8 and 6 out of the 10 years (using data from Yahoo! Finance). In other words, during a "typical" decade annual stock market returns are "green" about 7 or 8 out of the 10 years, and "red" about 2 or 3 out of the 10 years. Based on these historical data, we can infer that the stock market tends to rise during any particular calendar with a probability of about 75%, and fall with a probability of about 25%. As investors, we, of course, would like to try to predict whether this year (or next year, or any future year for that matter) will be green or red.
For us investors, the million-dollar question is: Should an investor attempt to "time" the market, by investing in stocks during years the market is more likely (in the investor's opinion) to rise and staying out of the market during other years when the market is more likely (again, in the investor's opinion) to fall?
Obviously, if the investor truly has enough information, foresight or precognition to know with a high degree of certainty when the market will rise or fall, then market-timing makes perfect sense and will lead to higher returns. However, what happens if the investor only believes that he knows but actually does not, so that for all practical purposes the investor is really faced with the 75% green versus 25% red probabilities described above? Is any harm done by guessing?
Analogous to the general guessing game Mlodinow mentions in his book, let's consider two strategies:
1. Buy-and-Hold Strategy: Since the market rises during 75% of the years, one could just go long the market by buying an exchange-traded fund tracking the S&P 500 Index (or buying individual stocks), without attempting to time the market at all. A buy-and-hold investor can expect to generate positive returns 75% of the years but must also accept the unavoidable "fact" that the market will typically fall 25% of the time. In this "simpleton" strategy, an investor's long-run win percentage (i.e., the percentage of years the investor's portfolio will show positive returns) is expected to be 75%;
2. Market-Timing Strategy: A presumably more "sophisticated" investor will, through some combination of fundamental and technical analysis and application of his general intelligence and market wisdom, come up with a convincing explanation for why the market is more likely to rise (or fall) during any particular year. Believing he can distinguish beforehand (i.e., predict) which years are among the 75% "green" years when the market will rise and, likewise, which years are among the 25% "red" years when the market will fall, such an investor will want to go long 75% of the time and stay out of (or go short) the market 25% of the time.
If the bright and sophisticated market-timing investor has an "edge" over the the naive and unthinking buy-and-hold simpletons, then he will end up being right more than 75% of the time and will show higher long-run returns. At the other extreme, if it turns out that the market-timer only believes he has an edge but actually does not, one would think that his edge would just vanish and there should be no penalty for guessing, right?
Well, you might think that guessing carries no penalty, but that's actually wrong! Quite counter-intuitively, investors should expect lower returns when they guess. Here's why.
Let p be the (stationary) probability that the the market will rise in a given year, i.e., p = 0.75, representing the 75% "green" probability. Supposing that the market-timer's guesses do not give him any significant edge, his overall win percentage is given by a straightforward weighted-probability calculation:
Market-Timer's Win Percentage
= (Portion of time the market-timer goes long) x (Probability that market rises)
+ (Portion of time the market-timer stays out of market) x (Probabiility that market falls)
= p x p + (1 - p) x (1 - p)
= p2 + (1 - 2p + p2)
= 2p2 - 2p + 1.
On the other hand, the Buy-and-Hold Investor's Win Percentage is just p, as we saw earlier. Consequently, we may write that the expected potential downside of the market-timing strategy versus the buy-and-hold strategy is the difference:
(Buy-and-Hold Investor's Win Percentage) - (Market-Timer's Win Percentage)
= p - (2p2 - 2p + 1)
= -2p2 + 3p - 1
= 2(p - 0.5)(1 - p),
where the last expression is the factored-form equivalent of the quadratic polynomial in the previous line.
From the factored-form expression, we can easily see that whenever p is in the "physical" range (i.e., consistent with the probabilities indicated by market history for a wide variety of investment time windows) from 0.5 to 1.0, a buy-and-hold investor is expected to outperform any market-timer who is really just guessing without appealing to any special knowledge of market direction. In particular, when p = 0.75 (which is the historical win-percentage for a sequence of annual returns), the Market-Timer's Win Percentage becomes 2(0.75)2 - 2(0.75) + 1 = 0.625, or 62.5%, which is 12.5 percentage points worse than the Buy-and-Hold Win Percentage of 75%.
Therefore, to the extent that a market-timer is "only guessing" (and who can really be so certain?) about market direction, he is (presumably unknowingly) effectively "shooting himself in the foot," following a self-destructive path of degrading his expected returns by staying out of the market 25% of the time (by the way, shorting the market 25% of the time would make matters even worse). Despite his seemingly sophisticated ways, this market-timer can actually be expected to underperform the simpleton buy-and-hold investor in the long-run.
Lesson: Don't attempt to "time the market" unless you are absolutely certain that your market-timing strategy actually works, since your expected downside from "believing without knowing" far exceeds your time spent strategizing, not to mention your trading costs and commissions consumed.
Perpetual Income Generation
A student who earned a few thousand dollars over the summer working remarked to me yesterday, "I don't know how I'm going to spend the money if I don't use it to travel over the holidays."
At first, this statement seemed quite innocuous, in line with what I have come to expect in our work-and-spend, consumer-oriented society. People earn money working and then, quite predictably, spend the bulk of their earnings soon thereafter, buying all types of consumer goods and services with whatever remains after paying for life's essentials.
Three Personal Financial Management Philosophies
Upon further consideration, I became struck with just how one-sided the student's attitude on what to do with his money is. On the spectrum of personal money management philosophies, he is at the consumerist end of the two extremes:
Consumerist Philosophy: Earn and spend; earn and spend; earn and spend. In short, spend all of today's earnings on consumer items, because another paycheck will always come "tomorrow." Examples of this type of philosophy include people who live paycheck-to-paycheck more by choice than circumstance, the young woman from England who won a multi-million dollar lottery six years ago at the age of 16 and now regrets having spent all of the money so frivolously, and highly successful, high-income celebrities like photographer, Annie Leibovitz, and singer, Michael Jackson, who, despite their millions in earnings, have ended up "awash in debt" due to their personal financial management, or lack thereof.
Wealth Accumulator's Philosophy: What's important is accumulating as much wealth as possible during one's lifetime. Be frugal, even to the point of being miserly. Save as much as possible from one's earnings, prudently invest one's savings, and reinvest as much as possible of one's investment earnings. An example of this type of thinking is self-made billionaire, Warren Buffett, who not only is worth some $40 billion but is rumored to have once stooped down to pick up a penny in an elevator, remarking to those around him, "This is the start of my next billion."
My opinion is that most of us will be best off following neither of the above extremes but, instead, adopting a middle-of-the-road philosophy, which emphasizes neither consumer spending nor wealth accumulation:
Perpetual Income Generation: Use one's "excess" earnings (i.e., whatever is not needed to pay for basic necessities) from work and investments to build an investment portfolio that will reliably generate long-term income to cover all of life's expenses. The focus here is neither on spending all of one's earnings, just because one has money currently available to spend, nor on stockpiling cash without limit, primarily to see how much wealth one can accumulate. Rather, the core of this philosophy is to accumulate enough wealth to reach an ongoing state of financial independence, which means that the income generated from one's investment portfolio should over time be enough to support one's lifestyle without relying on external employment.
Historical Analogies
I'm now reading Jared Diamond's insightful work, Guns, Germs, and Steel, which discusses how and why some societies developed farming and technologies and came to dominate societies that remained hunter-gatherers throughout the millennia since the most recent Ice Age some 13,000 years ago. We can draw a simplistic analogy between hunter-gatherer societies and the consumerist philosophy mentioned above, since both emphasize current consumption without any significant savings component. Similarly, agricultural societies may be compared to the wealth accumulator's philosophy, since any excess harvest can be stored or sold for income, allowing for investment in technology development, which in turn can be used to promote further wealth accumulation.
As Diamond mentions, the recurring pattern throughout history has been that agriculture-based societies have not only developed better technology but have also deployed it to exploit societies having more primitive technology. A striking 19th century example is how, in December 1835, a group of 900 Maoris from New Zealand's North Island sailed 500 miles east to the Chatham Islands and conquered a peaceful society of 2,000 Moriori hunter-gatherers, brutally and indiscriminately killing men, women and children who refused to become their slaves. Apparently, what induced the Maoris to attack the Morioris en masse was news from a seal-hunting ship that visited the Chathams, revealing islands rich in shellfish, eels and berries, with inhabitants who "do not understand how to fight, and have no weapons."
Such are the tragic consequences of the collision of societies. Other well-known examples range from the probable driving of the Neanderthals into extinction by Cro-Magnons some 40,000 years ago, to Cortes's and Pizarro's 16th century conquests of the Aztec and Inca empires, respectively, to the so-called Manifest Destiny of European settlers in the 19th century to expand across North America, decimating native Indian tribes in their path.
I mention these historical analogies because of the perspective they bring to personal financial management. As history shows, societies that have had a "savings" component in their culture have inexorably won an upper hand over societies with more purely consumption-oriented habits. If taken to the extreme, this might seem to indicate that pure wealth accumulation should be, at least from a survival point of view, our preferred personal financial management strategy. Hence, my advice to the student I mentioned at the outset could be to save all of his summer earnings in order to maximize wealth accumulation, but is this really best?
Goal: Perpetual Income
Pure consumers live for the present, much as hunter-gatherer societies have throughout history. On the other hand, pure wealth accumulators emphasize the future, based on a "stockpiling" mentality that always favors acquiring more, no matter how much one already has. Rather than simply consuming or saving, it is, in my judgment, critical to forecast one's future financial needs and reach the right balance between consumption and savings that will best optimize one's overall life satisfaction.
So, my advice to the student is: Instead of focussing on how to spend your earnings, or saving all of it for the future, ask yourself how best to utilize your earnings to begin to create a perpetual income stream that will allow you to gain financial independence and support your future lifestyle. Your focus should be neither on consumption nor on wealth accumulation, but on how best to employ your earnings, consumption, savings and investments to one day to replace your own labor as the primary source of income in your life. (Note: Some people call it "retirement," but for me it's closer to financial "rebirth.")
At first, this statement seemed quite innocuous, in line with what I have come to expect in our work-and-spend, consumer-oriented society. People earn money working and then, quite predictably, spend the bulk of their earnings soon thereafter, buying all types of consumer goods and services with whatever remains after paying for life's essentials.
Three Personal Financial Management Philosophies
Upon further consideration, I became struck with just how one-sided the student's attitude on what to do with his money is. On the spectrum of personal money management philosophies, he is at the consumerist end of the two extremes:
Consumerist Philosophy: Earn and spend; earn and spend; earn and spend. In short, spend all of today's earnings on consumer items, because another paycheck will always come "tomorrow." Examples of this type of philosophy include people who live paycheck-to-paycheck more by choice than circumstance, the young woman from England who won a multi-million dollar lottery six years ago at the age of 16 and now regrets having spent all of the money so frivolously, and highly successful, high-income celebrities like photographer, Annie Leibovitz, and singer, Michael Jackson, who, despite their millions in earnings, have ended up "awash in debt" due to their personal financial management, or lack thereof.
Wealth Accumulator's Philosophy: What's important is accumulating as much wealth as possible during one's lifetime. Be frugal, even to the point of being miserly. Save as much as possible from one's earnings, prudently invest one's savings, and reinvest as much as possible of one's investment earnings. An example of this type of thinking is self-made billionaire, Warren Buffett, who not only is worth some $40 billion but is rumored to have once stooped down to pick up a penny in an elevator, remarking to those around him, "This is the start of my next billion."
My opinion is that most of us will be best off following neither of the above extremes but, instead, adopting a middle-of-the-road philosophy, which emphasizes neither consumer spending nor wealth accumulation:
Perpetual Income Generation: Use one's "excess" earnings (i.e., whatever is not needed to pay for basic necessities) from work and investments to build an investment portfolio that will reliably generate long-term income to cover all of life's expenses. The focus here is neither on spending all of one's earnings, just because one has money currently available to spend, nor on stockpiling cash without limit, primarily to see how much wealth one can accumulate. Rather, the core of this philosophy is to accumulate enough wealth to reach an ongoing state of financial independence, which means that the income generated from one's investment portfolio should over time be enough to support one's lifestyle without relying on external employment.
Historical Analogies
I'm now reading Jared Diamond's insightful work, Guns, Germs, and Steel, which discusses how and why some societies developed farming and technologies and came to dominate societies that remained hunter-gatherers throughout the millennia since the most recent Ice Age some 13,000 years ago. We can draw a simplistic analogy between hunter-gatherer societies and the consumerist philosophy mentioned above, since both emphasize current consumption without any significant savings component. Similarly, agricultural societies may be compared to the wealth accumulator's philosophy, since any excess harvest can be stored or sold for income, allowing for investment in technology development, which in turn can be used to promote further wealth accumulation.
As Diamond mentions, the recurring pattern throughout history has been that agriculture-based societies have not only developed better technology but have also deployed it to exploit societies having more primitive technology. A striking 19th century example is how, in December 1835, a group of 900 Maoris from New Zealand's North Island sailed 500 miles east to the Chatham Islands and conquered a peaceful society of 2,000 Moriori hunter-gatherers, brutally and indiscriminately killing men, women and children who refused to become their slaves. Apparently, what induced the Maoris to attack the Morioris en masse was news from a seal-hunting ship that visited the Chathams, revealing islands rich in shellfish, eels and berries, with inhabitants who "do not understand how to fight, and have no weapons."
Such are the tragic consequences of the collision of societies. Other well-known examples range from the probable driving of the Neanderthals into extinction by Cro-Magnons some 40,000 years ago, to Cortes's and Pizarro's 16th century conquests of the Aztec and Inca empires, respectively, to the so-called Manifest Destiny of European settlers in the 19th century to expand across North America, decimating native Indian tribes in their path.
I mention these historical analogies because of the perspective they bring to personal financial management. As history shows, societies that have had a "savings" component in their culture have inexorably won an upper hand over societies with more purely consumption-oriented habits. If taken to the extreme, this might seem to indicate that pure wealth accumulation should be, at least from a survival point of view, our preferred personal financial management strategy. Hence, my advice to the student I mentioned at the outset could be to save all of his summer earnings in order to maximize wealth accumulation, but is this really best?
Goal: Perpetual Income
Pure consumers live for the present, much as hunter-gatherer societies have throughout history. On the other hand, pure wealth accumulators emphasize the future, based on a "stockpiling" mentality that always favors acquiring more, no matter how much one already has. Rather than simply consuming or saving, it is, in my judgment, critical to forecast one's future financial needs and reach the right balance between consumption and savings that will best optimize one's overall life satisfaction.
So, my advice to the student is: Instead of focussing on how to spend your earnings, or saving all of it for the future, ask yourself how best to utilize your earnings to begin to create a perpetual income stream that will allow you to gain financial independence and support your future lifestyle. Your focus should be neither on consumption nor on wealth accumulation, but on how best to employ your earnings, consumption, savings and investments to one day to replace your own labor as the primary source of income in your life. (Note: Some people call it "retirement," but for me it's closer to financial "rebirth.")
College and Salary: "With Whom" You Study Matters as Much as "What" You Study
The topic of how attending a "good college" relates to getting a "good job" came up in a recent conversation I was having with my high school-aged son, whom I am encouraging to give serious consideration to both what he enjoys doing and what type of lifestyle he wants to have after he graduates from college.
Using the popular U.S. News & World Report ranking of universities and salary data from Payscale.com, we can take a look at the correlation between university attended and resulting mid-career median salary. The table below shows the top 30 U.S. universities and the mid-career median salary of their graduates.
As might be expected, Ivy League schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell and Brown) figure prominently on the list, along with the well-known science and engineering schools (Caltech, MIT) and the so-called non-Ivy Ivies (Stanford, University of Chicago, Duke, etc.).
The relationship between university attended and salary can be seen in the graph below.
The regression line is:
Mid-Career Median Salary = $121,400 - $900 x (Ranking of University Attended),
giving a decrement of about $9,000 in annual salary for each 10 spots in university ranking. For example, a graduate of a university with a ranking of about 5 might expect to have a mid-career salary of about $9,000 more per year than a graduate of a university with a ranking of about 15. The numbers actually show more scatter and skew than is captured by the linear regression, as evident in the following examples of ranking-university-salary:
4. Caltech, $115,000
5. MIT, $126,000
6. Stanford, $124,000
14. Johns Hopkins, $94,900
15. Cornell, $106,000
16. Brown, $107,000
24. UCLA, $97,000
25. University of Virginia, $97,200
26. USC, $103,000.
The general trend of higher ranking (smaller number) correlated to higher salary (correlation of .63) is clear. While there are, of course, many individual exceptions to the rule, one of the tell-tale indicators for predicting lifetime earnings and net worth is the college one attends.
As I tell my son, the college one attends (i.e., with whom one studies) is just as important as what one studies in college. Choice of a college typically has a lifelong impact on one's social circle, which in turn often influences whom one does business with throughout one's career.
Using the popular U.S. News & World Report ranking of universities and salary data from Payscale.com, we can take a look at the correlation between university attended and resulting mid-career median salary. The table below shows the top 30 U.S. universities and the mid-career median salary of their graduates.
As might be expected, Ivy League schools (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell and Brown) figure prominently on the list, along with the well-known science and engineering schools (Caltech, MIT) and the so-called non-Ivy Ivies (Stanford, University of Chicago, Duke, etc.).
The relationship between university attended and salary can be seen in the graph below.
The regression line is:
Mid-Career Median Salary = $121,400 - $900 x (Ranking of University Attended),
giving a decrement of about $9,000 in annual salary for each 10 spots in university ranking. For example, a graduate of a university with a ranking of about 5 might expect to have a mid-career salary of about $9,000 more per year than a graduate of a university with a ranking of about 15. The numbers actually show more scatter and skew than is captured by the linear regression, as evident in the following examples of ranking-university-salary:
4. Caltech, $115,000
5. MIT, $126,000
6. Stanford, $124,000
14. Johns Hopkins, $94,900
15. Cornell, $106,000
16. Brown, $107,000
24. UCLA, $97,000
25. University of Virginia, $97,200
26. USC, $103,000.
The general trend of higher ranking (smaller number) correlated to higher salary (correlation of .63) is clear. While there are, of course, many individual exceptions to the rule, one of the tell-tale indicators for predicting lifetime earnings and net worth is the college one attends.
As I tell my son, the college one attends (i.e., with whom one studies) is just as important as what one studies in college. Choice of a college typically has a lifelong impact on one's social circle, which in turn often influences whom one does business with throughout one's career.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)