In recent years I've become more and more convinced that the fund manager's most important job for the intermediate term isn't to decide the allocation of capital between stocks versus bonds; U.S. versus foreign; developed markets versus emerging; large-cap versus small-cap; high-quality versus low-quality; or growth versus value. And it isn't choosing among strategies, funds and managers. The most important job is to strike the appropriate balance between offense and defense. Those other things won't help much if you get offense/defense wrong. And if you get offense/ defense right, those other things will take care of themselves.
Before I close, just a word on market bottoms. Some of the most interesting questions in investing are especially appropriate today: "Since you expect more bad news and feel the markets may fall further, isn't it premature to do any buying? Shouldn't you wait for the bottom?"
To me, the answer clearly is "no." As mentioned earlier, we never know when we're at the bottom. A bottom can only be recognized in retrospect: it was the day before the market started to go up. By definition, we can't know today whether it's been reached, since that's a function of what will happen tomorrow. Thus, "I'm going to wait for the bottom" is an irrational statement.
If you want, you might choose to say, "I'm going to wait until the bottom has been passed and the market has started upward." That's more rational. However, number one, you're saying you're willing to miss the bottom. And number two, one of the reasons for a market to start to rise is that the sellers' sense of urgency has abated, and along with it the selling pressure. That, in turn, means (a) the supply for sale shrinks and (b) the buyers' very buying forces the market upward, as it's now they who are highly motivated. These are the things that make markets rise. So if investors want to buy, they should buy on the way down. That's when the sellers are feeling the most urgency and the buyers' buying won't arrest the downward cascade of security prices.
(snip)
So it's my view that waiting for the bottom is folly. What, then, should be the investor's criteria? The answer's simple: if something's cheap - based on the relationship between price and intrinsic value - you should buy, and if it cheapens further, you should buy more.
(snip)
Terrible news makes it hard to buy and causes many people to say, "I'm not going to try to catch a falling knife." But it's also what pushes prices to absurdly low levels. That's why I so like the headline from Doug Kass that I referred to above: "When the Time Comes to Buy, You Won't Want To." It's not easy to buy when the news is terrible, prices are collapsing and it's impossible to have an idea where the bottom lies. But doing so should be the investor's greatest aspiration.
... markets rarely clear after one massive decline. In 15 bear markets since 1950, only one did not see the initial major low tested within three months ... In all other cases, the bottom has been tested once or twice. Since news-flow in this crisis will likely worsen before it improves, a repeat seems likely.
These days, people have been asking me whether this is the time to buy. My answer is more nuanced: it’s probably a time to buy. There can be no unique time to buy that we can identify. The only thing we can be sure of today is that stock prices, for example, are a lot lower in the absolute than they were two weeks ago.
Will stocks decline in the coming days, weeks and months? This is the wrong question to ask . . . primarily because it is entirely unanswerable. Since we don’t have answers to the questions about the virus listed on page two, there’s no way to decide intelligently what the markets will do. We know the market declined by 13% in seven trading days. There can be absolutely no basis on which to conclude that they’ll lose another 13% in the weeks ahead – or that they’ll rise by a like amount – since the answer will be determined largely by changes in investor psychology. (I say “largely” because it will also be influenced by developments regarding the virus . . . but likewise we have no basis on which to judge how actual developments will compare against the expectations investors already have factored into asset prices.)
Instead, intelligent investing has to be based – as always – on the relationship between price and value. In other words, not “will the collapse go further?” But rather “has the collapse to date caused securities to be priced right; or are they overpriced given the fundamentals; or have they become cheap?” I have no doubt that assessing price relative to value remains the most reliable way to invest for the long term. (It is the thrust of the whole discussion just above that there’s nothing that provides reliable help in the short term.)
(snip)
So, especially after we’ve learned more about the coronavirus and developed a vaccine, it seems to me that it is unlikely to fundamentally and permanently change life as we know it, make the world of the future unrecognizable, and decimate business or make valuing it impossible. (Yes, this is a guess: we have to make some of them.)
(snip)
Buy, sell or hold? I think it’s okay to do some buying, because things are cheaper. But there’s no logical argument for spending all your cash, given that we have no idea how negative future events will be. What I would do is figure out how much you’ll want to have invested by the time the bottom is reached – whenever that is – and spend part of it today. Stocks may turn around and head north, and you’ll be glad you bought some. Or they may continue down, in which case you’ll have money left (and hopefully the nerve) to buy more. That’s life for people who accept that they don’t know what the future holds.
But no one can tell you this is the time to buy. Nobody knows.
