Offshore real estate stocks, regarded as a safe haven during the global bear market of three years ago because of their high income yields, are being spurned by investors in favour of general equities.
Three years ago, offshore listed property stocks won this beauty contest hands down. Since then their income yields have halved to 4.5%, while dividend yields on general equities have more than doubled to 7%.
The same is not true of JSE-listed property funds, many of which still offer attractive yields of 9% or more. The reason for this is that South Africa is still in an interest rate down-cycle, while most of the rest of the world has had to raise interest rates to curb inflationary pressures.
Many European countries are now contemplating following Sweden's recent example of lowering interest rates again, or at least capping rates at current levels. SA's benign inflation holds further scope for rate cuts in the weeks ahead, which have helped push property stocks to record highs in recent months.
Offshore it's a different story. Rising interest rates have taken some of the sheen off real estate stocks, while general equities, despite price rises of between 36% in the US and 50% in the UK since early 2003, now offer dividend yields comparable to that of the JSE.
Overseas equities now offer better returns than listed property, according to Ian Anderson, fund manager for Marriott's International Real Estate Fund and its balanced fund, the International Income Growth Fund.
"In 1999, the earnings yield on listed property in the US and the UK was 5% more than that provided by equities. The situation has now reversed, with equities delivering 2% better earnings yields in the UK than listed property," says Anderson.
Marriott recently capped its International Real Estate fund, recommending that investors switch their offshore exposure to global equities.
"This fact is remarkable considering the relative high-risk profile of equities versus listed property, but the reason is that global equities are well priced," adds Anderson.
"The earnings yields on global equities have returned to the level they were before the heady days of the late 1990s. They were 7% before this bull run, fell to 3% by 2000 when the run peaked, and are now back to 7%. This demonstrates excellent value for our investors."
Anderson says the Marriott International Income Growth Fund is now 70% weighted in equities compared with 45% two years ago. Its property weighting is 10% today, down from 30% at that time.
"Anyone who invested in international real estate before this surge in prices has done well. Our fund produced positive returns every year in spite of our local currency's volatility in the past six years.
"But we're now advising our clients to move to equities," says Anderson.
A consensus is forming that international real estate is now showing symptoms of distension.
Tony Gibson, executive chairman (international), Coronation Fund Managers, says the 20-year decline in interest rates has created a fertile environment for real estate investing.
Housing affordability has closely followed the trend in the 10-year Treasury bond yield.
The number of new houses for sale in the US for which construction has not yet begun is at an all-time high, evidence of speculation run amok.
"This is a particularly precarious situation at this juncture, since homeowners' ability to meet their mortgage obligations is alarmingly stretched with a high ratio of mortgage debt to homeowners' equity," says Gibson.
nternational fund managers looking to SA’s listed property sector for investment opportunities
Nick Wilson
Property Correspondent
AS THE market capitalisations of listed property companies grow and trading liquidity improves, international fund managers should start looking to SA’s listed property sector for investment opportunities.
This is the view of Steve Buller of Fidelity Investments in Boston, US, who was delivering a presentation on international listed property trends at the Stanlib International Investment Conference held in Sandton yesterday.
Buller, Fidelity’s group leader of real estate securities and portfolio manager of a variety of real estate securities, said that SA was "about to be (put) on the map" as far as international investor awareness was concerned.
He said there was "very little" foreign ownership of listed property stock in SA, while in other countries foreign ownership was increasing.
But this could change as market capitalisations and trading liquidity of South African listed property stocks improved.
Buller said listed property was a popular asset class on the global stage and that there had been growth in the market capitalisations of listed property stocks throughout the world.
He expected this trend to continue, especially with the introduction of the Real Estate Investment Trusts structure pending in 15 countries. Listed property unit trusts are SA’s equivalent.
Buller said that in 1980 only 2% of all commercial property in developed countries was listed on stock exchanges. "Now it’s 11% and growing. We are going to see more and more properties being listed."
Colin Young, property sector head at Old Mutual Asset Management, said it was an "exciting prospect" that foreign investors would be interested in SA’s listed property sector.
Young said that in an environment where the rand was stable and attractive forward yields were on offer, it was understandable that foreign investors would look at SA’s listed property sector.
"Size and liquidity still need to be improved on. Taking a global view, our market capitalisation is still small."
Young said corporate governance in SA’s Africa’s listed property sector the would also have to improve and that there was a need for more property entrepreneurs to enter the sector.
"Investors are not the constraint (for growth of the listed property sector). The number of retired people is growing because people are living longer. There is hungry demand for income-type products like property," said Young.
From nareit.com
By Phil Britt
In a year when caution was urged, real estate mutual funds again outperformed, topping 30 percent total returns in 2004. But can portfolio managers maintain that pace in 2005?
Total return expectations for the publicly traded real estate industry heading into 2005 looked very similar to the conservative outlooks taken by analysts and fund managers prior to the start of 2004, a year that turned out significantly better than what was originally forecast. While 2004 was expected by many to see a sharp slowdown in REIT returns, NAREIT's Composite REIT Index was up 30.41 percent and NAREIT's Equity REIT Index rose 31.58 percent for the year.
Not surprisingly, those returns translated into another strong year for real estate mutual funds. According to Lipper's performance rankings for real estate mutual funds, 63 of the 80 distinct funds produced a cumulative total return in excess of 30 percent in 2004. The average total return for all real estate funds in 2004 was 32.05 percent. By comparison, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up 10.88 percent while the Dow Jones Industrial Average was only up 3.15 percent.
The top-performing real estate fund in 2004 was the Morgan Stanley Institutional European Real Estate Fund, with a cumulative total return of 47.49 percent, followed by the ProFunds Ultra Real Estate Inv (42.95 percent) and the Cohen & Steers Special Equity Fund (40.98 percent). All three of those funds also ranked among the top eight highest returning funds in 2003.
Looking back at three- and five-year performance results, the story doesn't change for real estate mutual funds. The average three-year annual total return of the 65 funds Lipper tracked during that period was 23.62 percent. The average five-year return (for 54 eligible funds) was 21.41 percent. The top-performing fund, on average, over the past three years was the CGM Realty Fund (38.58 percent). The top-performing fund, on average, over the past five years was the Alpine U.S. Real Estate Equity Fund (32.02 percent).
While the past year and historical returns are worth noting, the challenge of matching, or even approaching, those same results in 2005 is a daunting one for any fund manager. From Dec. 31, 2004 through Jan. 20, 2005, only two of the real estate funds tracked by Lipper produced a positive total return (the Alpine U.S. Real Estate Equity Fund and CGM Realty Fund). While the first few weeks are hardly indicative of full year results, especially for an investment that is intended to be held for the long term, most fund managers expect the industry's performance to slow (even though many feel we could still be looking at low double-digit returns).
What the Future Holds
When asked what could stunt the industry's total returns, several real estate fund managers cite maturation of the economic recovery, higher net asset value of properties in general and more acceptance of REITs as solid investments in the last couple of years–meaning higher prices for REITs in 2003 and 2004, but leaving less room for growth in 2005.
"In 2005, the watchword is caution. Valuations do not appear to be overly expensive, but they're not cheap," says Joe Rodriguez, lead portfolio manager for AIM Real Estate. "Real estate has outperformed the S&P for five years, so we're cautious."
Steve Buller, portfolio manager of Fidelity Real Estate Investment Portfolio and Fidelity International Real Estate Securities Portfolio Fund, says that because REITs have done so well over the past couple of years, there tends to be the reaction among some investors that they are overvalued.
"In reality they are not overvalued compared to the private market," Buller says.
Buller looks at total return expectations on a more long-term horizon, citing that the next three years could produce annual total returns between 8 percent and 10 percent, with half of that coming from dividend yield. However, Buller does caution that volatility will persist in the REIT market in 2005 and beyond.
Kelly Rush, director of portfolio management for Principal Global Investors, predicts an 8 percent to 10 percent total return for 2005, which Rush says is more in line with historical results than the 20 percent and 30 percent gains in recent years. Rush adds the caveat that an inflation spike could sharply reduce that return expectation.
"We often get asked about a ‘real estate' bubble," Rush says. "Our reaction is that we don't think there's a bubble. A bubble occurs when there's no relationship to fundamental value. While I'll admit that real estate stocks are expensive from a historical perspective, I don't think there's a broad-based, nationwide bubble."
The performance of REITs in 2005 will largely depend on the continued economic recovery, according to James Corl of Cohen & Steers Capital Management Inc., the company's chief investment officer and manager of the company's Realty Shares and Realty Focus funds. Though he says the economic growth will continue, he expects the pace will be slower in 2005, causing REIT returns to be lower as well.
"The key for any REIT stock or any [other equity investment] is what is happening to the earnings growth rates," Corl says. "The economy will continue to fuel the real estate recovery as sure as night follows day."
Sam Lieber, president of Alpine Funds, agrees that REIT returns will largely depend on continued strength in the economy. However, Lieber's not as optimistic about the economic prospects as Corl.
"It's all predicated on the recovering economy and whether the pace is as strong as people hope," Lieber says. "You need to be looking at the rate of dividend growth, which we don't think will be strong for the next two years. REITs may have gotten a little bit ahead of themselves. I don't think REIT stocks will do badly in 2005, but I don't see the 20 percent to 25 percent gains of the last couple of years. Five percent to 10 percent total returns are much more likely. The risk of negative returns is also greater."
Corl points out that many industry pundits were similarly skeptical entering the 2004 year, only to see growth rates continuing to increase on a quarter over quarter basis. His prediction of 18 percent to 20 percent total return for 2004, turned out to be a little conservative as well, though not the 0 percent growth that he said some others had predicted entering the year.
"Beginning in 2003 and continuing in 2004, signs were fairly negative, but the market climbs a wall of worry," Corl says. "Some think we've come too far or that interest rates have gotten too high. I think that's great."
Corl points out that some REITs are still rebuilding value lost in the late 1990s, highlighting 1998 and 1999, when the NAREIT Composite REIT Index was down 18.82 percent and 6.48 percent, respectively.
"The last time we hit an inflection point [changing from increasing to decreasing growth] was in 1998 and the real estate stocks fell as well," Corl says, adding that the change in direction is more important in a REIT's performance than whether the REIT itself is profiting or not. "We're not at peak multiples yet. There's no reason [for REITs] to underperform."
While he doesn't expect the overall direction of growth to change at least for the next couple of years, Corl does expect fund performance to moderate from the 30 percent to 40 percent levels that many funds enjoyed in the last couple of years. Cohen & Steers' own Realty Shares fund was up 40.98 percent in the last year and is up an average of 30.47 percent over the last three years (the fund was previously named the Realty Focus Fund). For 2005, a total return of 14 percent to 15 percent, 9 percent to 10 percent from capital appreciation and the rest from dividends, is much more likely, according to Corl.
Lieber points to some cautionary historical data. Historically, two-thirds of a REIT's total return has been in the form of dividends. But with the run-up in REIT prices over the last two years, dividends now reflect only about one-third of the average REIT's total return. If that were to drop back to the historical average, a REIT's total return would drop to about 7 percent, with only 2 percent to 3 percent from appreciation.
Short-term cautions aside, Rodriguez stresses that REITs are a long-term investment proposition and says he expects real estate funds to outperform other equities for at least the next five to 10 years.
Even though he doesn't expect 2005 to match the 2004 returns, the real estate market still has legs for the next couple of years, according to Corl. So he expects 2006 and 2007 to follow 2005 with solid returns.
"These investments aren't at their peak multiples yet," Corl says.
Sector Plays for '05
As to specific sectors, Corl likes the 2005 outlook for hotels, apartments and self-storage. Office properties should also offer some good returns—but only in specific parts of the country, particularly in Washington, D.C., Southern California and New York. Other dense urban areas may offer opportunities as well, but in areas like the Midwest where there's little barrier to entry, the returns for office properties will probably continue to be substandard, according to Corl.
In Lieber's view, retail companies with assets in well-located urban markets should do very well in 2005, especially shopping malls. Yet some of the best retail opportunities, Lieber says, may be overseas with the European efforts of Simon Property Group (NYSE: SPG) and Westfield Group (ASX: WDC).
Lieber says he sees multifamily REITs struggling this year, particularly after the soft numbers that Gables Residential Trust (NYSE: GBP) and Essex Property Trust, Inc. (NYSE: ESS) reported near the end of 2004 and their lowered guidance for 2005.
Sector calls have been a key component of the ongoing success Rodriguez has seen from his AIM Real Estate Fund, which has been among the top-performing REIT funds over the one-, three- and five-year periods.
"Over the last five years, we've significantly overweighted regional malls and underweighted apartments," Rodriguez says. "Early in the recovery, we overweighted health care, then we underweighted it later in the recover. Earlier in the recovery, we underweighted hotels, then we overweighted them."
Though Rodriguez still likes regional malls and hotels, as well as office companies focused on New York City, Washington, D.C. and Southern California, investors may have to settle for receiving dividends with little or no equity growth in 2005, he says.
Michael Schatt, senior portfolio manager for the Phoenix-Duff & Phelps Real Estate Securities Fund, is a little more optimistic about 2005 than Rodriguez. Schatt looks for total returns in the low single digits for 2005, with retail and hotels driving the performance.
Whether 2005 total returns will drop back to historical averages won't be known until the end of the year, but most of the fund managers agree that investors expecting the over-the-top returns of the last few years will be disappointed if they expect similar results in the next 12 months.
In its 2005 Market Outlook, Prudential Real Estate Advisors also points to the likelihood of a weaker, but solid 2005, but also says: "The arguments for REITs continuing to perform well are too compelling to rule out another strong year. REITs have weathered the worst of the downturn in the property markets and should see improving operating fundamentals as the market recovery accelerates."
Buller notes that people who were worried about the REIT market a year ago missed out on a good total return, particularly after the April/May correction of 2004.
"REITs are really for long-term investors," Buller says. "If you're only playing REITs for the next six to 12 months, then I don't know if you'd want to invest in this particular group."
Real Estate Portfolio recently asked celebrated investment manager and noted bear Jeremy Grantham, chairman of Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. LLC, to share his thoughts on the capital markets and REIT stocks.
Portfolio: There's a statue of Buddha in your office. Have you achieved "uncommon wisdom" together, like the tagline of the Wachovia commercials?
Grantham: Well, the statue does carry a subliminal message. I bought it during the last Asian crisis when you could buy used Mercedes-Benzs by the garage-full. Not surprisingly, it was very cheap and it is soothing for me to look at because it was such a bargain, which always gladdens the heart of a value investor.
Portfolio: Speaking of value, you are considered a champion of value investing. How do you define "value" and what is the evidence that it outperforms?
Grantham: We define value much more broadly than most. We pay up for "quality" stocks with high and stable profitability and low debt. Microsoft has been a value stock under our model 80 percent of the time, and Coca-Cola has too, sometimes, which is unusual for value models. The model has worked well for 25 years. Our model returns four points a year above the market before costs when we consider the most attractive 60 value stocks out of a 600 blue chip universe.
For the broad market, value bets have always won in the past—eventually—but the time horizon is uncertain. From year to year, there are plenty of other crosscurrents in the market, but value will usually win in a three to five-year timeframe.
There are other value models that use crude metrics like price-to-book ratios. They only return an extra one percent a year, which is not a great bargain because the stock selections tend to be very junky, low-quality companies. With our broader value, you get a free lunch because you get higher returns without higher risk, a point, I might add, that impresses professors of finance more than our clients.
Portfolio: You have said your thinking is influenced by the presidential election cycle. What is your outlook for 2004?
Grantham: We focus first on value. The presidential cycle is only the cherry on the cake for us. That being said, the fourth year of a presidential cycle is usually pretty calm. That means that the market will not want to go leaping around in 2004. The market is unlikely to collapse even though it is terrifically overpriced and getting more so by the day.
Portfolio: Sounds like you expect ordinary returns in 2004. People have come close to calling you an "eternal bear" and you have said elsewhere that you believe that the market is headed down in 2005 or 2006. You expect the S&P 500 to fall to 700. What will bring on a bear market and what should investors do?
Grantham: The market has gone down in fully half of all the first years of the presidential cycle since 1932. The precipitating factor is housecleaning by officials in Washington. We have very high levels of debt across the board—international debt to finance our deficit and dangerously high corporate and consumer debt. Debt takes away your flexibility.
Presidents want breathing room in year three of the cycle to stimulate the economy to set things up for reelection. There was a huge amount of economic stimulus thrown at the market in 2003—the tax cut, low interest rates, and a huge supply of low cost money to speculate with. Low rates, easy money and moral hazard. The market responded nicely and all speculative categories outperformed—growth, small cap and junk.
In effect, the president and the Fed said, "we will rush to help you, we'll give you a free roll of the dice, underwrite your risk, and make it safe for you to speculate."
Portfolio: The debt overhang was there in 2003 and earnings multiples still expanded. Are you saying that policymakers in Washington intentionally bring on a price-earnings contraction in the first two years?
Grantham: No. They intentionally move to houseclean the economy and an unintended consequence is that the market falls. They want to correct imbalances in the economy and smarten-up balance sheets for reelection. In 2005 and 2006, profit margins are likely to go down and interest rates to go up and, if that happens, the market will go down. It will be a good time to concentrate on value investing and that's what investors should do. The main point about the presidential cycle is that animal spirits rise in years three and four and fall in years one and two.
In the end, it's all about optimism. Average P/E's have been creeping up over time—from 8 to 14 to more than 23 now. People believed in the bear market rally in 2003 mistaking it for a real bull market, but you have to remember that in the long run you spend half the time below trend by definition, and trend is only 16 times.
REITs should play a substantially bigger role in the typical portfolio than is usually suggested. U.S. real estate is an important and different asset class and a very big one.
| |
Portfolio: You have said that REITs have outperformed the market "brilliantly" this last year, but you don't know why. Do you think that high dividend yields on REITs have something to do with it?
Grantham: No, it's not simply the yield because high yield stocks, other than REITs, badly underperformed the market in 2003. And it's certainly not the fundamentals because rents and occupancy rates are weak. So it's a bit of a conundrum. The most likely candidate is that the low interest rates that Greenspan has engineered simply make buildings cheaper to buy with debt.
REITs outperformed from March 2000 to October 2003 through the worst part of the decline in the S&P. They were not in the same bubble as other stocks and it was a no-brainer to buy REITs and underweight the S&P. We placed a huge bet on REITs at the time, making them 9.5 percent of our portfolio, but REITs also outperformed in the rally that came after and that is exceptional. There are very few situations where a type of stock continues to outperform both when the market goes down 50 percent and also when it rallies 30 percent.
I believe the next important leg for the market is down, perhaps after a few more months of a rally, but I expect REITs to outperform once again in the next decline because they are still less expensive than the rest of the market.
Portfolio: So, you view REITs as a defensive play in the coming down market? Your firm's seven-year forecast calls for REIT stocks to return an average 3.8 percent a year while the market will drop one percent a year. The 3.8 percent is on a total return basis, implying that you expect REIT share prices to decline. Why would you hold any stock when you expect the price to go down?
Grantham: Nearly all money managers are held to benchmarks by their clients. They must report how well they are doing relative to the S&P or other benchmark. They often end up saying essentially, "look how well I have done being down only 27 percent when the S&P is down 30 percent."
At Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. LLC, we try to generate interest in absolute return portfolios, ones that actually make money for the client instead of meeting a benchmark. We did not own any regular S&P-type stocks in our absolute return portfolios during the decline, but we did own REITs and still do today.
Portfolio: However, you have said that better defensive plays than REITs are available. What are they and what makes them better?
Grantham: Emerging market equity and debt, international small cap value, TIPS (Treasury Inflation-Protected Security government bonds), and timber. I put them all ahead of REITs, but REITs are on a different cycle so I add them to the mix. It may sound strange to have emerging market equity and TIPS as backbones of a portfolio, but emerging markets will go up 30 percent if the U.S. market hangs in, and TIPS have no risk, which keeps total portfolio risk under control. That's how you build an efficient portfolio—with the highest return for the level of risk chosen.
Portfolio: You also view international stocks as a better defensive play than REITs. Why do you hold this view when international markets now move in tandem more so than before, while the correlations between REIT stocks and the U.S. market have been declining?
Grantham: International stocks are not a better defensive play in all cases. If the market goes up, hangs in, or goes down a little, international wins. If the market goes into a steep decline, REITs win.
Taking all the probabilities together, I'd take international over REITs, but it's better to have them both and that's what we do. We don't get carried away by monthly correlations. We look at multi-year periods. I believe we are at the end of a 10-year period where the S&P won. Before that, international outperformed for eight years. In the longer run, they still move in very different cycles.
Portfolio: Your firm runs hedge funds. Under what circumstances would you short REIT stocks?
Grantham: We're running over $2 billion in 10 hedge funds that follow a market-neutral long-short strategy [achieves constant returns by combining long and short positions to eliminate market risk]. We would short REITs if they doubled against the rest of the market and became splendiferously expensive. But we're nowhere near that now. We won't be shorting REIT stocks for the foreseeable future.
Portfolio: What place should REIT stocks have in the average investor's portfolio?
Grantham: REITs should play a substantially bigger role in the typical portfolio than is usually suggested. U.S. real estate is an important and different asset class and a very big one. REITs are a way to get in, and, at normal prices, investors should own several times the ratio of REIT capitalization to total market capitalization. This is despite the fact that REITs track U.S. small cap value when you look on a monthly basis.
On a longer-term basis, not surprisingly, they track the underlying real estate that is very different to regular equities. REITs are substantially different from regular stocks when you look at longer periods. In accounts where we have to own U.S. equities, REITs are 5 percent to 10 percent of our normal position—more when they are cheap relative to the rest of the U.S. market and less when they are more expensive.
Where we have a free hand, we own 10 percent to 15 percent U.S. REITs and no other U.S. stocks. In those accounts, our REIT position peaked at 23 percent of total portfolio and it's on the way down to 10 percent. Why? It's the fourth consecutive year that REIT stocks have been outperforming and, obviously, that can't continue indefinitely.
Editor's Note: GMO manages funds and separately managed accounts, several of which owned Coca-Cola and/or Microsoft at the time of this interview. References to individual stocks should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell those stocks.
Investment legend John Bogle pioneered no-load and index mutual funds while heading up The Vanguard Group. His views on investing and mutual fund governance, majestic in their simplicity, have remained remarkably consistent since he first expressed them in his undergraduate thesis at Princeton in 1951. Portfolio recently sat down with Bogle, who says he is now on his third career, and got his big picture insights on investing, the state of the mutual fund industry and how sector investing, including REITs, fit into his overall thinking.
Portfolio: Has the mutual fund scandal been resolved to your satisfaction?
Bogle: We're making wonderful progress, thanks to the SEC and its chairman, William Donaldson. Independent board chairmen have been mandated for mutual funds. Fund manager boards must have a supermajority of independent directors—75 percent. And the SEC has authorized the hiring of staff and the retention of independent experts to provide board members with objective information so they no longer have to rely solely on what management puts in front of them.
Portfolio: What's left to be done?
Bogle: The preamble to the Investment Company Act of 1940 states the ideal that investment companies should be "organized, operated, and managed" in the interest of shareholders rather than in the interest of managers and distributors. But it's very clear that's not how the industry operates. An express fiduciary duty standard for fund managers and distributors to act in the interest of shareholders needs to be written into the law.
Also, it's a disappointment that fund executives are not required to disclose their compensation. Right now, all they have to disclose is the method by which they are compensated. But there's nothing like full disclosure of the numbers to alter conduct. A $37 million compensation figure tends to catch the eye. It's an act of hypocrisy to fight such disclosure while demanding it on the part of corporations whose shares the funds own. In effect, the mutual fund industry is saying, "you tell us your compensation but we won't tell you ours."
Portfolio: Why do you continue to criticize the mutual fund industry with respect to sales loads, fees, marketing expenses, turnover and taxes?
Bogle: Because all of these costs are still too darn high. Gross return minus cost equals an investor's net return. There can be no doubt about what I call the "CMH"—the Cost-Matters Hypothesis. The evidence shows that over the past 20 years, the average equity mutual fund has underperformed the stock market itself by about 3 percent per year—just about equal to their fees, expenses, sales charges and transaction costs—and that an amazing 85 percent of actively managed equity funds underperformed the broad market index in that period. I'll keep right on criticizing the industry until costs come down to reasonable levels.
Portfolio: Has Vanguard succeeded in its mission to be the lowest cost provider of financial services in the world?
Bogle: I try to avoid using the word "success." In business, success is a journey, not a destination. The journey is never over, but I would say we have accomplished the mission. Vanguard's average expense ratio is 0.25 percent, versus an average of 1.25 percent at other mutual fund companies. No one can come close to our expense ratio. That 1 percent savings, on a $750 billion asset level, means that an extra $7.5 billion a year is being returned to Vanguard's shareholders. That's real grown-up money.
Portfolio: What safeguards are in place to ensure that Vanguard will continue to be controlled by its own shareholders and run for their benefit?
Bogle: There is no guarantee that Vanguard will continue to be run in the present mode forever. Structures can be changed. But I'm confident that our directors and shareholders would never let that happen. If they were foolish enough to abandon the existing structure, I would turn over in my grave.
Portfolio: What you say reminds me of Arthur Andersen, who started his accounting firm in response to some early scandals in the accounting industry. It's ironic that his firm blew up in the Enron scandal some decades later.
Bogle: It was said at his funeral that he would rather the firm die than have its principles compromised and, of course, it finally did both. Anything can happen. Look at life insurance companies. They were all mutual companies 25 years ago but have since become public stock companies, largely as a way to enrich their executives. If I may quote the Good Book, they "sold their birthright for a mess of pottage."
Portfolio: You've criticized companies for smoothing and managing quarterly earnings and analysts for preferring that practice to reality. What would it take to change things?
Bogle: The focus on engineered quarterly earnings statements reflects a switch in the orientation of institutional investors—away from long-term investing and toward short-term speculation. This has caused other problems in addition to managing earnings.
It used to be that mutual fund turnover averaged 15 percent a year. That worked out to a seven-year holding period. Turnover is now greater than 100 percent and the holding period has been reduced to 11 months. Mutual funds have become a rent-a-stock industry, and, partly as a result, have abandoned any notion of corporate citizenship. Eleven months is simply too short to care about corporate governance. So the mutual fund industry must accept a share of the blame for recent governance lapses and scandals in corporate America.
What we really need is a complete sea-change in the way institutions invest in this country—a return to long-term investing. We also need the mutual fund industry to return to its activist roots and take up the cause of shareholder rights once again.
I'd help things along with a tax on short-term transactions, assessed on taxable and tax-free investors alike. Today's long-term investors are largely index funds, and for the past three years I've been encouraging them to take up governance matters.
Portfolio: Do you have a view on REITs as an investment proposition?
Bogle: People should invest in total market stock and bond funds for the long term. Total market indexing is the gold standard. Anything else, like sector investing, is a dilution of that standard. When you pick sectors, you might be right or you might be wrong. Emotions take over. People tend to get into a sector after the good returns have already happened. It's the rowboat syndrome—investors look backwards, buying after the sector has done well and selling after the sector has done poorly.
Sector timing is difficult to the point of impossibility for an investor to do successfully. There's no known way to select a sector that will outperform on a long-term sustained basis. While REITs did 1 percent better per year than the S&P 500 during the 10 years from 1994 to 2003, in the 10-year period from 1988 to 1997 they performed worse and had higher (annual) volatility.
Portfolio: Total market stock and bond funds are the bulk of your personal portfolio.
Bogle: Yes.
Portfolio: You're still a total market investor despite the incredible run-up in the tech sector prior to March 2000 and the fact that REITs and other sectors have outperformed the market since then. Sector investing still doesn't impress you, even though the total market has been mostly down in the last few years. Come to think of it, not even losing your first job in the market decline of the 1970s shook your faith in total market investing.
Bogle: That's right. But I control risk by way of my bond market exposure—about 70 percent of my assets during recent years. As a result, I've done well, not only over the long-term, but also during the tough years since 1999.
My argument about sector funds isn't about REITs, per se. I could see an investor owning the Vanguard REIT fund, but I don't think they should make it more than 10 percent of his or her portfolio. No one should get overexposed to any one sector, and I'd be especially cautious when that sector is hot. My advice about indexing runs counter to those who are trying to build an investment advisory business. When their clients realize that total market indexing is best in the long run, it won't be long before they start asking, "What do I need you for?"
Portfolio: Speaking of people waking up, why do you suppose it is that people still buy most mutual funds when, as you have said, they cost too much and underperform?
Bogle: It's "the triumph of hope over experience," to quote Dr. Samuel Johnson. "Hope springs eternal in the human breast," as Alexander Pope said. No amount of evidence, it seems, can destroy that deeply ingrained part of the human psyche.
Portfolio: What are the biggest changes you've seen in 50 years of investing? Is anything being lost that is worth preserving?
Bogle: The most important single thing that's been lost is the notion of long-term investing. Three billion shares change hands every day. It didn't used to be like that.
Portfolio: Have any positive developments during your career made things better for investors?
Bogle: That's such a great question. Under pressure, mutual fund sales charges have in fact come down–from 7 percent or 8 percent in the 1950s and 1960s to 3 percent to 5 percent today. However, that reduction gets obfuscated by the games funds play with A, B, and C share classes—what I call "alphabet soup" shares.
Also, there's infinitely more information about the mutual fund industry available now. There are many articles in the press. And Morningstar is a wonderful service. It arms investors with all the information they need. With all the data available, however, it's too bad that people focus largely on recent performance. When they use the wrong information, they make the wrong decisions. "With all thy getting, get wisdom," as the saying goes.
The market is more liquid now and there are an infinite variety of mutual funds out there, but to what avail? What we need is a healthy dose of long-term investing.
Portfolio: As you look ahead, are you hopeful or pessimistic and why?
Bogle: I'm an eternal optimist. I always have been. I'm an idealist. Mankind will move in the direction of what's better, not worse. Right after September 11, the front page of The Times of London carried a photo of the remaining shards of the Twin Towers with the headline "Good Will Triumph Over Evil" written underneath. I had it framed and put it right outside my office.
Information is getting out about the high cost of mutual funds and the folly of dreamed-up sector funds. There's not a scintilla of evidence that active managers do better than indexing which is now one-sixth of all equity fund assets. That's truly remarkable growth. Things are moving in the right direction. Investors may ignore their own economic self-interest for my lifetime, or even yours, but they won't ignore their own economic interests forever.
I'm also optimistic we'll get an improvement in fund governance. We're making progress on putting the interests of shareholders first. In 10 or 20 years, this industry will be a much better place for investors to entrust their hard-earned savings.
Portfolio: What was it like for you personally to be a low-cost distributor? Did you take abuse or personal slights from others in the industry?
Bogle: I know a lot of people don't like my message but I'm too busy to notice what they say about me. But I'll tell you one story. A few years ago, I was in the audience at a meeting of the Investment Company Institute (ICI) when the speaker, an industry leader, named Vanguard and Bogle as the forces that were most hurting the industry. He said, "the problem with Bogle is not that he's a communist, he's a Bolshevik." I went up to him afterwards, smiled, shook his hand, and said, "I really appreciate the compliment. Around the office, they call me a fascist."
It's only a slight exaggeration when I say that at recent ICI meetings, most people who've been in the business 25 years or more don't even make eye contact with me. But the younger people, with unbelievable frequency, tell me that I'm their hero, and that they wish their firm could be more like Vanguard.
Portfolio: You have some things in common with Bill McGowan, the man who founded MCI and started the low-cost revolution in the long-distance business. He was a low-cost distributor, a visionary, and, like you, he had a heart transplant.
Bogle: I met him once in Washington after his transplant. This was long before I started thinking about one for myself. Contrary to what you might have heard, not all revolutionaries need heart transplants. Not much changed for me after my operation in 1996. I want to build a better financial America. Making our nation's values felt abroad depends on a strong capitalistic system that builds strong economic power. I want to leave things better than I found them.
But we're all sinners and I'm still the same flawed human being I always have been—the same old Bogle. But my career has been an unalloyed joy. I don't worry about the future. Nothing keeps me awake at night. There's no way other mutual fund firms can compete with Vanguard on price, and therefore on long-term performance.
Portfolio: You're 75 now, an age when most people are retired. But you're on the road, giving as many as four speeches in a day, speaking out on important issues like corporate governance and mutual fund reforms. What keeps you working? What gets you out of bed in the morning?
Bogle: The joy of living another day. Seeing the sun rise and set. The joy of contributing to society. The joy of my family. What means more to me than all the accolades, all the awards, and all the honorary degrees bestowed upon me, are the letters I get from individual shareholders expressing their appreciation. They followed my advice. They got their fair share of the markets' returns. They are absolutely convinced that their lives are better for what we've done for them. I get letters like that about every day. If that thrill doesn't get you out of bed in the morning, then you're a sad piece of work.
