Brokers everywhere will tell you that small investors should buy index funds—meaning those of us with less than a billion to buy their valuable time and attention. Message from New York City to us: “Rest your pretty little heads—stop reading financial reports and analyzing stocks. Buy index funds. Average is good enough for the likes of you.”

And when the average is negative for eight years, do they change their tune? Heck no… they still tell people index funds are what smart people buy. My foot.

I’ve met hundreds of people who invest in index funds, but I have yet to meet a person who did it without being talked into it by some combination of insults and funny math. Add in phony comparisons to “funds in general” rather than to individuals making particular stock choices, lack of better alternative choices in the company 401 (k), or deep insecurity.

For every other kind of fund, investors at least make a decision to buy based on some rational footing—“this fund has earned 16% a year, that one earned 10%. I’ll take the one that does better.” Or, “this fund is 40% in bonds, so it’s got more safety built in, and I prefer its steady performance to the risk of the other one.”

The reasons may involve errors. Notoriously, funds that have done best one year have an embarrassing tendency to consort with the laggards the next. But I’ve found that investors’ decisions are still respectable efforts at taking responsibility, which I admire. And when it comes to investors buying stocks one-by-one instead of shopping for fund managers, a whole lot of thought goes into the process, as I have discovered from talking to investors.

When it comes to index funds, though, it’s usually a case of being embarrassed into it by some sharpie who implies we’re all too stupid to do any better. Or that we’re too small to compete against institutions that know everything first. Nobody can beat the market, so just buy the market, the aloof pro says to the poor little sucker. And boy have investors gone for it.

I should add that I have also met hundreds of people who made money in stocks, and not a one of them has ever told me it was thanks to buying index funds. Some made money in areas I don’t know and wouldn’t succeed in myself, like Canadian junior golds. Others did it in growth, value, tech, dividends, buying naked puts to accumulate blue chips…

But Wall Street and the newspaper from the same city want us in indexes. They are evidently winning the war against the public’s lack of self-confidence.

This chart was just released by Standard and Poor’s last week. It shows $1.4 trillion dollars in S&P 500 index funds. S&P puts total index fund investments at $1.7 trillion, which includes mid-cap and small-cap and other index funds as well as the S&P 500. Wait a minute; let me put all those digits in front of you… $1,700,000,000,000.00. The words make it seem so tiny. It’s not.

This does not even include the stealth indexing that goes on. A number of mutual funds pretend to be actively managed but actually shadow the S&P 500 by heavily investing in the larger S&P 500 companies.

This chart makes an interesting contrarian indicator. Index investing peaked in 1999, the last full year of the 1990s bull market. But if it appears that investors wisely got out of funds in 2000, looks are deceiving. If everyone froze and left their money in place, adding none, the 2000 bar would have been a fourth lower than the 1999 bar. This small drop means that investors were still adding money to index funds as the market fell. Probably because the market fell—everything else was suddenly confusing.

Then, indexing was least popular in 2002, when astute investors were setting up for a breakout bull market that began early in 2003. Anyone who bought index funds in 2002 did much better the following 12 months than anyone who bought them during the peak years.

Now, indexing is extremely popular again. I certainly hope the current high interest in indexing doesn’t foreshadow a 2000-style breakdown. It’s more likely, though, that the current popularity has to do with the market’s lack of direction.

Should you be in index funds?

Well, if your plan is to match the market over a very long term and you don’t want to work, sure. But don’t overestimate what the market returns. The U.S. average from 1802 to 2002 was 9.2%. Early data are a little shaky in places regarding dividends, but another study of returns from 1900 to 2000 (Triumph of the Optimists, Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Stanton, Princeton University Press, 2002) makes the case more clearly. Total returns were 10.1% average per year, and returns minus dividends were only 5.4% a year.

At that pace, considering the modern low dividends, investors should not expect anything close to the 12% a year they’ve heard investing pays—at least not from floating on the lazy river of index funds. I wouldn’t count on anything higher than 6% total for the long-term index return for the next many years. Even that’s optimistic.

And want to hear the ultimate comeuppance to index investing? It’s hard to be above average, but not so impossible as you’ve been told. The Vanguard S&P 500 index fund was launched in 1976. At the time, there were 308 mutual funds included in Forbes annual fund survey. Several have gone out of business or been merged into other funds. Even so, 29% of those funds beat the S&P 500 over these past 32 years. That’s far too much to be an accident.

The takeaway lesson here:

• The media are still pushing a bad idea. Without dividends, investors will be lucky to average 6% a year over a decade of investing in index funds. And that’s before any inflation.

• What’s more, the market enters a prolonged bear market about every third decade. It typically takes 10-15 years of investing to overcome the losses from a prolonged bear market if you enter at the peak of the previous bull market and do not own or buy any market-beating stocks during the bear market.

• Plenty of funds have beaten the market in the long run. Academic studies are set up to exclude them.

Respectfully,

Lynn Carpenter

Source: They’ve Got a Lot of Nerve

David Dreman made one of the greatest calls in stock market history. In 1980, Dreman told investors to buy stocks.

Dreman didn’t just tell a few clients or friends to buy stocks. He literally wrote the book on buying stocks in 1980. He called it Contrarian Investment Strategies. And he said, “The stock market appears cheap by nearly every historical standard.”

Saying “buy stocks” was bold stuff. Stocks hadn’t made money in 17 years. But Dreman was absolutely right. After 17 years of losses, the stock market started the longest bull run in recorded history, which stretched from 1982 until 2000.

Fast forward to 2008. Dreman is guarded, but optimistic again. In the upcoming issue of Forbes (dated May 5) he says: “Frightening as the markets look today, there will come a time when the liquidity crisis ends and today’s prices for bank stocks look, in retrospect, like bargains.”

———- Advertisement ———-
BANNED ON WALL STREET

Dr. George Huang – a PhD trader and former VC – has uncovered a small subsection of the financial markets offering tremendous returns – and which Wall Street CANNOT touch.

According to Dr. Huang’s 8-year back-testing study, this small group of 69 companies outperformed the NASDAQ 6-to-1 over an 18 month period.

For more information, click here.
———————————–

Today we have a unique opportunity to invest with David Dreman. It’s not often that you can get in with one of history’s great investment managers at 85 cents on the dollar… and potentially pocket more than 60% gains in two years. But we can today, through the Dreman Value Income Edge Fund (DHG).

Dreman’s fund is a safe play. It pays 11.67 cents a month in dividends ($1.40 per year). Always has. As of the end of April, the fund’s price was $13.69, so the dividend yield on the fund is over 10%.

Interestingly, the actual value of the stocks and bonds the fund holds is $16.07 per share (as of the end of April). So by buying in at $13.69, we’re able to buy in at a 15% discount.

Dreman’s Value Income Edge Fund is a bit of a strange beast…

The goal of the fund is maximum returns with minimum variability. That’s exactly the way I want to invest. Dreman isn’t just sitting in stocks, waiting for them to go up. To achieve his goal, Dreman invests in a unique way…

He invests roughly 65% in bonds and 65% in stocks. You’re probably thinking, “That math doesn’t add up.” You’re right. David balances it out with a 30% “short” position in stocks.

David splits his stock positions: half long, half short. And sometimes he borrows a little bit of money to leverage his gains. So he has three strategies going on at once… an income strategy (bonds), a “long” strategy, and a “short” strategy.

The goal, of course, is to minimize risk.

The income strategy portion helps pay the big dividend. The stock strategy – where David buys extremely undervalued stocks – will provide significant gains when the market gets going again. And the short strategy should continually add a few percentage points per year to our returns.

So here’s how we get to 60% in two years…

So if we could buy today at $13.69, and realize $22.44 (that’s $19.44 plus $3 of dividends), we’d make more than 60% – safely – in two years.

Dreman can do better than that. With nearly four decades of experience, he knows what he’s doing.

It’s not often we can buy David Dreman’s management for 85 cents on the dollar – and earn a 10% dividend yield. So you ought to consider the Dreman Value Income Edge Fund today… with the conservative goal of earning a safe return of 60% over the next two years.

Better yet, you should consider our Monthly Dividend Program. Right now, Dreman’s Value Income Edge Fund is in our Monthly Dividend Program’s Top 10 list… along with nine more of the best high-yield opportunities that will pay you monthly dividend checks.

Good investing,

Steve

P.S. Funds like Dreman’s are one of the great tools of the Monthly Dividend Program. It’s a quick course that provides a list of the 10 best monthly income opportunities in the world and teaches you how to find other opportunities for yourself. Click here for the details on how to sign up.

Will it be a V-shaped recession – short, shallow and followed by a rapid return to normal rates of growth? Will it be U-shaped, in which the initial downturn is followed by a protracted period of weak growth and a slow return to the trend rate? Or could it even be an L-shaped recession – with economic weakness lasting for many years, as in the US during the Great Depression or Japan in the 1990s?

“The newspaper headlines may be negative, but sentiment is not,” says Bill Bonner in The Daily Reckoning.

“Most people think this is a good time to buy a house — meaning, they still think ‘you can’t go wrong in property.’ And stocks at 20 times earnings are no bargains. At real bottoms, you can buy stocks at 5 to 8 times earnings.

“At real bottoms, people have stopped looking for bottoms. Our old friend Marc Faber sent a convenient list of quotations from the crash of ‘29. A chart of the market action looks like a mountainside, with ledges…followed by more sharp downturns. But on each ledge…at each pause on the way down…there was some notable figure telling the world that it was over.

“We ain’t seen nothing yet. When we get a real bottom, they won’t be talking at all – they will have lost interest. That’s what happens. When we get a real bottom, people won’t be interested in buying stocks; they’ll come to regard stocks as a rich man’s game. And they will once again view houses as a consumer item, not an asset class. As for depression…they won’t need the newspapers to tell them how bad things are.

“We think that day is coming. How far out it is, we don’t know. As we often say, we don’t have a crystal ball.”

Read on at Dow Jones MarketWatch.

“No matter what you think, now is the time to buy,” says value investor Chris Mayer.

“At the beginning of recessions, investors tend to continue buying the stocks that were acting well when the economy was growing. That means momentum stocks, or stocks that have gone up. But as you get into the recession, people start to think about valuation again. Momentum stuff starts to not make sense.”