Investment Insights Podcast – What Indicators Are Indicating

miller_podcast_graphicBill Miller, Chief Investment Officer

On this week’s podcast (recorded February 18, 2016), Bill comments on what the leading indicators are showing in terms of the stability of the economy and if a recession is likely:

What we like: Leading indicators, published by Department of Commerce, are out and are important in understanding chances of recession; so far, indicators are showing a healthy economy with no recession likely at least in the next six months; stability in oil prices helping to calm the markets; China is actively supporting their economy

What we don’t like: We still need to hear about the ECB exposure to bad loans in China; need more clarity if the Fed will raise rates in March; there’s enough global trauma out there to make raising rates seem unwise

What we’re doing about it: Monitoring this rally period between now and the spring as economic activity is decent; may look to take longer tactical positions

Click here to listen to the audio recording

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Investment Insights Podcast – Hope Springs Eternal

miller_podcast_graphicBill Miller, Chief Investment Officer

On this week’s podcast (recorded February 11, 2016), Bill addresses the current market climate and why there is reason to remain hopeful:

What we don’t like: Stocks are down around 10% in general; European stock markets are down even more; Asian markets down the most; it’s a tough environment for investors

What we like: We don’t believe this is a long-term bear market and don’t see a recession hitting the U.S.; labor and wages are positive; auto and housing is good as well; economy seems sturdy despite volatile market behavior; China poised to finalize five-year plan including lowering corporate tax rates and addressing government debt levels; ECB should start to show more support for its major banks

What we’re doing about it: Most of the damage is done; more sensible to see what we should buy or rotate into; hedged pretty fully in tactical products; staying the course in more strategic products

Click here to listen to the audio recording

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Investment Insights Podcast – Why So Shaky, Markets?

miller_podcast_graphicBill Miller, Chief Investment Officer

On this week’s podcast (recorded January 7, 2016), Bill lends some insight into why markets have started the year so volatile, and what that means for the long-term outlook.

Two themes are at the heart of the current market weakness: (1) Chinese government has meddled too much with its market and currency and (2) Central banks have kept interest rates too low for too long.


  • Stock prices are two to three times more expensive relative to Germany, U.S., Japan and others
  • China halted trading (twice) so investor’s couldn’t get to their investments, causing panicked behavior among investors
  • Officials manipulated down the value of the yuan in an effort to stimulate exports, creating more fear in investors
  • Things must be weak enough where officials think that they have to stimulate exports

Central Banks

  • Central banks around the world have kept interest rates near zero, but now that is shifting
  • U.S. has raised rates and there is talk of raising them again in 2016; but Europe and Japan remain at near-zero levels, creating a credibility issue
  • Investors now questioning why U.S. is going in one direction and Europe and Japan in another, and what that means to their investments

The combination of Chinese market manipulation and central bank credibility is surely causing fear, and perhaps some irrational investing, but it’s important to temper those voices. While the current volatility may take some time to pass, it feels more like a market correction and less of a large-scale economic issue.

Click here to listen to the audio recording

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Five Answers for the Voices in Your Head

Crosby_2015Dr. Daniel Crosby, Executive Director, The Center for Outcomes

Many investors are waking up this morning to the unsettling realization that trading was halted in China last night after another precipitous market drop. When paired with rumors of hydrogen bomb testing in North Korea, the recent acts of domestic terrorism and a long-in-the-tooth bull market, it can all be a little frightening and overwhelming.

It’s at a time like this that it’s best to temper the catastrophic voices in our head with some research-based truths about how financial markets work.

For each of the rash, fear-induced common thoughts below (in bold), we have countered with a dose of realism:

“It’s been a good run, but it’s time to get out.”
From 1926 to 1997, the worst market outcome at any one year was pretty scary, -43.3%; but consider how time changes the equation—the worst return of any 25-year period was 5.9% annualized. Take it from the Rolling Stones: “Time is on my side, yes it is.”

“I can’t just stand here!”
In his book, What Investors Really Want, behavioral economist Meir Statman cites research from Sweden showing that the heaviest traders lose 4% of their account value each year. Across 19 major stock exchanges, investors who made frequent changes trailed buy-and-hold investors by 1.5% a year. Your New Year’s resolution may be to be more active in 2016, but that shouldn’t apply to the market.

“If I time this just right…”
As Ben Carlson relates in A Wealth of Common Sense, “A study performed by the Federal Reserve…looked at mutual fund inflows and outflows over nearly 30 years from 1984 to 2012. Predictably, they found that most investors poured money into the markets after large gains and pulled money out after sustaining losses—a buy high, sell low debacle of a strategy.” Everyone knows to buy low and sell high, but very few put it into practice. Will you?

“I don’t want to bother my advisor.”
Vanguard’s Advisor’s Alpha study did an excellent job of quantifying the value added (in basis points) of many of the common activities performed by an advisor, and the results may surprise you. They found that the greatest value provided by an advisor was behavioral coaching, which added 150 bps per year, far greater than any other activity. At times like this is why investors have advisors so don’t be afraid to call them for advice and support.

Since 1928, the U.S. economy has been in recession about 20% of the time and has still managed to compound wealth at a dramatic clip. What’s more, we have never gone more than ten years at any time without at least one recession. Now, we are not currently in a recession, but you could expect between 10 and 15 in your lifetime. The sooner you can reconcile yourself to the inevitability of volatility, the faster you will be able to take advantage of all the good that markets do.

Brinker Capital understands that investing for the long-term can be daunting, especially during a time like this, but we are focused on providing investment solutions, like the Personal Benchmark program, that help investors manage the emotions of investing to achieve their unique financial goals.

For more of what not to do during times of market volatility, click here.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Has Quantitative Easing Worked? A Two-Part Blog Series Perspective (Part II)

Solomon-(2)Brad Solomon, Junior Investment Analyst

Part two in a two-part blog series discussing quantitative easing measures on a domestic and global scale. Part one published last week.

Transmission to Main Street has been dubious.

The Fed’s FRB/US model, which is the workhorse behind quantifying QE’s transmission mechanisms into the general economy, forecasted a 0.2 percentage-point drop in unemployment over a 2-year time horizon as a result of a $500 billion LSAP, according to then-Fed governor Stein in 2012. Given that the cumulative scale of QE in the U.S. totaled around $4 trillion over about 4.4 years, excluding intermittent periods between buying sprees, the FRB/US model would then forecast a reduction in unemployment of 1.6 percentage points. (This assumes that there are no marginally diminishing returns to QE dollars.) Building in a “lag” of six months, the actual U.S. unemployment rate fell by 4.0 percentage points during this period and currently hovers near 5%, right above what is often pegged as the natural rate of unemployment. To what extent that reduction is due to QE, though, is very difficult to answer—there is no “control subject” in real-world experiments. The next-best-option is the event study that looks at variables prior to and following some stimulus, although this risks blending the effect with some other variable. While unemployment has fallen near its natural rate, anecdotal evidence speaks to widespread underemployment

Other metrics look either ambiguous or decidedly impressive. Across the U.S., U.K., Eurozone, and Japan, industrial production growth has been significantly more volatile than it was pre-recession; unemployment has fallen, with exception of the Eurozone where it has marched further upward after a double-dip recession in 2013; household saving as a percent of disposable income has come down substantially. Lack of healthy inflation has proven to be the fly in the ointment. Nearly 30 countries have explicitly adopted inflation targeting (around half of those in the last 15 years), but the majority continue to be plagued by nagging disinflation or outright deflation. Consider the poster child Japan who pioneered QE over the 2001-2006 period in its commitment to purchase $3-6 trillion in Japanese government bonds (JGBs) per month until core CPI became “stably above zero.” While the Bank of Japan wrapped up with the program in March 2006 after witnessing year-over-year core CPI in Japan clock in just above zero for three consecutive months, this was more of a mathematical win. Headline inflation over the period picked up solely due to a rapid rise in the price of crude oil, which arguably has little connection to monetary policy. This is not to say that some commentators have not already called for an indefinite deflationary environment, or that QE’s effects on the money supply don’t appear ambiguous.

Getting back to using the U.S. as an example, income growth has not followed the drop in unemployment, and inequality has persisted. Annualized growth rates since 2010 have been near zero and well below their long-term averages, and the lack of growth is particularly pronounced in the lower income quintiles.


On another front, record-low mortgage rates are undoubtedly a product of QE but have not translated into pre-2008 home buying, even in the presence of rising FICO scores and real home prices that are hovering around their 10-year trailing average. In fairness to QE, though, there simply seems to be a lack of a relationship between the cost of borrowing money to buy a home, and the demand for borrowing that money, as evidenced by the chart below.


QE’s efficacy seems to have varied case-by-case, and there is a growing consensus that there are diminishing marginal returns to QE.

Of this last point, Japan and the ECB should take note. While the Bank of Japan refrained from expanding its QE program at its meeting this past Friday above the current $670 billion p.a. rate, such expansion remains on the table for its November and December meetings. A similar decision faces the ECB in December, and the rhetoric of ECB President Mario Draghi has been mostly dovish in tone. (The annual rate of asset purchases by the ECB currently stands at about $816 billion.) While both banks will ultimately adhere to their mandates in trying to combat deflation and negative export growth, perhaps expectations should be set low for how effective further QE will be in meeting those mandates.

Proponents of real business cycle theory would not be surprised at much of the above—that is, that aggressive monetary policy has failed to override a general shift in appetites for home-buying, tepid supply-glut disinflation, reduced appetite by banks to lend, and the preference by businesses towards doing nothing productive with bond issuance besides repurchasing their own equity. These “exogenous” factors may overpower the stimulatory nature of QE, or the problem may be one of model specification. (Getting back to the home sales/mortgage rate example, QE may do its job of lowering borrowing rates, but this may not ultimately stoke home-buying appetites, which is a failure of the assumed indirect transmission mechanism that underlies QE’s founding.) Whatever the case, while it has helped solve short-run liquidity problems by injecting cash into the financial system, QE has proven sub-optimal in terms of being a cure-all to the woe of general economic lethargy.

Further reading

  1. Fawley, Brett & Christopher Neely. “Four Stories of Quantitative Easing.” (2013)
  2. Krishnamurthy, Arvind & Annette Vissing-Jorgensen. “The Ins and Outs of LSAPs.” (2013)
  3. Klyuev, Vladimir et. al. “Unconventional Choices for Unconventional Times.” (2009)
  4. McTeer, Robert. “Why Quantitative Easing May Not Work the Same Way in Europe as in the U.S.” (2015)
  5. Raab, Carolin et. al. “Large-Scale Asset Purchases by Central Banks II: Empirical Evidence.” (2015)
  6. Schuman, Michael. “Does QE Work? Ask Japan.” (2010)
  7. Stein, Jeremy. “Evaluating Large-Scale Asset Purchases.” (2012)
  8. Williams, John. “Monetary Policy at the Zero Lower Bound.” (2014)
  9. Williamson, Stephen D. “Current Federal Reserve Policy Under the Lens of Economic History.” (2015)
  10. Yardeni, Edward & Mali Quintana. “Global Economic Briefing: Central Bank Balance Sheets.” (2015)

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change. Brinker Capital, Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor.

Investment Insights Podcast – October 27, 2015

miller_podcast_graphicBill Miller, Chief Investment Officer

On this week’s podcast (recorded October 27, 2015):

What we like: Tentative budget debt deal between Congress and President should fund government for next several months; better news and business activity out of China; U.S. consumer balance sheet good; wage growth positive; oil prices remain low

What we don’t like: Initial third quarter earnings just OK; some sales misses due to strong dollar and energy; manufacturing sector under great pressure

What we’re doing about it: Slow and steady wins the race; keeping an eye on any recession-related talk

Click here to listen to the audio recording

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change.

Investment Insights Podcast – October 2, 2015

miller_podcast_graphicBill Miller, Chief Investment Officer

On this week’s podcast (recorded October 1, 2015):

What we like: Entering the fourth quarter after a seasonally-weak third quarter; no immediate signs of recession

What we don’t like: Continued weakness in emerging markets (Brazil); China’s slowdown still grabbing headlines

What we’re doing about it: Looking for right entry point into the market

Click here to listen to the audio recording

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change.

Investment Insights Podcast: An Update on The Current Market Environment

Magnotta-Audio-150x126Amy Magnotta, CFASenior Investment Manager, Brinker Capital

On this week’s podcast (recorded September 2), Amy takes the mic to provide an update on the current market environment and how the recent volatility can create opportunity. Highlights include:

  • S&P 500 finished month down 6%; international markets in worse shape
  • 12% correction from high reached in May
  • Still viewing the environment as a correction, not start of a bear market
  • Bear markets typically caused by recessions and tend to be preceded by central bank tightening or accelerating inflation—these conditions aren’t being met yet
  • U.S. growth still positive
  • If Fed begins to tighten in September, the pace will be measured as inflation is still below target
  • Looking for opportunities created by market volatility

Click here to listen to the audio recording.

The views expressed are those of Brinker Capital and are not intended as investment advice or recommendation. For informational purposes only. Holdings are subject to change.

Three Action Steps for a Black Monday

Crosby_2015Dr. Daniel Crosby, Founder, Nocturne Capital

By now you have no doubt heard about what is (sensationally) being referred to as “Black Monday.” Up over 60% YTD just a few short months ago, China now sits in negative territory for the year. Greece and Puerto Rico continue to weigh on investors’ minds and American markets invoked Rule 48 this morning, a seldom-used provision that allows market makers to suspend trading in an effort to smooth volatility and assuage panic.

With bad news seemingly everywhere and situated at the end of a long-in-the-tooth bull market, it’s not hard to see why investors are rattled. But at times like this, it behooves investors to take a deep breath and rely on rules instead of emotions. To assist you in this difficult time, I’ve prepared a handful of “do’s” for worried investors, with the “don’ts” to follow in my next post.

Do Know Your History – Despite what political pundits and TV commentators would have you believe, this is not an unusually scary time to be alive. Although you’d never know it from watching cable, the economy is growing (slowly) and most quality of life statistics (e.g., crime, drug use, teen pregnancy) have been headed in the right direction for years! Markets always have and always will climb a wall of worry, rewarding those who stay the course and punishing those who succumb to fear.

Warren Buffett expressed this beautifully when he said, “In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.” Such it has ever been, thus will it ever be.

Do Take Responsibility – Which of the following do you think is most predictive of financial performance: A) market timing B) investment returns or C) financial behavior? Ask most men or women on the street and they are likely to tell you that timing and returns are the biggest drivers of financial performance, but the research tells another story. In fact, the research says that you – that’s right – you, are the best friend and the worst enemy of your own portfolio.

Over the last 20 years, the market has returned roughly 8.25% per annum, but the average retail investor has kept just over 4% of those gains because of poor investment behavior. What happens in world financial markets in the coming years is absolutely out of your control. But your ability to follow a plan, diversify across asset classes and maintain your composure are squarely within your power. At times when market moves can feel haphazard, it helps to remember who is really in charge.

Do Work with a Professional – Odds are that when you chose your financial advisor, you selected him or her because of his or her academic pedigree, years of experience or a sound investment philosophy. Ironically, what you likely overlooked entirely is the largest value he or she adds—managing your behavior. Studies from sources as diverse as Aon Hewitt, Vanguard and Morningstar put the value added from working with an advisor at 2 to 3% per year. Compound that effect over a lifetime, and the power of financial advice quickly becomes evident.

Vanguard suggests that the benefit of working with an advisor is “lumpy”, that is, the effects of working with an advisor are most pronounced during periods of volatility (like today). They go so far as to break out the impact of the various services provided by an advisor, and while asset management accounts for less than half of one percent, behavioral coaching accounts for fully half of the value provided by working with a professional. Today is the day your financial advisor earns their keep. Don’t be afraid to reach out to your advisor during times of fear and seek reassurance and advice. After all, they are the one’s saving you more money by holding your hand than by managing your money!

Views expressed are for illustrative purposes only. The information was created and supplied by Dr. Daniel Crosby of Nocturne Capital, an unaffiliated third party. Brinker Capital Inc., a Registered Investment Advisor

Monthly Market and Economic Outlook: January 2015

Amy MagnottaAmy Magnotta, CFASenior Investment Manager, Brinker Capital

Despite geopolitical tensions in Russia and the Middle East, the end of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program, weakness in growth abroad, and a significant decline in oil prices, U.S. large cap equities posted solid double-digit gains in 2014. International equity markets lagged U.S. markets, and the spread was exacerbated by the major strength in the U.S. dollar. Despite consensus calling for higher interest rates in 2014, yields fell, helping long-term Treasuries deliver outsized returns of more than 25%. The weakness in energy prices weighed on markets in the fourth quarter, with crude oil prices falling by almost 50%, the type of move we last saw in 2008. However, it wasn’t enough to prevent the S&P 500 from hitting all-time highs again in December. Volatility remained relatively low throughout the year. We did not see more than three consecutive down days for the S&P 500, the fewest on record (Source: Ned Davis Research).

In the U.S., the technology and healthcare sectors were the largest contributors to the S&P 500 return; however, utilities posted the biggest return, gaining more than 28%. Large caps significantly outperformed small caps for the year, despite a big fourth quarter for small caps. The spread between the large cap Russell 1000 Index and small cap Russell 2000 Index was 760 basis points. Growth outperformed value in large caps and small caps, but value outperformed in mid caps due to the strong performance of REITs.

BRICU.S. equities outperformed the rest of the world in 2014. The S&P 500 Index led the MSCI EAFE Index by more than 1,800 basis points, the widest gap since 1997. In local terms, international developed markets were positive, but the strength of the dollar pushed returns negative for U.S. investors. Emerging markets led developed international markets, but results were mixed. Strength in India and China was offset by weakness in Brazil and Russia.

As the Fed continued to taper bond purchases and eventually end quantitative easing in the fourth quarter, expectations were for interest rates to move higher. We experienced the opposite; the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note fell 80 basis points during the year, from 3.0% to 2.2%. Despite a pick-up in economic growth, inflation expectations moved lower. In addition, U.S. sovereign yields still look attractive relative to the rest of the developed world. As a result of the move lower in rates, duration outperformed credit within fixed income. All sectors delivered positive returns for the year, including high-yield credit, which sold off significantly in the fourth quarter due to its meaningful exposure to energy credits.

Our macro outlook remains unchanged. When weighing the positives and the risks, we continue to believe the balance is shifted in favor of the positives over the intermediate term and the global macro backdrop is constructive for risk assets. As a result our strategic portfolios are positioned with an overweight to overall risk. A number of factors should support the economy and markets over the intermediate term.

  • Global monetary policy accommodation: We anticipate the Fed beginning to raise rates in mid-2015, but at a measured pace as inflation remains contained. The ECB is expected to take even more aggressive action to support the European economy, and the Bank of Japan’s aggressive easing program continues.
  • Pickup in U.S. growth: Economic growth improved in the second half of 2014. A combination of strengthening labor markets and lower oil prices are likely to provide the stimulus for stronger-than-expected economic growth.
  • Inflation tame: Inflation in the U.S. remains below the Fed’s 2% target, and inflation expectations have been falling. Outside the U.S., deflationary pressures are rising.
  • U.S. companies remain in solid shape: U.S. companies have solid balance sheets that are flush with cash. Earnings growth has been solid and margins have been resilient.
  • Less uncertainty in Washington: After serving as a major uncertainty over the last few years, Washington has done little damage so far this year. Government spending will shift to a contributor to GDP growth in 2015 after years of fiscal drag.
  • Lower energy prices help consumer: Lower energy prices should benefit the consumer who will now have more disposable income.

However, risks facing the economy and markets remain, including:

  • Timing/impact of Fed tightening: QE ended without a major impact, so concern has shifted to the timing of the Fed’s first interest rate hike. While economic growth has picked up and the labor market has shown steady improvement, inflation measures and inflation expectations remain contained, which should provide the Fed more runway.
  • Slower global growth; deflationary pressures: While growth in the U.S. has picked up, growth outside the U.S. is decidedly weaker. The Eurozone is flirting with recession, and Japan is struggling to create real growth, while both are also facing deflationary pressures. Growth in emerging economies has slowed as well.
  • Geopolitical risks: The geopolitical impact of the significant drop in oil prices, as well as issues in the Middle East and Russia, could cause short-term volatility.
  • Significantly lower oil prices destabilizes global economy: While lower oil prices benefit consumers, significantly lower oil prices for a meaningful period of time are not only negative for the earnings of energy companies, but could put pressure on oil dependent countries, as well as impact the shale revolution in the U.S.

While valuations are close to long-term averages, investor sentiment is in neutral territory, the trend is still positive, and the macro backdrop leans favorable, so we remain positive on equities. In addition, seasonality and the election cycle are in our favor. The fourth quarter tends to be bullish for equities, as well as the 12-month period following mid-term elections. However, we expect higher levels of volatility in 2015.

Our portfolios are positioned to take advantage of continued strength in risk assets, and we continue to emphasize high-conviction opportunities within asset classes, as well as strategies that can exploit market inefficiencies.

Asset Class Outlook Comments
U.S. Equity + Quality bias; overweight vs. Intl
Intl Equity + Country specific
Fixed Income +/- Actively managed
Absolute Return + Benefit from higher volatility
Real Assets +/- Oil stabilizes in 2H15
Private Equity + Later in cycle

Source: Brinker Capital

Views expressed are for informational purposes only. Holdings subject to change. Not all asset classes referenced in this material may be represented in your portfolio. All investments involve risk including loss of principal. Fixed income investments are subject to interest rate and credit risk. Foreign securities involve additional risks, including foreign currency changes, political risks, foreign taxes, and different methods of accounting and financial reporting. Past performance is not a guarantee of similar future results. An investor cannot invest directly in an index.