Naked Economics: Undressing the Dismal Science pdfdrive com

Save. Invest. Repeat. Let’s return to the most basic idea in this chapter: Capital
is scarce. This is the only reason that any kind of investing yields returns. If you
have spare capital, then someone will pay you to use it. But you’ve got to have
the spare capital first, and the only way to generate spare capital is to spend less
than you earn—i.e., save. The more you save, and the sooner you begin saving
it, the more rent you can command from the financial markets. Any good book
on personal finance will dazzle you with the virtues of compound interest.
Suffice it here to note that Albert Einstein is said to have called it the greatest
invention of all time.
The flip side, of course, is that if you are spending more cash than you earn,
then you will have to “rent” the difference somewhere. And you will have to pay
for that privilege. Paying the rent on capital is no different from paying the rent

---

on anything else: It is an expense that crowds out other things you may want to
consume later. The cost of living better in the present is living less well in the
future. Conversely, the payoff for living frugally in the present is living better in
the future. So for now, set aside questions about whether your 401(k) should be
in stocks or bonds. The first step is far more simple: Save early, save often, and
pay off the credit cards.
Take risk, earn reward. Okay, now we’ll talk about whether your 401(k) should
be in stocks or bonds. Suppose you have capital to rent, and you are deciding
between two options: lending it to the federal government (a treasury bond), or
lending it to your neighbor Lance, who has been tinkering in his basement for
three years and claims to have invented an internal combustion engine that runs
on sunflower seeds. Both the federal government and your neighbor Lance are
willing to pay you 6 percent interest on the loan. What to do? Unless Lance has
photos of you in a compromising position, you should buy the government bond.
The sunflower combustion engine is a risky proposition; the government bond is
not. Lance may eventually attract the capital necessary to build his invention, but
not by offering a 6 percent return. Riskier investments must offer a higher
expected return in order to attract capital. That is not some arcane law of
finance; it is simply markets at work. No rational person will invest money
somewhere when he or she can earn the same expected return with less risk
somewhere else.
The implication for investors is clear: You will be compensated for taking
more risk. Thus, the more risky your portfolio, the higher your return—on
average. Yes, it’s that pesky concept of “average” again. If your portfolio is
risky, it also means that some very bad things will occasionally happen. Nothing
encapsulates this point better than an old headline in the Wall Street Journal:
“Bonds Let You Sleep at Night but at a Price.”
11
The story examined stock and
bond returns from 1945 to 1997. Over that period, a portfolio of 100 percent
stocks earned an average annual return of 12.9 percent; a portfolio of 100
percent bonds earned a relatively meager 5.8 percent average annual return over
the same period. So you might ask yourself, who are the chumps holding bonds?
Not so fast. The same story then examined how the different portfolios
performed in their worst years. The stock portfolio lost 26.5 percent of its value
in its worst year; the bond portfolio never lost more than 5 percent of its value in
a single bad year. Similarly, the stock portfolio had negative annual returns eight
times between 1945 and 1997; the bond portfolio lost money only once. The
bottom line: Risk is rewarded—if you have a tolerance for it.

---

That brings us back to the Harvard endowment, which lost about a third of its
value during the 2008 financial crisis. And Yale lost a quarter of its endowment
in one year alone. Meanwhile, over the same stretch of dismal economic
circumstances, my mother-in-law earned about a 3 percent return by keeping
nearly all of her assets in certificates of deposit and a checking account. Is my
mother-in-law an investment genius? Should Harvard have directed more of its
assets to a giant checking account? No and no. My mother-in-law always keeps
her assets in safe but low-yielding investments because she has a small appetite
for risk. She is protected when times are bad; of course, that also means that if
the stock market posts an 18 percent gain one year, she earns…3 percent.
Meanwhile, Harvard and Yale and other schools with large endowments earned
enormous returns during the boom years by taking large risks and making
relatively illiquid investments. (Liquidity is the reflection of how quickly and
predictably something can be turned into cash. Illiquid investments, like rare art
or Venezuelan corporate bonds, must pay a premium to compensate for this
drawback; of course, when you need to get rid of them quickly to raise cash, it’s
a problem.) These institutions pay an occasional price for their aggressive
portfolios, but those bumps should be more than offset in the long run with
returns that are a heck of a lot better than a certificate of deposit. Most
important, the endowments are different than the typical investor planning for
college or retirement; their investment horizon is theoretically infinite, meaning
that they can afford some really bad years, or even decades, if it maximizes
returns over the next one hundred or two hundred years (although both Harvard
and Yale have had to make serious budget cuts lately to make up for lost
endowment revenue). Yale President Richard Levin told the Wall Street Journal,
“We made huge excess returns on the way up. When it’s all over and things
stabilize I think we’ll find the overall long-run performance [of the endowment]
is better than if we didn’t.”
12
I suspect he’s right, but that doesn’t necessarily
make it a wise strategy for my mother-in-law.