We’ve all been told that past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but it’s still hard to buy an investment that has been performing poorly. We should remember the historical power of diversification and that even though something may look horrible now, good news may be just around the corner. We also need to remember that whatever is hot today won’t stay that way forever.

Callan Associates updates a “periodic table” annually with the relative performance of 8 major asset classes over the last 20 years. You can find the most recent one at their website Callan.com. The best performing asset class is listed at the top, and it sorts downward until you have the worst performing asset. Here is the most recent snapshot of 1998-2017:

The Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns conveys the strong case for diversification across asset classes (stocks vs. bonds), investment styles (growth vs. value), capitalizations (large vs. small), and equity markets (U.S. vs. non-U.S.). The Table highlights the uncertainty inherent in all capital markets. Rankings change every year. Also noteworthy is the difference between absolute and relative performance, as returns for the top-performing asset class span a wide range over the past 20 years.

I find it easiest to focus on a specific asset class (Color) and then visually noting how its relative performance bounces around. Last year, I noted that Emerging Markets (Orange) and MSCI World ex-US (Light Grey) have been near the bottom for a while and I was still holding them and waiting for them to bounce back. In 2017, my diversification and patience paid off and they were indeed at the top again.

E-Trade’s newest commercials (remember the baby?) have the basic premise of (1) you don’t have enough money and (2) to solve this, you should open an E-Trade brokerage account. The Super Bowl commercial was more specific: Don’t be 85 years old and #stillworkin. Here’s the full commercial from YouTube:

There are many things that can make up your net worth: cash savings, primary residence, car, IRA, taxable bonds, or private business interest. Visual Capitalist has a infographic called What Assets Make Up Wealth? that shows how this mix changes with net worth. The data is taken from the 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances.

Some overall observations:

• As net worth increases, the following components tend to make up a smaller percentage of the pie: liquid cash, primary residence, and vehicles.
• As net worth increases, the following components tend to make up a larger percentage of the pie: taxable investments (stocks, bonds, mutual funds) and business interests.
• Most multi-millionaires have business interests as the biggest component of their net worth.

I noticed a few unique quirks in the trends. At the $100k level, primary residence has its biggest share among all of the tiers. Perhaps as you go from the $10k to $100k, you are more likely to own a home and thus it temporarily becomes a bigger component of the picture.

At the $1 million level, pensions/IRAs have their biggest share among all of the tiers. Perhaps above that level, more of your net worth goes into taxable investments. Due to contribution limits, it is hard to hold more than a certain amount in tax-sheltered IRA and pension accounts.

At the $1 billion level, perhaps my eyes are deceiving me, but it appears that the vehicles sliver is nearly twice as wide than for the $10 million level. If a $10 million household has 1% in vehicles, that works out to $100,000. Okay, that’s a Mercedes S-Class or Tesla Model X. If a $1 billion household has 2% in vehicles, that’s $20 million in vehicles! Wow, those $10 million households now seem really tight! It takes a lot more money before they let loose and splurge on some fun toys.

For many songwriters and musicians, their primary asset is the rights to their music. Instead of a house, they have intellectual property. Every time their song is bought for a film, streamed online, or aired on TV they receive a royalty payment for the rest of their lives + 70 years. But what if the artist wanted a lump sum? They would usually sell their rights privately. Royalty Exchange is an online marketplace that aims to do this via public auction instead.

Until recently, you probably never had the opportunity to own income-producing intellectual property. That’s where Royalty Exchange comes in. We’re a marketplace where these types of royalty assets are bought and sold. We specialize in intellectual property with a documented track record of regular, consistent income.

You can view their live and closed listings here. Past auctions include works by Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Jay Z, Dr. Dre, Chris Brown, and Earth, Wind and Fire. You could have bought rights to “Elmo’s Song” from Sesame Street or Wiz Khalifa and Charlie Puth’s “See You Again” (Fast and Furious 7 soundtrack). I wonder if you get paid from any of the 3 billion YouTube views?

You do not need to be an accredited investor, but know that most auctions have ended between $10,000 and $100,000. Often, you are only bidding on a percentage of the complete royalty stake. Royalties are generally paid to you on a quarterly or biannual basis. There may be admin fees charged that vary per listing.

I like the idea of receiving an lifetime income stream, but I am not nearly familiar enough with the music industry to invest in royalties of individual artists or songs. You would think the artist has much more information than you. If they thought their income was going to decrease from the current level, wouldn’t they be much more likely to sell than if they thought income would stay high. I suppose you could say this for any business sale, though.

I’d also worry that the income stream wouldn’t be very reliable as songs go in and out of fashion quickly. The starting yields appear to be in the 10% to 15% range (i.e. $10k to $15k earned last year on a $100,000 investment) at least partially in consideration of this risk. Perhaps these sales are more about risk reduction for the artists.

For a music insider, royalties might be a nice non-correlated asset. But for me, this would be more of a consumer purchase than an investment. It’s fun to look through the listings and imagine owning the rights to a lesser-known song of a favorite artist.

Investment advisory firm Research Affiliates has an interactive Asset Allocation tool that provides estimates of expected returns for many different asset classes and model portfolios. Their default model is based on valuations like the CAPE (cyclically adjusted PE, or Shiller PE) ratio that divides the current price by 10 years worth of earnings. If you believe that valuations like price/earnings and price/book matter, then this database helps show you what is relatively “cheap” or “expensive” in such terms.

Here’s an updated snapshot of expected returns for several major asset classes, as of January 2018. Click to enlarge.

You can see that Emerging Markets and Developed International (EAFA or Europe, Australasia and the Far East) have the highest current expected return. This is explored more in-depth in their article CAPE Fear: Why CAPE Naysayers Are Wrong. Here’s a chart that summarizes their position:

Takeaways:

• US stocks are still relatively expensive based on historical values. Future 10-year expected average returns are around 1% above inflation.
• Broad US (Core) Bonds, Long-term US Treasuries, Short-Term Treasuries, and TIPS are all expected to have low forward returns. Their low current yields offer little alternative.
• Emerging Markets stocks, Developed International (EAFA) stocks, and Emerging Markets bonds (both local currency) are relative bright spots with the highest future expected returns.

These numbers are not very useful as a timing to jump in and out of something. The US has been highly valued for a couple years, yet returns for those last two years have also been quite high. However, Research Affiliates maintains that CAPE and similar valuation tools are a powerful predictor of long-term market returns.

I like holding both US and international stocks in my personal portfolio, and I have been slightly overweight emerging markets for a decade. Emerging markets have been hurting my overall returns for a while now, but knowing that they are “cheap” makes it easier to keep holding them in the hopes of riding the next upward wave. Of course, I’m holding onto my US stocks as well.

p.s. The most recent GMO letter by Jeremy Grantham also puts Emerging Markets as the “single reasonably-priced asset class”.

It is well-known that the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK) is Warren Buffett, and that its long-term performance has crushed the S&P 500. This is usually illustrated with an impressive chart like this one from Business Insider:

I’m currently reading A Man for All Markets by Edward Thorp. Among his many impressive accomplishments, Thorp even managed to be an early investor in Berkshire Hathaway. However, an ongoing theme in the book is that edges don’t last forever. He includes a chart in his book about how the performance gap between BRK and the S&P 500 has narrowed over time (I added the pink highlighting):

The book states that the dates were chosen when “the price graphs suggested that they were natural divisions”. Now, even Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger have stated upfront that future returns for Berkshire will be much more modest than in the past. Their current asset size is simply too large. Of course, they still maintain they’ll do just fine, otherwise they’d just give up (or at least pay a dividend). It will be interesting how their edge holds up in the future.

Disclosure: My investment portfolio is predominantly invested in indexed and low-cost funds, but I do hold some Berkshire Hathaway shares in my 5% “play money” portfolio of individual stocks and marketplace real-estate investments. I still want to go to a BRK shareholder meeting in Omaha one of these years.

Here’s another stat to add to your knowledge. For roughly half of Americans, the stock market’s record highs don’t help at all, according to a recent Washington Post article. This chart shows that half of US household have no exposure to stocks, either directly or indirectly:

Direct vs. indirect. The academic paper by Dr. Wolff of NYU was a bit confusing with their terminology. From what I read, “direct” stock ownership means owning individual shares of stock. “Indirect” stock ownership includes “mutual funds, trusts, or various pension accounts”. Here, the term “pension accounts” include defined contribution accounts like IRAs, 401(k), and 403(b) plans. However, assets in defined benefit plans, which is the more traditional definition of the term “pensions”, are not included under “pension accounts”. Social Security is also excluded. Got that?

In theory, you don’t need to own stocks to have a comfortable retirement. You could have a mix of other resources like Social Security, private company pension plan, bank deposits, bonds, whole life insurance, commercial property, residential rental property, and so on. However, I’m willing to bet there is a healthy correlation between owning one and owning multiple forms of these productive assets.

Financial freedom means owning enough productive assets to get off the treadmill of work, spend, work, spend. I know there are probably good reasons why many people have trouble finding the money to invest in stocks. I don’t have an easy fix. However, one small tip for those on the margin is to get that spark and start viewing such assets with desire. The same desire as a nicer car or kitchen remodel. I get excited when I buy another chunk of VTI or VXUS. Others get excited when they acquire another rental property. Find a way to start your snowball.