Advice for Small Stock Market Gamblers

 Tim Harford in The FT

The pages of the Financial Times are not usually a place for legends about ancient gods, but perhaps I can be indulged in sharing one with a lesson to teach us all. 

More than a century ago, Odin, All-father, greatest of the Norse gods, went to his wayward fellow god Loki, and put him in charge of the stock market. Odin told Loki that he could do whatever he wanted, on condition that across each and every 30-year period, he ensured that the market would offer average annual returns between 7 and 11 per cent. If he flouted this rule, Odin would tie Loki under a serpent whose fangs would drip poison into Loki’s eyes from now until Ragnarök. 

Loki is notoriously malevolent, and no doubt would love to take the wealth of retail investors and set it on fire, if he could. But when faced with such a — shall we say binding? — constraint, what damage could he really do? 

He could do plenty, says Andrew Hallam, author of Balance and other books about personal finance. Hallam uses the image of Loki as the malicious master of the market to warn us all against squandering the bounties of equity markets. 

All Loki would have to do is ensure the market zigged and zagged around unpredictably. Sometimes it would deliver apparently endless bull runs. At other times it would plunge without mercy. It might alternate mini-booms and mini-crashes; it might trade sideways; it might repeat old patterns, or it might do something that seemed quite new. At every moment, the aim would be to trick investors into doing something rash. 

None of that would deliver Loki’s goals if we humans weren’t so easy to fool. But we are. You can see the damage in numbers published by the investment research company Morningstar; last year it found a shortfall in annual returns of 1.7 percentage points between what investors make and the performance delivered by the funds in which they invested. 

There is nothing strange about investors making a different return from the funds in which they invest. Fund returns are calculated on the basis of a lump-sum buy-and-hold investment. But even the most sober and sensible retail investor is likely to make regular payments, month by month or year by year. As a result, their returns will be different, maybe better and maybe worse. 

Somehow, it’s always worse. The gap of 1.7 percentage points a year is huge over the course of a 30-year investment horizon. A 7.2 per cent annual return will multiply your money eightfold over 30 years, but subtract the performance shortfall and you get 5.5 per cent a year, or less than a fivefold return in 30 years. 

Why does this happen? The primary reason is that Loki’s mischievous gyrations tempt us to buy when the market is booming and to sell when it’s in a slump. Ilia Dichev, an economist at Emory University, found in a 2007 study that retail investors tended to pile into markets when stocks were doing well, and to sell up when they were languishing. (Without wishing to burden the long-suffering reader with technical details, it turns out that buying high and selling low is a bad investment strategy.) 

One possible explanation for this behaviour is that investors are deeply influenced by what they’ve seen the stock market doing across their lives so far. The economists Ulrike Malmendier and Stefan Nagel have found that the lower the returns investors have personally witnessed, the less they are likely to put in the stock market. This means that bear markets scare investors away from their biggest buying opportunities. 

Another study, by Brad Barber and Terrance Odean, looked at retail investors in the early 1990s, and found that they traded far too often. Active traders underperformed by more than 6 percentage points annually. Slumbering investors saw a much better performance. The sticker price of making a trade has plummeted since then, of course. Alas, the cost of making a badly timed trade is as high as ever. 

 Morningstar found that the gap between investment and investor returns is largest for more specialist investments such as sector equity funds or non-traditional equity funds. The gap is smaller for plain vanilla equity and smaller still for allocation funds, which hold a blend of stocks and bonds and automate away investor choices. That suggests that the investors who are trying to be clever are the most likely to fall short, while those who make the fewest possible decisions will lose out by the smallest amount. 

 I am always hearing that people should be more engaged with investing, and up to a point that is true. People who feel ignorant about how equity investing works and therefore stick their money in a bank account or under a mattress, are avoiding only modest risks and giving up huge potential returns. 

But you can have too much of a good thing. Twitchily checking and rearranging your portfolio is a great way to get sucked into poorly timed trades. The irony is that the new generation of investment apps work the same way as almost any other app on your phone: they need your attention and have plenty of ways to get it. 

Recent research by the Behavioural Insight Team, commissioned by regulators in Ontario, found that gamified apps — offering unpredictable rewards, leader boards and badges for activity — simply encouraged investors to trade more often. Perhaps Loki was involved in the app development process? 

I’ve called this the Investor’s Tragedy. The more attention we pay to our investments, the more we trade, and the cleverer we try to be, the less we will have at the end of it all.

Why Costco is so loved

Keeping customers, employees and investors happy is no mean feat writes The Economist

image: getty images

Feb 15th 2024 

In the nearly 40 years that The Economist has served up its Big Mac index, the price of the McDonald’s burger in America has more than tripled. In that same period the cost of another meaty treat—a hot-dog-and-drink combo at Costco—has remained steady at $1.50. Last year customers of the American big-box retailer devoured 200m of them. Richard Galanti, Costco’s longtime finance boss, once promised to keep the price frozen “for ever”.

Customers are not the only fans of Costco, as the outpouring of affection from Wall Street analysts after Mr Galanti announced his retirement on February 6th made clear. The firm’s share price is 430 times what it was when he took the job nearly four decades ago, compared with 25 times for the s&p 500 index of large companies. It has continued to outperform the market in recent years. What lies behind its enduring success?

Costco is the world’s third-biggest retailer, behind Walmart and Amazon. Though its sales are less than half of Walmart’s, its return on capital, at nearly 20%, is more than twice as high. Charlie Munger, a famed investor who served on Costco’s board from 1997 until his death last year, called it a “perfect damn company”. Mr Galanti, who describes Costco’s business model as “arrogantly simple”, says the company is guided by a simple idea—hook shoppers by offering high-quality products at the lowest prices. It does this by keeping markups low while charging a fixed membership fee and stocking fewer distinct products, all while treating its employees generously.

Start with margins. Most retailers boost profits by marking up prices. Not Costco. Its gross margins hover around 12%, compared with Walmart’s 24%. The company makes up the shortfall through its membership fees: customers pay $60 or more a year to shop at its stores. In 2023 fees from its 129m members netted $4.6bn, more than half of Costco’s operating profits.

Joe Feldman, an analyst at Telsey Advisory Group, a research firm, argues that the membership model creates a virtuous circle. The more members the company has, the greater its buying power, leading to better deals with suppliers, most of which are then passed on to its members. The fee also encourages customers to focus their spending at Costco, rather than shopping around. That seems to work; membership-renewal rates are upwards of 90%.

Next, consider the way the company manages its product lineup. Costco stores stock a limited selection of about 3,800 distinct items. Sam’s Club, Walmart’s Costco-like competitor, carries about 7,000. A Walmart superstore has around 120,000. Buying more from fewer suppliers gives the company even greater bargaining heft, lowering prices further. By limiting its range, Costco can better focus on maintaining quality. Less variety in stores helps it use space more efficiently: its sales per square foot are three times that of Walmart. And with fewer products, Costco turns over its wares almost twice as fast as usual for retailers, meaning less capital gets tied up in inventory. It has also expanded its own brand, Kirkland Signature, which now accounts for over a quarter of its sales, well above average for a retailer. Its margins on its own-brand products are about six percentage points higher than for brands such as Hershey or Kellogg’s.

Last, Costco stands out among retailers for how it treats its employees. Some 60% of retail employees leave their jobs each year. Staff turnover at Costco is just 8%; over a third of workers have been there for more than ten years. One reason for low attrition is pay. Its wages are higher than the industry average and it offers generous medical and retirement benefits. Another is career prospects. The company prefers to promote leaders from within. Although Mr Galanti’s successor has come from outside, the rest of Costco’s executive team has been with the company for more than 20 years. The late Mr Munger was confident that Costco had “a marvellous future”. Its customers could be enjoying $1.50 hot dogs for many years to come. 

Economics Explained: Budget Deficits, Internal and External Debt

 Budget deficits, internal debt, and external debt are interconnected concepts that reflect the financial situation of a country. Here's an explanation of their links:

1. Budget Deficits: A budget deficit occurs when a government's spending exceeds its revenue in a given period, typically a fiscal year. The deficit represents the amount of money the government needs to borrow to cover its expenses. It can arise due to various factors such as increased government spending, decreased tax revenue, or economic downturns.

2. Internal Debt: Internal debt refers to the government's debt owed to its own citizens, institutions, and organisations within the country. It is also known as domestic debt. Governments issue bonds, treasury bills, and other securities to borrow money from domestic sources, including individuals, banks, pension funds, and other financial institutions. The funds borrowed through internal debt are used to finance budget deficits or other government expenditures.

The link between budget deficits and internal debt is that when a government runs a budget deficit, it needs to borrow money to cover the shortfall. This borrowing can be from domestic sources through the issuance of government securities, thus increasing the internal debt.

3. External Debt: External debt, also known as foreign debt, is the debt owed by a country to foreign creditors or entities outside its borders. It arises when a government borrows funds from foreign governments, international organisations, banks, or private investors. External debt can be in the form of loans, bonds, or other financial instruments denominated in foreign currencies.

The link between budget deficits and external debt is that if a government cannot cover its budget deficit with domestic borrowing alone, it may resort to borrowing from external sources to finance the shortfall. This can lead to an increase in the country's external debt.

Furthermore, budget deficits can impact both internal and external debt in the following ways:

a) Increased Borrowing: A persistent budget deficit requires the government to borrow continuously to cover its expenses. This leads to an accumulation of both internal and external debt over time.

b) Debt Servicing: As the government incurs more debt, it must allocate a portion of its future budget to service the interest payments and principal repayments on that debt. This diverts funds away from other important expenditures, such as public services or infrastructure development.

c) Investor Confidence: Large budget deficits and growing debt levels can raise concerns among investors, both domestic and foreign. If investors become worried about a government's ability to repay its debts, they may demand higher interest rates on loans or refuse to lend altogether. This can further exacerbate the debt burden and strain the country's finances.

In summary, budget deficits contribute to the accumulation of both internal and external debt as governments borrow to cover their spending gaps. Managing these debts is crucial to maintain fiscal stability, as excessive debt levels can lead to financial challenges and affect a country's economic prospects.

---

Large budget deficits refer to substantial gaps between a government's expenditures and its revenue. It implies that the government is spending significantly more than it is earning. The magnitude of a budget deficit is typically measured as a percentage of a country's gross domestic product (GDP). For example, if a government's expenditures exceed its revenue by 5% of GDP, it would be considered a large budget deficit.

Growing debt levels, in this context, refer to the increase in the total amount of debt owed by a government over time. It indicates that the government's borrowing is outpacing its ability to repay or manage its existing debt obligations. The growth of debt can be measured in absolute terms, such as the total debt amount, or as a percentage of GDP, known as the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The determination of budget deficits and debt levels is typically done by the respective country's government and its fiscal authorities. Governments formulate budgets that outline their planned expenditures and revenue sources for a given period, usually a fiscal year. Actual deficits arise when the realised expenditures exceed the realised revenue.

Governments often publish fiscal reports and financial statements that provide information on their budget deficits and debt levels. These reports are prepared by national statistical agencies, finance ministries, central banks, or other relevant institutions. International organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and rating agencies also assess and monitor the fiscal situations of countries.

It's important to note that the implications of budget deficits and debt levels can vary across countries. Different countries have varying economic conditions, fiscal policies, and borrowing capacities, which influence their ability to manage deficits and debts. Countries with strong economies, diversified revenue sources, and well-managed fiscal policies may be able to sustain larger deficits and higher debt levels without significant negative consequences. However, for countries with weaker economic fundamentals or structural imbalances, large deficits and growing debt levels can pose significant challenges and risks to their financial stability, economic growth, and investor confidence.

---

Let's define and explain the terms "strong economies," "diversified revenue sources," "well-managed fiscal policies," and how they relate to sustaining larger deficits and high debt:

1. Strong economies: A strong economy generally refers to a country's ability to generate sustained and robust economic growth. Indicators of a strong economy include factors like high GDP growth rates, low unemployment rates, stable inflation, productive industries, and a well-functioning financial system. A strong economy implies that the country has the capacity to generate sufficient income and resources to support its spending commitments, including the servicing of its debt.

2. Diversified revenue sources: Diversified revenue sources mean that a country's income streams come from a wide range of sectors and activities, reducing reliance on a single source. A diversified revenue base makes a country less vulnerable to economic shocks or fluctuations in specific industries. It can include various sources such as taxes (e.g., income tax, corporate tax), tariffs, natural resource revenues, fees, and other forms of income generation. A diverse revenue base enhances a government's ability to generate revenue even during challenging economic conditions.

3. Well-managed fiscal policies: Well-managed fiscal policies refer to prudent and effective management of a country's public finances. It involves adopting appropriate strategies for revenue collection, expenditure allocation, and debt management. Key elements of well-managed fiscal policies include:

   a) Revenue management: Implementing efficient and fair tax systems, minimising tax evasion, broadening the tax base, and optimising revenue collection.

   b) Expenditure management: Prioritising spending on essential public services, infrastructure, education, healthcare, and social welfare, while ensuring efficiency, transparency, and accountability in expenditure allocation.

   c) Debt management: Developing and implementing a sound debt management strategy, including assessing borrowing needs, monitoring debt levels, managing interest rate risks, diversifying sources of borrowing, and ensuring timely debt repayments.

Sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels with well-managed fiscal policies is possible in certain situations. When countries with strong economies and diversified revenue sources implement effective fiscal policies, they can create a favourable environment to manage higher levels of debt. Here's how it can work:

a) Economic Growth and Debt Sustainability: Strong economies often have higher growth rates, which can generate increased tax revenues and expand the overall revenue base. This revenue growth, coupled with effective fiscal management, can help countries sustain larger deficits and manage higher debt levels without jeopardising debt sustainability.

b) Investor Confidence: Well-managed fiscal policies enhance investor confidence by demonstrating a government's commitment to responsible financial management. This confidence can result in lower borrowing costs, as investors perceive the country as less risky. Lower borrowing costs can offset the impact of higher debt levels and make it more manageable for countries to service their debts.

c) Structural Factors: Some countries, especially those with structural trade imbalances or external surpluses, may have the capacity to accumulate higher levels of external debt without facing immediate financial strains. These countries can utilise their external surpluses or trade positions to finance deficits and service debt obligations.

It's important to note that sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels requires a delicate balance. Even for countries with strong economies and well-managed fiscal policies, there are limits to debt sustainability. Oversized deficits and rapidly increasing debt levels can undermine economic stability, increase borrowing costs, and limit the government's ability to respond to future challenges. Prudent fiscal management involves striking a balance between necessary borrowing to support economic growth and avoiding excessive debt burdens that can pose long-term risks.

---

Quantifying the explanation of sustaining larger deficits and high debt levels with well-managed fiscal policies is complex and can vary based on country-specific factors. However, I can provide some general principles and benchmarks:

1. Debt-to-GDP Ratio: The debt-to-GDP ratio is a commonly used indicator to assess a country's debt sustainability. It measures the total debt (both internal and external) as a percentage of the country's GDP. While there is no universally agreed-upon threshold, many economists suggest that a debt-to-GDP ratio above 60-80% can raise concerns about long-term sustainability. However, countries with strong economies and sound fiscal policies may be able to sustain higher debt-to-GDP ratios without significant negative consequences. For example, Japan and some European countries have had debt-to-GDP ratios well above 100% for an extended period.

2. Primary Surplus/Deficit: Another aspect to consider is the primary surplus or deficit, which reflects the government's budget balance excluding interest payments on debt. Sustaining high debt levels generally requires maintaining a primary surplus (revenue exceeds non-interest expenditure) or a small primary deficit. This ensures that the government is generating enough revenue to cover its non-interest expenses and reduces reliance on additional borrowing to service existing debt.

3. Debt Service Costs: The affordability of debt service costs is crucial in assessing sustainability. It involves evaluating the percentage of government revenue allocated to servicing interest payments on the debt. Sustainable debt levels should allow governments to manage debt service costs without significantly compromising other essential expenditures. Generally, a threshold of around 15-20% of government revenue allocated to debt service is considered manageable, but this can vary depending on the country's circumstances.

4. Market Perception and Investor Confidence: The perception of investors and the market plays a vital role in sustaining high debt levels. If a country with well-managed fiscal policies maintains a favourable credit rating and enjoys market confidence, it can continue borrowing at relatively low interest rates. Lower borrowing costs mitigate the burden of servicing higher debt levels and provide some leeway for sustaining larger deficits.

It's important to note that these benchmarks are not fixed rules, and each country's situation is unique. Debt sustainability depends on a variety of factors, including economic growth prospects, fiscal discipline, demographic trends, external shocks, and market conditions. Therefore, it is crucial for governments to continually assess and adapt their fiscal policies to maintain a balance between debt sustainability and economic stability.

---

Governments across the political spectrum, whether conservative or progressive, may resort to borrowing to manage budget deficits. The approach to borrowing may vary based on the ideology and economic policies of a government, but the need to bridge the deficit remains a practical necessity.

While borrowing is a common avenue, governments have a few other options to finance their deficits:

1. Taxation: Governments can increase tax rates or broaden the tax base to generate additional revenue. However, significantly raising taxes can have economic implications and may not be politically feasible in certain situations.

2. Asset Sales: Governments can sell state-owned assets or enterprises to generate revenue. However, this option may have long-term implications and requires careful evaluation of the asset's value and potential impact on the economy.

3. Reserves and Surpluses: Governments can utilise accumulated reserves or budget surpluses from previous years to cover deficits. However, these reserves may be limited or earmarked for specific purposes, and relying solely on them may not be sustainable in the long run.

4. Money Creation: In certain cases, governments may resort to monetary measures, such as the central bank creating new money or conducting quantitative easing. However, these actions can have inflationary consequences and should be used judiciously.

It's important to strike a balance between borrowing and other avenues to ensure fiscal sustainability, economic stability, and prudent debt management. The choice of financing options depends on various factors, including economic conditions, policy priorities, and the government's capacity to repay debt in the future.

---

Money creation, also known as monetary financing or direct monetization of deficits, is a practice where a government or central bank creates new money to directly finance government spending or cover budget deficits. While it may appear as an attractive option for addressing budget deficits without relying on borrowing, there are several reasons why governments do not use it frequently or as a primary tool:

1. Inflationary Pressures: The primary concern with excessive money creation is its potential to lead to inflation. When the money supply increases rapidly without a corresponding increase in the production of goods and services, it can result in too much money chasing too few goods, driving up prices. Governments need to balance their spending with the productive capacity of the economy to avoid destabilizing inflationary pressures.

2. Loss of Central Bank Independence: Direct monetization blurs the lines between fiscal and monetary policy, potentially compromising the independence of the central bank. Central banks are typically tasked with maintaining price stability and pursuing monetary policy objectives, such as controlling inflation. Engaging in direct money creation can undermine their ability to fulfill these objectives and may erode market confidence in the central bank's credibility.

3. Market Confidence and Investor Perception: Reliance on money creation to finance deficits can raise concerns among investors and market participants about a government's commitment to fiscal discipline and its ability to manage inflationary risks. This can lead to higher borrowing costs, capital flight, currency depreciation, and diminished investor confidence, which can further exacerbate fiscal challenges.

4. Long-term Sustainability: While money creation can provide short-term relief, it does not address the underlying structural issues causing budget deficits. It can create a cycle of dependence on money creation to finance deficits, which can lead to a deteriorating fiscal situation and potential long-term economic instability.

5. Distortion of Resource Allocation: Money creation to finance deficits can lead to misallocation of resources. The injection of newly created money into the economy can distort price signals and incentivize unproductive investments or speculative activities, potentially hindering sustainable economic growth.

6. International Factors: The use of direct monetization can have implications for a country's international standing. Excessive money creation can erode the value of the currency, leading to exchange rate volatility and reduced credibility in global financial markets.

While money creation can be a tool in exceptional circumstances, such as in response to crises or during wartime, its regular use as a primary means of financing deficits is generally not considered prudent. Governments often rely on a combination of borrowing, taxation, and expenditure management to address budget deficits while maintaining fiscal discipline and long-term sustainability.