Why outperforming the S&P 500 must become a priority for younger investors

This is a longer than average post, but if you are in your 20s, 30s or 40s and are counting on a decent retirement based on a financial planners' estimate of a 10% market return or so, I suggest you stick with this and read it through. For many readers, this will be eye-opening to say the least.

The following diagram is from work of Steven Johnson of Simcivic.org and illustrates what he believes the future composition of the return rate (see below) of the S&P500 is likely to be (with inflation extracted): (Future returns above: Click to enlarge)

In this diagram, Mr. Johnson has outlined what he believes the constituent parts of future stock market returns are likely to be (inflation excluded). This shows a 4% return or so, compared to a historical 7% return (again, inflation excluded), which he calculates as having been historically produced by the following constituent components (see below: historical return):

(Historical returns above: Click to enlarge)

Adding inflation back into both figures, produces an anticipated future return rate of about 7%, versus a historical 10% or so. While a 3% differential doesn't sound large, over a 30 year period, this differential amounts to $10,000 being turned into $76,122 (7%) or $174,494 (10%). [Both figures now include an inflation component of an additional 3%.]

As you can see, the difference between these two figures could significantly affect your retirement planning. Mr. Johnson makes a pretty compelling case that the returns of the past cannot be relied upon as a reasonable guide for indicating the returns of the future. It's different this time he claims: this time in a negative sense!

In the paper Mr. Johnson argues that stock market returns arise from two primary sources. These are capital growth, historically accounting for about 2.3% of the 7% long-term (ex. inflation) rate; and dividends - including re-investment and share-buybacks - accounting for about 4.6% of the 7% (ex. inflation) historical return. Together, the two components produce a ~7% return (1.023 x 1.046 = ~ 7% return).

Mr. Johnson then further deconstructs the return to be able to analyze what might happen in the future, given known trends. The capital return factor (~2.3% historically) is the result of three things:

1. Population growth in the 20th century of about 1.3% per annum;
   
2. Plus rising productivity of about 2.0% per annum;
   
3. Less a lag factor of about 1%
   

Producing a net 2.3% factor on the capital growth side.

On the dividend side, the components there are the actual dividends paid compared to the overall economy and the market capitalization of the stock market, compared to the overall GDP. Historically over the past seventy years, this has averaged 65% or so.

The ratio of dividends paid, measured by the GDP of the economy has remained relatively constant, at about 2% of the GDP. Accounting or adding for stock buy-backs, this figure rises by about 1% to become about 3%.

The 3% dividend figure is then divided by the denominator, which is the ratio that the stock market has been capitalized at compared to the GDP of the economy (historically about 65% as a long-term average), produces the aforementioned 4.6% figure.

Reiterating, the two components produce a ~7% return (1.023 x 1.046 = ~ 7% return).

Mr. Johnson argues that in the future, these underlying rates will be different (mostly lower), due primarily to two trends:

1. Population growth is slowing, and he uses a 0.2% annual estimate (from Social Security figures) instead of 1.3%. This alone lops off more than 1%.
2. The stock market has gradually been valued as a higher and higher percentage of GDP. This is the denominator of the dividends return portion. In fact, this appears to be on an upward trend that Mr. Johnson believes may average out at 120% of the GDP, nearly twice the historical level. Given the massive trend of the average person now investing in the market - compared to being a rich man's playground 50 years ago - it's hard to argue with this idea, even if the figures might not prove exactly right. Dividing the dividends of 3% by the average capitalized 120% ratio produces a dividend yield of about 2.5%, some 2% below what Mr. Johnson estimates this portion historically produced.
   

Incidentally, the falling yield portion as a value of stocks is pretty indisputable, and can be seen on one of the numerous charts within the paper that help make all this understandable, and compelling.

Hopefully, I have explained this well enough that most people can understand the basics of it, even if some of the subtly is lost. I cannot impress upon you strongly enough that you go and read the paper yourself, and try to understand the implications for your retirement planning.

I will be writing more on market outperformance in the future, and re-visiting some ideas from some of my older postings.


JW

The Confused Capitalist