Bob Brinker famously said on his radio show Moneytalk during the 2008-2009 market meltdown that "no one could have predicted this".
As a market timer, he's taken a lot of heat for this statement, including from me, but it is time to reassess his 2003 call to return to a fully-invested position in the stock market and to stick to it in 2008 despite the meltdown.
How has that worked out?
"Fully invested" means different things to different people. This is because it is a question of asset allocation. Asset allocation strategies are by definition highly individualized to meet objectives while minimizing risk, and they depend on many factors including income and age, which change over time and thus necessitate adjustments to the strategy periodically. So to be clear, a person who allocates 50% of all resources to stocks at any given time is fully invested when that is so. But that means that a person who has much more tolerance for risk and normally invests 90% of all resources in stocks by definition has a greater percentage of all his resources in stocks, yet both individuals are "fully invested".
OK, so let's take the hypothetical person born in 1949 who just retired at the age of 65 in November 2014. That person has had theoretically 43 years of continuous investing life, let's say beginning from November 1971 after landing that first job out of college in the spring of that year.
Now whatever this person had allocated to stocks over the course of those 43 years, using the S&P 500 as a proxy for the part allocated to stocks, he or she has averaged a nominal return of 10.68% annually with dividends fully reinvested through November 2014, including the crash periods of 2000 and 2008.
But back in March 2003 this person was turning 54 years old and was worried about the future after the stock market crash he had just experienced. And let's say he had ridden his investments all the way down in that crash by being fully invested through the 2000 debacle. From 1971 to that point in 2003 his average annual performance had been 10.94%.
Had he heard Bob Brinker's advice to be fully invested going forward and stayed the course he had been on, how did remaining in the market as before repay him as part of the overall average performance of 10.68% which he ended up achieving annually on average through November 2014?
The answer might surprise you: The average annual performance of the S&P 500 from March 2003 through November 2014 has been 10.01%. The market crash of 2008-2009 might certainly have unnerved this investor, who was then turning 60, to the point of utter capitulation, for it reduced his performance from 1971 through March 2009 to 9.11% per year on average.
It's clear, however, that cutting and running after the fact in 2008-2009 was not the answer. That was Jim Cramer's answer in October 2008, on morning television no less, but it wasn't Bob Brinker's.
Simply staying the course was like putting back on a point and a half for every year of the 43 year investing life of our hypothetical investor in a matter of just five years.
Kudos to Bob Brinker. Raspberries to Cramer.
