: After 2009, a lot of investors have been questioning the concept of long-term strategic asset allocation--buy and hold--and have begun thinking about being more tactical. How tactical should investors be?Mark Balasa
: It's a great place to start because it's on so many people's minds. It's especially relevant for people who are at or recently moved into retirement, because people who were living right at the limit of what their assets would allow for have seen the market downturn permanently alter their course.
Philosophically, a lot of people over time came to the conclusion that a strategic portfolio with no tactical overlays was the safest bet--especially for do-it-yourselfers--because it's not as time-intensive or as involved as a more tactical strategy. Even some professional investors took that view. But what happened during the market swoon last fall after the Lehman bankruptcy and through March of this year was that people, the press included, were saying, "Well, that wasn't smart to just hang in there. With a strategic allocation you got pummeled, and you should have been more tactical. You should have looked at different metrics in the market, different triggers, different valuation metrics, and so forth. Because all of these things were telling you that things were going to go from bad to worse, and look at how much better off you would've been if you could've sold?"
If you fast-forward to today and you look back at the recovery since March 9, you see that the decision to be very tactical, especially if you raised cash or your bond allocation and you didn't come back into stocks, doesn't look so obvious now. I still think that, for most people, a largely strategic allocation is the correct way to go. If you put 10% or 20% or 30% in some tactical approach, that certainly can help, but as we've seen over this past year, when it recovers, did your tactical play recover as well?Benz
: To what extent do you employ a tactical approach in your own practice?Balasa
: Our strategic allocation is embedded with a tactical component. For example, our equity portfolio has a small-company and value bias. So we look different than the broad U.S. market or the broad global market. But that for us is strategic. On top of that, we will tactically overweight and underweight large versus small, value versus growth, both domestically and internationally.Benz
: What factors would you use to drive those tactical decisions?Balasa
: For us, it largely comes back to valuations. Large growth versus large value, small growth versus small value, based on relative price/book and price/ earnings ratios. And then there's a momentum component: Which asset class has done well and for how long, and how does that look in historical context? And on top of that, we have essentially a gut call saying,"Yes or no, and to what degree?"Benz
: Do you have any trepidation about this? Because the landscape of managers doing truly tactical approaches well is�Balasa
: Practically nonexistent. So the answer is yes, and that's why we don't make many changes. We might make one or two a year, we might go a year without making any. And when we do make changes, they're modest, for the reason you raise.Benz
: One topic that has gotten a lot of attention recently, especially in the wake of the bear market, is how to calculate an optimal withdrawal rate. How should retirees navigate that question?Balasa
: Everyone aches for some kind of rule of thumb when it comes to spending. That's just how we're built as human beings. You take any specific couple or individual approaching retirement, and of course, everyone says, "How much in savings do I need? What's my number?" And when they do retire, they want to know, "How much can I spend?"
So the rule of thumb is a 4% or 5% withdrawal rate, and we know that's a safe number for most people. The challenge is that 4% doesn't do the trick for most people, unless you've got a lot of wealth. There are other approaches, where you ebb and flow the spending either based upon an inflation rate or a market metric of some sort. But all of those approaches are trying to come up with a generic answer to a question that has so many variables. What's your family history, in terms of longevity? What do you think tax rates are going to be? How many new cars do you want to buy? What do you want to leave for the kids? And you see some very divergent views on this, by the way. Some people think, I put the kids through school and got them married, and darn it, I'm spending everything I've got. Others are determined that they want X amount left. That's a big influence on the decision. And, of course, people's views on those topics change. So you have all of these variables that can materially impact the actual answer for someone.
And, of course, when you do try to come up with rules of thumb, you're trying to solve for the lowest common denominator--in other words, the one that works the most often. But that might not be the right answer for a family where both sets of parents have died in their mid-70s, or the family has very specific goals about how much they want to leave for the kids. Those things, in my opinion, trump the rules of thumb.