2Semana·

Equities, bonds, gold, commodities - which combination is worthwhile?

In an article published yesterday, Handelsblatt calculated the long-term performance of investing in a broadly diversified portfolio.


4 variants were selected.


Variant 1: Equities plus government bonds

Variant 2: Equities plus government bonds and commodities

Variant 3: Increase the proportion of emerging markets in the portfolio

Variant 4: Equities plus gold


The basis for the equity side was the MSCI All Country World Total Return Index in EUR, in this case the ETF $ISAC (+0,4 %)


Period under review: 2001 to date


Variant 1: 60% equities / 40% government bonds


For the government bonds, the "iBoxx EUR Sovereigns Eurozone 1-3 Total Return Index" was selected for the calculation.


In order to depict the 60/40 portfolio mentioned above, it was assumed for the calculation that investors have invested 60 euros in the ACWI and 40 euros in euro government bonds every month since the beginning of 2001. The portfolio was rebalanced after each year to restore the ratio of 60 percent equities to 40 percent bonds.


The result: Overall, investors with a 60/40 investment would have saved just under 66,000 euros over the past 24 years with a good 29,000 euros invested. But with a 100% ACWI savings plan, they would have saved just under 92,000 euros today. The result would therefore have been 45 percent better.

attachment

Variant 2: Equities plus government bonds and commodities


For a further calculation, commodities were added to the portfolio consisting of the ACWI and euro government bonds. The "Bloomberg ex-Agriculture and Livetock Index", calculated in euros, was chosen for this. The calculation assumes a savings planner who invests EUR 60 per month in the ACWI, EUR 30 in government bonds and EUR 10 in commodities.


Here too, the portfolio was rebalanced at the turn of the year to restore the 60/30/10 ratio.


The result: The outperformance amounts to five percent. Today, savings planners using this strategy would have saved a good 66,000 euros. However, an ACWI savings plan alone would have produced a 38 percent better result.

attachment

Variant 3: Increase the proportion of emerging markets in the portfolio


In this calculation, investments were no longer made in the ACWI, but separately in shares from industrialized nations and emerging markets. The "MSCI World Total Return Index" in euros and the "MSCI Emerging Markets Total Return Index" in euros were selected for this purpose.


With a savings plan variant that invests EUR 70 per month in the MSCI World and EUR 30 in the MSCI Emerging Markets, emerging markets would therefore be more strongly represented.


The result: Until well into the 2000s, savings planners using this strategy would also have beaten the ACWI. However, this changed from the mid-2010s. This was mainly due to the strong performance of US and, in particular, tech stocks. Due to the lower weighting of emerging markets in the ACWI, American tech stocks have a higher weighting there.

attachment

Option 4: Equities plus gold


In another calculation, a savings plan on the ACWI was combined with a savings plan on gold. Every month, 90 euros would have been invested in the world share index and 10 euros in a gold ETC. The gold price in euros was chosen to replicate its price performance.


The result: Gold is in demand this year in particular due to the major geopolitical risks. The price has already risen by a good 30 percent in dollar terms. Therefore, the ten percent addition this year would have cushioned the losses from the stock market somewhat. Instead of around twelve percent for the ACWI, investors would only have lost a good nine percent.

attachment

Investing in gold would also have paid off in the long term. Anyone who has invested 90 euros in the ACWI and ten euros in gold every month since 2001 and regularly rebalanced their portfolio would now have almost 94,000 euros - that is, over two percent more than with the ACWI savings plan alone.


Conclusion:

Diversification reduces price fluctuations. If you invest in a combination of bonds and commodities, your portfolio will lose less value in times of crisis.


However, this security comes at a cost in terms of returns: in the long term, equities rise so sharply during rallies that they more than make up for losses from price falls.


The outperformance of equities is not only evident in the analyzed period from 2001 to the present, but also over the long term. In its Global Wealth Report, UBS analyzes the performance of various asset classes over more than 100 years every year. It shows that equities outperform all other assets over the long term - despite world wars, pandemics, economic crises and other disasters.


In the UBS analysis, equities also outperform gold over the long term. In the above calculation, the situation is different - although this is mainly due to developments this year. At the turn of the year, the variant of the ACWI savings plan alone was still on a par with the combination of ACWI and gold.


You can read the full article in the Handelsblatt here (€): https://hbapp.handelsblatt.com/cmsid/100119887.html

21
29 Comentarios

Imagen de perfil
2Semana
In principle, this again shows that an All World ETF is actually sufficient. However, it is of course risky to continue like this until retirement. I think it makes sense to add bonds towards the end to reduce the vola.
9
Imagen de perfil
@six Yes, this is also mentioned in the article
1
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@six You have to be careful with the paradigm "adding bonds lowers the vola of a stock market portfolio"! The slightly inverse correlation between equities and government (!) bonds only applies under very specific conditions. A central one is: Inflation <3%. Above this, bonds correlate positively with equities and no longer offer any vol protection (e.g. 1970s, 2022). However, very few people are aware of this, which is fatal at a time when inflation is more likely to remain constant at 3% than 2%.
3
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Epi ok. Thanks for the tip. I still have 19 years until I retire.
But I don't think it's a good idea to retire with a 100% equity ratio.
1
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@six Well, if you're clever, you won't have to retire in 19 years. I certainly don't want to have to work just for my pension at some point.
But with shares only and B&H only, it's going to be tight. You only have a 7%pa return and a 3% safe withdrawal rate.
That's why I always advocate strategy diversification. Bonds, gold, commodities and BTC may also have a place here. Diversification across various uncorrelated strategies smoothes the yield curve and raises the safe withdrawal rate close to the yield. Imagine your withdrawal rate is 6%: then you only need half as much capital until retirement and can do what you want 3 or 5 years earlier.
I find this perspective more appealing than swimming along in the B&H world ETF mainstream and working until the end.
Imagen de perfil
@six It depends on what strategy you have, I will retire in 17 months and am 93% invested in stocks, I am looking forward to delicious dividends every month... The remaining 7% is in bonds, gold, and BTC... I sleep really well and the declines in Corona and this April show me that I am well positioned. Of course, there are always pipe crashes, but they also recover, and everyone else has survived despite the fall in prices... Of course I used the last setback to buy more. I think we'll have other worries and problems when the companies all go bust... :D
2
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Dividendenoldie If it works for you, that's great! I'm always happy when plans work out.
However, I would like to stop working for money long before my official retirement age. And with 100% B&H shares, I'm skeptical as to whether I'll succeed.
Imagen de perfil
@Epi Working for money? That's the last straw! :) It's great if that's your strategy for not working sooner, or working less, all the better... And yes, I also love it when plans work! :D
1
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Epi Gold is currently too hot for me and with Bitcoin the issue of proof of ownership, Satoshi test etc. is annoying.
I once bought Euwax Gold 2 at around €50, but then sold it after 1 year and also sold Bitcoin at a profit.
And in order to weight both significantly (e.g. 10% each), I would need a larger sum.
I've also thought about starting a savings plan with them, but I want to stay with ING and they don't have a Euwax Gold savings plan or a Bitcoin ETC. Somehow not so easy.
1
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Dividendenoldie I am also considering changing the All World savings plan to a dividend savings plan a few years before retirement.
2
Imagen de perfil
@six Why not? With sufficient diversification and if you have held shares for a long time, I don't see any major problems.
Ver una respuesta más
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
Such comparisons of strategies are always very interesting. However, they are also demanding and I have the impression that the authors from Handelsblatt have fallen a little behind.
1. a backtest only back to 2001 hardly says anything. The MSCI World Index has been around since 1973 - that would be much more meaningful. Theoretically, you can also go back to 1900. Then it gets interesting! But that's more time-consuming.
2. why do they only include 10% gold? Out of fear, out of dogma? The optimal proportion is 30%. Such a portfolio would have a similar performance to a pure equity portfolio with half the risk, and not just since 2001. Of course, nobody is interested. Because... 🤷
3. bonds (probably meaning government bonds from western industrialized countries) only work under certain conditions, including permanently falling key interest rates and <3% inflation. If these do not apply (30s, 70s, 2020s), bonds correlate strongly with equities and often suffer high losses (-60%). Ignoring this can be very expensive. And short, standardized backtests like the one from Handelsblatt only reinforce the undifferentiated prejudices among private investors. They should enlighten, not glorify! 🤨
3
Imagen de perfil
@Epi
If you were to add up to 1900, you would of course include the two world wars and the Great Depression.
But would this calculation be realistic?
Because I don't believe in such scenarios.
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Tenbagger2024 I don't like that either, but that's just the way the world is and it looks like it will stay that way. So yes, it's only when you include things you don't want to believe in that a calculation becomes realistic.

It's also interesting to see how a portfolio has survived such times.
1
Imagen de perfil
@Epi
That's true, but lessons have also been learned from those times. Independent central banks and the IMF were created. Protective mechanisms were introduced as a result of the bank failures. And inflation in which money becomes worthless is very unlikely. And also a global economic crisis like the one before the war.
Imagen de perfil
For me, such comparisons are always associated with question marks, would have had bicycle chains. From my point of view, it is important, among other things, to educate yourself seriously (this doesn't have to cost anything), define a strategy (possibly adjust it), regularly "deal" with your investments and possibly readjust them (where do I stand, where do I want to go), feel comfortable and be able to sleep well, think long-term, buy more when opportunities arise, leave greed aside and also appreciate smaller successes... I have done quite well with this so far...
3
Don't forget to add $BTC 💪
2
Imagen de perfil
A variant with Bitcoin as an admixture would be interesting. I think that would be the winner.
2
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Tenbagger2024 Bitcoin's history is not yet long enough for meaningful backtesting.
Bitcoin has practically only known the secular bull market since the subprime crisis.

But I'm with you. With each passing year that the oft-predicted death of Bitcoin has not materialized, the argument for Bitcoin grows.
Even Blackrock suggests 1-2% Bitcoin allocation. 🚀
1
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@BigMo You are of course right that BTC's history is still too short for real tests.
Nevertheless, I think tests from 1/2018 onwards make perfect sense, as BTC has already undergone significant swings since then and it is easy to test how a portfolio or strategy copes with this.
You can see, for example, that BTC and gold harmonize well with each other. Both in the portfolio significantly increase performance without significantly increasing risk.
So yes, BTC could have been added to the tests (and the limitations mentioned).
2
Imagen de perfil
And in terms of equities, I would do it as follows: 45% of the equity ETFS USA - 20% emerging markets - 5% Japan - 20% Europe - 10% global dividend stocks
1
Imagen de perfil
I am using a 60 equities 20 bond 20 commodities ( including gold ) strategy
I sleep well at night
Imagen de perfil
2Semana
@Jo_Wolf I couldn't.
Imagen de perfil
I like gold but haven't invested yet. I am currently freeing my girlfriend from the hands of Strukki and making her an All World + 15% gold savings plan. Thanks for your contribution
Imagen de perfil
interesting - but the tech rally over the past 15 years or so is something special, and explains why it is currently difficult to beat the MSCI World or of course the S&500 and even more so the Nasdaq over such periods. Nobody knows whether this will weaken in the future (and whether the weak phase at the end of 2024 or now in April 2025 started with the stupid Trump crash or is just a temporary episode). - Personally, I would still diversify, even if in retrospect it seems at some point that it would have been better to invest 90% in the winners (or winning sector). But who of us invested in Nvidia in 2001?
Imagen de perfil
But how to diversify? 80% equities, 5% gold, 15% short-dated bonds, for example - I would increase the proportion of gold when the current gold rally subsides.
Imagen de perfil
USA: S&P 500, plus some Russel 2000 - and possibly use of factor ETFS on SP 500
Imagen de perfil
Europe: MSCI Europe momentum plus Euro Stoxx 600 plus a small cap ETF as a minor addition
Únase a la conversación