logo
This Asian City Redefines 'Heritage'—With Beautifully Restored Hotels, a Luxury Train, and the World's Coolest Cocktail Bars

This Asian City Redefines 'Heritage'—With Beautifully Restored Hotels, a Luxury Train, and the World's Coolest Cocktail Bars

A little over two centuries ago, British capitalist Stamford Raffles planted a trading post at Malaysia's dangling tip and named it after Singapura, ancient Sanskrit for 'lion city.' Laborers from China, India, and greater Malaysia heaved mountains of earth into the muddy estuary of the Singapore River to create new land for developers to lay the city-state's foundations. The investment paid off, at least for the capitalists. Singapore, today about the size of New York City, is a global commercial center—a safe, efficient, English-speaking, litter-free outpost for Western companies in search of Asian markets, and vice versa.
Sure, jaded leisure travelers might find it a tad dull compared with regal Bangkok or clamorous Hong Kong, but the business of Singapore is business, and always has been. The national mindset is pragmatic, unsentimental, and profit-oriented. In a place where space is forever at a premium, the churn of property development—build, tear down, rebuild higher, repeat—is what plowing the land is to a great agricultural nation: a cyclical harvest, even a patriotic destiny. Real estate speculation and its twin, banking, have offered the generations the surest way to sow ambition and reap prosperity, making faith in future growth almost a geographic feature. From the top of One Raffles Place, once the tallest skyscraper in all of Asia, the economic outlook is almost invariably sunny. From left: A bronze sculpture by KAWS outside the Mondrian Singapore Duxton hotel; soup at the Yì by Jereme Leung restaurant at the Raffles Singapore hotel.
'Singapore is future-positive,' is how the Australian architect Richard Hassell put it to me when we met at 21 Carpenter, a hotel designed by his firm, WOHA Architects. Our conversation came midway through my stay in the city, which was to be the point of departure for a train journey through Malaysia on Belmond's Eastern & Oriental Express . Before setting off, I wanted to explore the city itself. Above all, I was curious about what a relentless focus on progress might mean for visitors drawn to history and culture—visitors, like me, who typically avoid bright, shiny, ultramodern cities.
On my wanderings so far I'd seen low-rise neighborhoods of mom-and-pop shops, Anglican churchyards, and manicured parks, all dwarfed by glass-and-steel skyscrapers. I'd seen architectural doodads of delirious invention and vine-hung eco-utopian prototypes for the climate-change future. Each phase of the past had its own vision of tomorrow. 'Singapore is very pro-change,' Hassell agreed, explaining that when change equals investment and investment equals profit, people can't wait to move on to the next thing.
The newest next thing is symbolized by 21 Carpenter, where Hassell fitted 48 rooms into a tower wrapped up in a perforated, heat-deflecting aluminum sun canopy. The novelty is at ground level, where the tower's base rises not from land scraped clean of its past but from a restored 1936 remittance house—an early financial institution used by Chinese laborers to send their earnings home. From left: New Bahru, a mid-century school building that now houses restaurants, serviced apartments, and stores; Malaysia's Peranakan cuisine is on the menu at Candlenut, a restaurant in Singapore.
Hassell preserved the original stucco façade and tiled roof. He also read workers' letters home to their families and gathered poignant phrases—bits of found poetry—to inscribe on the sun canopy. The new building bears witness to the old city, preserving the stories of forgotten immigrant workers, the people who built Singapore. After its opening last year, the Singapore Institute of Architects named it the 2024 design of the year.
Heritage was the buzzword of my trip, shorthand for the pendulum swing away from a raze-and-replace mentality toward one of restore and refurbish. The movement began in the 1980s with adaptive-reuse projects in Chinatown's historic shop-houses, then grew to include major sites like New Bahru, a former high school converted into an eat-shop-stay campus.
The meaning of heritage has also continued to expand. Raffles Singapore, once a symbol of British colonial snobbery, reopened in 2019 after an estimated $200 million restoration with new décor and a new self-image. 'Heritage is also stories,' in-house historian Nazir Yusof told me. Raffles trained a next-gen team to diversify its storytelling, bringing overlooked voices into its account of the colonial era, which in this part of the world has too often represented only the British experience—the colonialists' point of view. From left: Sri Mariamman Hindu Temple, in Singapore; Raffles Singapore's exterior.
In 2023, Raffles awarded its writing residency to a Singaporean for the first time. Poet Madeleine Lee's resulting collection, How to Build a Lux Hotel, is a native daughter's intimate and funny view of the grande dame—a peek up her skirt, as it were. The next residency went to Taiwan-born, Paris-trained, Singapore-based chef André Chiang, who produced a book brimming with stories and recipes; its recent publication precedes the opening of a new Chiang restaurant at Raffles later this year.
Elsewhere in town, savvy entrepreneurs are feeding the heritage trend by making history from scratch. Witness the neo–Art Deco bar Atlas, a fixture on the World's 50 Best list, or the brand-new old-timey eating spot with the on-the-nose name of Great Nanyang Heritage Café.
Meanwhile, the E&O Express is a celebration of the region's artistic legacy and natural biodiversity. I booked a three-night journey through the Malay Peninsula, departing from Singapore. The trip offered stops to hike a rainforest filled with gibbons and to tour George Town, the pre-Singapore British entrepôt where an elite strata of Chinese-Malay families known as Peranakans built elaborate mansions.
I laid the invitation on a tea table set with porcelain and silver, ran my hand over an emerald velvet armchair, and petted a dragon-embroidered pillow.
When I got back to Singapore, I learned that August 2025 would mark 60 years since the city-state declared its independence and placed leadership of a melting-pot people in the hands of Lee Kuan Yew, its first prime minister. From 1959 to 1990, LKY, as he's known, engineered the country's rise from postcolonial poverty to first-world prosperity. Today he is regarded as a national hero, a founding father as visionary as FDR and shrewd as LBJ. What I observed on the eve of the historic milestone was a country actively reassessing its remarkable rise, not only focused on a headlong rush into the future but also discovering the power of its own diverse history.
Boarding the stately hunter-green-and-Devonshire-cream Eastern & Oriental Express at Singapore's Woodlands train station, the third thing I fixated on—after the high crew-to-guest ratio and the acres of interior marquetry—was the boarding pass. The ultra-thick paper was fit for a royal invitation, and the Art Deco design featured an elongated tiger, as if frozen midway between the past and the future. 'The lure of Malaysia in motion,' read the motto. I laid the invitation on a tea table set with porcelain and silver, ran my hand over an emerald velvet armchair, and petted a dragon-embroidered pillow. Minor details, perhaps, given the cinematic three-night trip ahead, but the fine paper and fabrics caught the spirit of the refurbished E&O : analog, fancy, and fun. Architecture in Singapore.
As the train sped into the gathering dusk and a piano-sax duo played Jazz Age ditties, 40-odd passengers, some dressed in black tie and formal dresses, mingled over cocktails like guests at a country-house weekend. One fellow produced a deck of cards from his dinner jacket—the onboard magician. He asked the woman nearest him to pick a card, look, and return it, face down, to the deck. Then the magician pulled a fresh lime from his pocket and sliced it open to reveal a folded card. She unfolded it: the queen of clubs, the same card she had picked from the deck.
The next morning, the train came to a halt in the middle of wild Malaysia, right alongside Taman Negara National Park. The trainload of passengers, now kitted out for a jungle excursion, stepped out into tropical heat and loaded into a caravan of open-air jeeps to explore the park. Our introduction to Malaysia would begin with the backstory—way, way back.
The rainforest that soon enveloped us has been evolving for some 130 million years. At our first stop in the park, our guide showed us the jungle canopy from above, from a platform with spectacular views of primordial forests and distant mountain peaks. Farther in, we followed a hiking trail beneath the orchid-hung canopy. Keening gibbons in the valley to our left were answered by a troop to our right. The region's few remaining elephants and tigers, we were told, moved unseen through the park's hidden reaches. We returned for lunch on the rails and watched endless miles of palm-oil plantations roll past the windows, former wilderness traded for profit. From left: Ephemera aboard the E&O the train's exterior.
Of course, it was the fat of this land—wealth from nutmeg, then rubber and palm oil—that drew the British to Malaysia. More than 30 years before Singapore's founding, the Union Jack flew over the state of Penang, across a narrow strait from where the E&O eased to a stop at Butterworth station.
The British East India Company's urban plan for George Town, the capital of the state of Penang, remains intact, and I toured the gridded streets from a recumbent position, laid out like a bunch of bananas on the basket-chair of a bicycle rickshaw. Its driver, Mr. Lim, pedaled me past the blindingly white Eastern & Oriental Hotel—opened as the Eastern in 1884 by the Persian-Armenian Sarkies brothers and unaffiliated with Belmond's E&O Express —and delivered me to two colorful heritage houses.
The first was an indigo-blue mansion built in the late 19th century by merchant-prince Cheong Fatt Tze and styled as a mah-jongg parlor in the movie Crazy Rich Asians . Its complement, formerly the home of tycoon and philanthropist Chung Keng Quee and now the Pinang Peranakan Mansion, was painted the precise food-coloring green of Malaysian pandan cake. The grand Peranakan families represented a rapid social ascent: from immigrant labor to merchant class to tycoons in a century. They spoke the Queen's English, venerated Buddhist deities, served Malay curries on porcelain, and filled their houses with a mix of Chinese antiques, French enamel, and furniture in the Georgian style—here richly decorated with dragons and phoenixes. 'We are a fusion country,' Mr. Lim explained. From left: Raffles Singapore's Tiffin Room; shutters on Maxwell Road.
The E&O was Singapore-bound again when train manager Wolfgang Eipeldauer dropped by my cabin to connect a few dots. Before the recent revamp, he told me, the train harked back to 'a British hill-house veranda in the tropics.' For the current incarnation, he said, 'we purposefully tried to pay attention to the regional and the local.' The idea was to correct the tendency, common in luxury hospitality, to see colonial opulence only through British eyes. The new E&O, like the old Peranakan elite, spans two worlds.
On his way out, Eipeldauer suggested I find time for a coffee with Kishen Muruganandan, the bar manager. I made an appointment and met him in the plush caboose. Muruganandan was Malaysian, he told me while brewing a cup, as was most of the young crew. The coffee beans were Malaysian, grown by a neighbor in his home village. The stylish crew uniforms, he replied when I asked about them, were Malaysian, created by a designer in Kuala Lumpur. I caught Eipeldauer's drift: to learn about heritage, talk to someone for whom it is a birthright. Malaysia in motion, indeed.
Singapore refutes the old adage about land—here they are still making it. It was the day after the E&O rolled back into Woodlands station, and I was luxuriously billeted at Raffles Singapore. After breakfast in the Tiffin Room, I joined a hotel tour led by Yusof, the in-house historian. 'This was a beach house,' he told us, launching into the story of the Sarkies brothers. From left: Lunch at Tian Tian Hainanese Chicken Rice, in the Maxwell Food Centre; the lobby of 21 Carpenter.
Flush with cash from the success of their Eastern Hotel in George Town, they opened Raffles in 1887 with 10 rooms across from the beach, perhaps taking Sir Stamford's surname to suggest a starchier British pedigree than they themselves possessed. Today the waterfront is 2½ miles away: Singapore has added approximately 25 percent more land since Independence.
Raffles has grown at a considerably higher rate. Its 10-acre hospitality-retail complex now contains 115 suites, seven restaurants and bars, and a platinum-card-melting shopping arcade. Looky-loo tourists with selfie sticks constantly stream past the white-on-white high-Victorian façade of pediments, pilasters, and cast iron. The building has been an official national monument since 1987, Yusof told me with the indulgence of a father whose child is often complimented by strangers.
It is, in fact, something more than that. Like the Eiffel Tower and the Empire State Building, Raffles is a symbol of the city, even a flagship for the nation, explained a Singaporean wine importer I met for drinks at the Long Bar, home to the rather-too-sweet Singapore Sling. He likened Raffles to a state weather vane: it always points toward the future. A tropical haven for travelers in the imperial 'golden age,' the hotel later hosted LKY's wedding reception (the city's first prime minister returned annually for anniversary dinners) and now is a gilt emporium for the global rich. As Raffles goes, so goes the nation, the wine importer said.
I was surprised, then, that the concierge sent me straight away to the Intan, a private museum in a distant residential quarter where the curator-docent-occupant-in-chief was a voluble Peranakan storyteller named Alvin Yapp. He showed me his 1,500-piece collection of decorative arts, then over tea he expounded a theory. Singapore's cosmopolitan business savvy, Yapp proposed, can be attributed to the cross-cultural fluency of its Peranakan citizenry. About three-quarters of Singapore's residents claim Chinese descent and, at the same time, English is its mother tongue and business lingua franca. In other words, the city-state's intellectual framework consists of a language, legal code, parliamentary system, and free-market orthodoxy, all left behind by the British when they vacated their columned administrative buildings. The result has been profound. 'We think like Westerners,' Yapp said with an ironic smile. From left: Cocktail hour on the E&O the Blue Mansion, in George Town.
After tea at the museum, I had drinks with a poet. Madeleine Lee was waiting for me in Raffles's Writers Bar, dressed in the edgy black avant-garb of a contemporary art dealer. The title of her book, How to Build a Lux Hotel, suggested an instruction manual. The elegant poems inside presented this conclusion: you build it with people. Lee told me she studied the changeable dramatis personae at Raffles during a dozen stays by talking to bartenders and observing maids and gardeners making their rounds and guests drifting through the spangly lobby. Lee said she tried to capture the emotional feel of the place because so much had already been said about 'the founders, the architecture, the whole colonial thing.'
I was curious what a poet, with her sensitivity to language, would make of the word heritage, which by this point in the trip had thoroughly occupied my mind. Lee thought for a moment and described the 'family dialect' of blended Malay, English, and Mandarin spoken in many Singaporean homes. 'We throw everything in a pot and speak 'Singlish.' '
At a literal crossroads of culture, heritage will have nuances, she continued. There are the sturdy facts of textbook history; then there are family stories and an individual's own emotional biography—a grandfather's tale of arriving in Singapore with one small suitcase, for example. Heritage is the past, Lee said, but it must be kept fresh. 'If you don't know where you came from, you can't appreciate today and the future.' From left: A modern apartment building behind the shop-houses of Singapore's Keong Saik Road; shop-houses in George Town, Malaysia.
I started to wonder: how old does something have to be to qualify as heritage? The responses I got from others were inconsistent. Someone said the cutoff was 1900, another said 1965. 'It's heritage if it's entwined with our city's past,' replied a Gen Z Singaporean. What about a skyscraper from 2000? 'That's the present,' she said.
Architect Richard Hassell proposed that heritage is a building old enough to tear down. Twenty-five years after construction, when materials get tatty and tastes change, is the danger time. If the building survives longer, someone will embrace its vintage cool and perhaps a consensus will consolidate around the 'authenticity of its times,' winning it government protection.
Hassell cited a 1982 concrete ziggurat near Orchard Boulevard by American architect John Portman, inventor of the atrium hotel. His innovation swept the world—glass elevators were to hotel architecture what Juice Newton was to Top-10 radio—and then, just as quickly, became unspeakably outdated. Renovated and reopened in 2024 under the name Conrad Singapore Orchard, Portman's design now defines the cutting edge of heritage.
Heritage doesn't have to be stuff, however. No less an authority than UNESCO conferred on Singapore's hawker culture—the tradition of eating at public markets and food halls—the status of 'intangible heritage.' (In the name of reportage, I went out for a plate of tangibly satisfying Hainanese chicken rice.) From left: A staff uniform at the Atlas Bar; the Conrad Singapore Orchard hotel's atrium.
The whole picture came together for me at Candlenut, a restaurant in a restored British army barracks across from the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The waiter explained that the dishes by chef Malcolm Lee, who identifies as Peranakan, were inspired by family recipes his mother and grandmother taught him and made using local ingredients because early Peranakan families, formed through a Chinese-Malay union, had to work with what little they had.
'That's the story of Peranakan cuisine,' said the waiter. I asked if the style of cooking was popular with Singaporeans. 'It is part of their heritage,' he answered. The meal was certainly delicious—the restaurant has been awarded a Michelin star. The experience stayed with me not because of the chef's technical skills but because the meal told the story of a nation.
When I touched down at Singapore Changi Airport 10 days earlier, I had wanted to learn what a future-forward society like Singapore does with its own past. Candlenut had the answer, and it goes something like this: the Lion City has taken the measure of its success and, in glancing back over its shoulder, has rediscovered what's new again.
A version of this story first appeared in the August 2025 issue of Travel + Leisure under the headline "Time Travel ."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Why it matters who owns a newspaper
Why it matters who owns a newspaper

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Why it matters who owns a newspaper

The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.

BoE to cut rates in August and November with steady economic growth anticipated- Reuters poll
BoE to cut rates in August and November with steady economic growth anticipated- Reuters poll

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

BoE to cut rates in August and November with steady economic growth anticipated- Reuters poll

By Anant Chandak and Shaloo Shrivastava BENGALURU (Reuters) -Britain's economy will grow at a slow, steady pace this year and next, keeping the Bank of England on course to cut interest rates on August 7 and again in November despite inflation remaining above target in coming months, according to most economists polled by Reuters. After starting the year on a strong footing, the economy lost steam with GDP shrinking in April and May, partly driven by weak factory activity. Manufacturing contracted for a tenth consecutive month in July, a separate survey showed on Thursday. Britain was the first major economy to secure a trade deal with the United States under President Donald Trump, partly shielding its economy. Many others, including the European Union, are still scrambling to land agreements with Washington ahead of a deadline next week. The British economy will grow 1.1% on average this year, the same as in 2024, according to median forecasts in the July 17-24 poll of 67 economists, a view largely unchanged since February. The economy is seen expanding 1.2% next year. "We are seeing some tangible signs the economy is stabilising after a bit of a pull down or a pull back in growth momentum," said Sanjay Raja, chief UK economist at Deutsche Bank. "There has been resilience. We have seen a pick-up in business seen consumer sentiment pick up slowly but surely. Credit conditions remain pretty optimistic." Consumer sentiment has reflected the tug-of-war between persistent inflation and easing borrowing costs. Inflation rose to 3.6% in June, driven by food and transport costs, but falling mortgage rates and expectations of further interest rate cuts later this year are offering some relief to households. "We're expecting inflation to get closer to 4% in Q3. But thereafter we think those price pressures will start to dumping from Asia into the UK and Europe could act as a disinflationary driver going forward," said Raja. The Bank of England has already cut rates four times since August 2024, bringing the Bank Rate down a full point from a peak of 5.25%. An 83% majority of economists, 62 of 75, expect two more 25-basis-point cuts this year – in August and November – maintaining the pace of one cut per quarter. That would put the Bank Rate at 3.75% at year-end, and two further reductions are expected in 2026. "We agree with the slow and steady approach. If wage growth starts to come down that will give (the BoE) hope for overall inflation to come down," said Elizabeth Martins, senior UK economist at HSBC. "Unfortunately, the risk is towards inflation staying higher and that's the way all the surprises have gone in recent times." Inflation is expected to remain above the central bank's 2.0% target at least until the end of next year, averaging 3.2% this year and 2.4% in 2026, according to the poll's median forecasts. (Other stories from the Reuters global economic poll) Sign in to access your portfolio

The investment chief at $10 trillion giant Vanguard says it's time to pivot away from U.S. stocks
The investment chief at $10 trillion giant Vanguard says it's time to pivot away from U.S. stocks

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

The investment chief at $10 trillion giant Vanguard says it's time to pivot away from U.S. stocks

Greg Davis visited Fortune this month dressed like a Wall Street titan—and bearing a very un-Wall-Street message about a tepid future for U.S. July 11, Davis––the president and chief investment officer of Vanguard Group––came to our offices in Manhattan's Financial District for a chat with this reporter. Though Davis works from Vanguard's mother ship (its buildings are all named for British vessels from the Napoleonic wars) in the tiny hamlet of Malvern, Pa., west of Philadelphia, he arrived attired in a tailored gray suit and purple silk tie combo that would have fit right in with the most formal of the investment banking cadre and portfolio managers headquartered Davis's message couldn't have been more contrary to the fashionable view among the neighborhood's rosy prognosticators. The 25-year Vanguard veteran's outlook contradicts the prevailing position advanced by the big banks, research firms, and TV pundits that despite serial years of big gains, U.S. stocks remain a great buy. That bull case rests mainly on optimism that the Big Beautiful Bill's deregulatory agenda and tax cuts will spur the economy, and that the AI revolution promises a new world of efficiencies that will shift earnings to super-fast track going forward. The powerful momentum that has driven the Nasdaq and S&P 500 to all time highs this week bolster their argument for more to come. Davis follows the Vanguard mindset that, arguably more than any other, revolutionized the investing world over the past half-century. The company's founder, John Bogle, created the first index funds for ordinary investors in 1975, following the conviction that funds choosing individual stocks regularly fail to beat their benchmarks after fees, and that a pallet of diversified index funds, and later ETFs, that hold expenses to an absolute minimum, provide the best platform for achieving superior gains over the long-term. The top testament to the enduring validity of the Vanguard model: Over 80% of its ETFs and indexed mutual fund beat their peer-group averages over the past 10 years, measured by LSEG Lipper, largely courtesy of those super-tight expense ratios. The Vanguard model's won such overwhelming favor that it now manages 28% of the combined U.S. mutual fund and ETF universe, and it's gained 7 points in market share in the past decade. At $10 trillion in AUM, it ranks second only to BlackRock among all U.S. asset managers. Besides offering over 400 super-low-cost funds worldwide, Vanguard also provides investment advice as a firm, and through its army of financial advisers. A big part of the Vanguard formula: Periodically rebalancing from securities that get extremely pricey by historical standards into areas that are undervalued versus their norms. In our discussion, Davis provided a master class on how the dollars in profits you're getting for each $100 you're paying for a stock influences future returns, and why now is such a crucial time to shift from what's highly, even dangerously expensive into safe areas that look like screaming buys. Put simply, Davis argues that U.S. equities are a victim of their own success. For Davis, the fabulous ride in recent years virtually guarantees that future returns will prove extremely disappointing versus outsized, double-digit gains investors have gotten used to, and that the investment pros predict will persist. The reason is simple: U.S. stocks have simply gotten so costly that their forward progress is destined to radically slow. 'Our investment strategy group's projection is that U.S. equity market returns are going to be much more muted in the future,' Davis warns. 'Over the past ten years, the S&P returned an average of 12.4% annually. We're predicting the figure to drop to between 3.8% and 5.8% (midpoint of 4.8%) over the next decade.' The basic market math, he contends, points to that outcome. Davis notes that the official price-to-earnings multiple on the S&P now stands at an extremely lofty 29.3. And when Vanguard uses a preferred gauge based on Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings multiple, or CAPE––a measure that adjusts the PE by normalizing for spikes and valleys in earnings––it concludes that US stocks hover 49% over the top end of the group's fair value range. Davis also points out that corporate profits are now extremely high by historical levels, and hence won't grow nearly as fast from here as their jackrabbit pace of recent years. In other words, don't count on an EPS explosion to solve the valuation problem. In fact, this reporter notes that contrary to what we're constantly hearing about forthcoming double-digit increases in profits, the sprint has already slowed to a stroll. From Q4 of 2021 to Q1 of this year, S&P 500 EPS grew from $198 to $217, or 9.6% in over three years, a puny pace that doesn't even match inflation. Huge gains have knocked portfolios out of balance Davis explained how the longstanding bull market has wildly distorted the standard '60-40' portfolio. That classic construction of 60% stocks and 40% bonds has worked well in many periods, he notes. But today, folks who started at 60-40 a decade ago, and didn't rebalance into bonds as equity prices swelled year after year, are now banking far too heavily on those richly-valued U.S. equities. 'In the past 10 years, interest rates have mainly been very low, so bonds returned only around 2% a year, or 10% less than stocks,' declares Davis. 'So the stock portion kept compounding at a high rate and getting bigger, and the bond portion kept shrinking as a share of the total. As a result, what started as a 60-40 mix is now 80-20 in favor of stocks.' To make matters worse, says Davis, 'U.S. stocks outperformed international equities by 6 percentage points a year in the past decade. So 10 years ago, if you started with the standard split 70% U.S. and 30% foreign, you'd now be at 80% U.S. and 20% foreign.' Hence, sans rebalancing, an investor's overall share of U.S. stocks would have gone from 42% to around two-thirds, a gigantic leap. Those weightings, he says, are lopsided in the wrong direction, in two ways—by holding far too big a percentage of stocks and not enough bonds, and within the equity portion, not owning enough foreign shares. 'If you look at the bond market today and the way yields have risen, we're projecting that you're going to pick up very similar returns in a mix of U.S. and foreign bonds as you'll get in U.S. equities, or also 4% to 5%. So the expectations are comparable, but you'll have much less volatility on the bond side,' avows Davis, adding, 'What's the big advantage to betting on risky stocks when you can get 4.3% on three-month Treasuries?' Hence, Davis makes a daring recommendation: Investors should reverse the classic blend and go with 60% bonds and 40% stocks. For the fixed income portion, he notes, Vanguard's Total World Bond ETF (BNDW) offers a blend of domestic and international fixed income, encompassing government bonds, corporates, agencies, mortgages, and asset backed securities. In addition, Vanguard projects that foreign shares over the next ten years will generate average returns of 7%, waxing the 5% or so for U.S. equities. Hence, Davis recommends that in the 40% dedicated to stocks, investors lean heavily to the international side by splitting the allocation evenly, or 20% and 20%, between stateside and international stocks. The Vanguard FTSE All World ex US ETF (VEU) would fit the slot reserved for the international allotment. In summary, Davis is advising a radical rebalancing for folks who let their U.S. stocks swallow a bigger and bigger part of their portfolios as bonds and international shares underperformed year after year. So here's are allocations he'd recommend for the decade ahead: 60% fixed income, 20% international equities, and—gulp—just 20% in U.S. stocks. Once again, that number compares to the around two-thirds you'd hold in U.S. equities if you'd started at 60-40 ten years ago and just let your gains on U.S. stocks rip without any rebalancing. I ran some numbers on the returns you'd garner in the two scenarios: First, if you don't rejigger and keep holding two-thirds of your portfolio in U.S. stocks, and second, if you do what Davis advocates and put 60% in bonds, and park more of the equity share abroad. In both cases, the projected future return is just over 5% yearly. No big difference in returns over the next decade. So why choose the Davis formula? The edge in making the big shift: The path will be much smoother, predictable, and less nerve-rattling that sticking with a huge over-weighting in U.S. stocks. Of course, Davis recommends rebalancing gradually, and funding as much of it as possible with fresh savings and reinvestment of dividends and high interest payments from fixed income assets. Davis is no fan of cryptocurrencies Davis isn't recommending crypto investing as a means of boosting your returns at a time when U.S. stocks won't come close to matching their past performance. 'I got into this business around the time of the era,' he told me. 'Anything with a behind it went to the moon. Some were actually really good businesses, however the majority were not. Good things can come out of crypto like blockchain, and that technology can reduce costs in the financial sector and improve speed, so we think there are some good fundamental components to it. But to us investing in Bitcoin is speculation.' For Davis, Bitcoin offers none of the advantages of traditional investments that generate interest payments, or earnings that feed capital gains and dividends. 'It's not investing in a cash flow generating business, it's not investing in bonds where you have a commitment to getting a coupon payment every six months, then principal at maturity,' he explains. 'It's basically looking to sell to someone willing to pay more than you did. And the whole idea that a limited supply of Bitcoin will drive up its value is questionable when you consider that there's an unlimited supply of new types of crypto that could be created. So I personally don't get it. Vanguard won't launch a Bitcoin fund. We just don't see it as a core part of an investment portfolio.' Davis grew up on an Army base near Nuremberg, Germany, the child of a father in an Airborne division and a German mother. As a kid, he mainly spoke German, including with his grandmother, and didn't live in the U.S. until age 7. 'When I go to Germany and speak the language, people can tell I've kept the Bavarian dialect,' he declares. He started at Penn State pursuing aeronautical engineering, but lack of skill in mechanical drawing forced him to switch—to a major in insurance. 'Penn State was one of the few schools that offered that unusual major,' he says. Davis went on to get an MBA at Wharton, and after a brief stint in a Merrill Lynch training program, got an offer from Vanguard that would require a move from Wall Street to the sleepy suburbs of Philly. Davis took the job in part because Vanguard was then a fast-growing shop, where he figured his chances of advancement would be better than at a huge bank or brokerage. He was especially attracted to Vanguard's highly unusual 'cooperative' model, where the funds––meaning the investors––are the shareholders. 'So because we have economies of scale where over time our revenues grow faster than expenses, we can rebate that money back to investors by lowering fees,' he says. Davis proudly notes that Vanguard has made 2,000 such reductions in its history, and especially that in February it announced the biggest decrease ever—a cut of $350 million across 68 mutual funds and ETFs in equities and fixed income. Vanguard's whole approach where the objective is to constantly lower fees is highly un-Wall Street. So is Davis's contrarian counsel to follow what the valuations and history tells us, to shift from stocks that are extremely expensive and whose prices can't grow to the sky, despite what the bulls are saying. It's a sobering, cautionary tale. But it's one that makes eminent sense. This story was originally featured on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store