This cheap, balanced portfolio will be a better investment than most hedge funds
As I've written repeatedly in recent months, the U.S. stock market is extremely overvalued, with an expected return over the next decade that is well below the rate of inflation. Bonds also appear to be unattractive, given the increasing likelihood that inflation will remain higher for longer.
'I want to enjoy the time we have left': I'm 68 and plan to work past retirement age. Should I empty my $700K 401(k)?
The stock market just won't crack. Bulls say it's time for a breakout to new highs.
Here's how Intel's stock charts look after its big rally. Should you buy it?
'We are shocked and upset': My mother died and her second husband said he now owns everything. Is this true?
'My retirement is going to be a disaster': I'm 59 and have $45,000 in my 401(k). I earn $72,000. Am I doomed?
Hedge funds would seem to be the answer. They specialize in opportunistically moving between various asset classes. In theory, they should easily outperform both stocks and bonds.
Unfortunately, the typical hedge fund's track record shows otherwise.
Last year was a case in point. The traditional balanced portfolio that allocates 60% to stocks and 40% to bonds produced a 14.7% return (assuming the stock portion was invested in a broad U.S. stock market index fund and the bond portion was invested in a total U.S. bond market index fund). That's nearly double the 7.4% return of the Eurekahedge Asset Weighted Index, which is described by Eurekahedge as its 'flagship asset weighted index' of 1,438 constituent funds. This index, Eurekahedge adds, is 'designed to provide a representative capital weighted benchmark for the entire global hedge fund industry.'
The index does represent an average of many funds, some of which did much better than average. But these outliers were not known in advance. We know that because of the performance of the Eurekahedge Fund of Funds Index, which 'is designed to provide a broad measure of the performance of underlying investment managers who exclusively invest in single manager hedge funds.'
These funds of hedge funds employ analysts who scrutinize hedge-fund track records in hopes of identifying those that 'should' become superior performers. Yet, as you can see from the chart above, the Eurekahedge Fund of Funds index did only marginally better in 2024 than the Eurekahedge Asset Weighted Index (gaining 9.7% versus 7.4%, respectively), and still significantly lagged behind the 60/40 portfolio. The chart also shows that last year was not an exception. Each of the Eurekahedge indexes lagged behind the 60/40 portfolio over the trailing five- and 10-year periods as well.
These results bring to mind the explosive conclusion reached by Richard Ennis, a former editor of the Financial Analysts Journal and co-founder of EnnisKnupp, one of the industry's first investment consultants. In an article published in the Journal of Investing in February 2024, Ennis analyzed the impact of alternative investments, or 'alts.' This category includes all asset classes other than stocks and bonds, such as 'private equity, private market real estate, [and] hedge funds.'
After analyzing the performance of endowments and other large institutional investors, Ennis concluded: 'Alpha [the difference between a portfolio's return and its benchmark] appears to respond to the presence of alts as if the latter were kryptonite — the greater the exposure, the harsher the effect on alpha.'
Hope springs eternal. And for many hedge fund aficionados, that means the promise of artificial intelligence. But this hope rests on shaky ground.
Consider the performance of the Eurekahedge AI Hedge Fund Index, which is 'designed to provide a broad measure of the performance of underlying hedge fund managers who utilize artificial intelligence and machine learning theory in their trading processes.' This index has done even worse than its two broader Eurekahedge index siblings, producing annualized returns of 1.9%, 3.5% annualized and 5.5% annualized over the past one-, five- and 10-year periods, respectively.
Hedge funds are more closely tied to the stock and bond markets than most recognize. We know this because of the correlation coefficient of hedge-fund returns and those of the 60/40 portfolio. The correlation coefficient of monthly returns of the Eurekahedge Asset Weighted Index and the 60/40y portfolio is 74%; with the Eurekahedge Fund of Funds Index, the coefficient is 72%.
In presenting these sobering statistics, I am not suggesting that the 60/40 portfolio will necessarily perform well in the coming years. Expected returns for both stocks and bonds are mediocre. My point is that, regardless of how stocks and bonds perform, it's unlikely that the typical hedge fund or even fund of hedge funds will do better than a 60/40 portfolio.
Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at
More: Is this time different? How to invest as the 'Magnificent Seven' lose momentum.
Plus: Hot CPI reignites stagflation fears. Here's why that would be disastrous for your 401(k).
I'm a wife and mother. Can I secretly change my will and leave everything to my daughter instead of my husband?
'He doesn't drink, smoke, party or gamble': My boyfriend, 55, is perfect in many ways, but gets mad if I ask him to contribute
'We have no prenuptial agreement': Will my wife be able to take my money if I transfer it to my retirement account?
My husband filed for divorce, but did not contribute one penny towards the mortgage. Is he entitled to half of our home?
'I can't stop thinking about it': My husband bought substantial properties prior to our marriage. If he sells them and we divorce, will I get half?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nasdaq slides again as AI jitters rattle tech investors
NEW YORK (Reuters) -Tech stocks are leading declines on Wall Street, with worries about AI spurring debates about its future. The Nasdaq Composite is down around 2.4% over the last two days, the worst two-day fall since April. The semiconductor index was down 1.5%, while the information technology sector was the second biggest decliner in the S&P 500, dropping 1.1% on Wednesday. Market participants attributed the selloff to a range of factors including a technical pullback after driving much of the stock market's recovery in the weeks after April 2nd "Liberation Day." Analysts also cited deepening concerns of government interference with companies, as the Trump administration looked into taking equity stakes in chip companies such as Intel in exchange for grants under the CHIPS Act. COMMENTS: ART HOGAN, MARKET STRATEGIST, B. RILEY WEALTH MANAGEMENT, BOSTON: "Technology in general is up 40% from its April lows, and the group clearly got ahead of itself. Also, if there's anything to the market consensus that we'll see a Fed rate cut, then there will be room for other things to work as well – and there are 493 other stocks in the S&P 500 that are lagging the Mag 7 right now. So I think there's a bit of a rotation." "I don't know how long it will last, but if it does keep going, well, August and September (are) the weak period seasonally in which it could do so. Also, there are some people who are beginning to question the pace at which we need to be chasing AI capital spending. If you put all this together: when technology stocks take a breather, this is what it looks like. Nvidia and other blue chips in the group are seeing relatively steady drawdowns, but things on the speculative edge are clearly seeing more selling pressure. Palantir has gone from trading at 200 times sales to 150 times its sales, for instance." MICHAEL ASHLEY SCHULMAN, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, RUNNING POINT, EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA: "Tuesday' s U.S. technology stock swoon and its continuation today looks like multiple compression meeting a little margin math, but the timing makes it hard to ignore the new elephant in the server room. Names that had been sprinting on AI dreams pulled back hard, with Nvidia, AMD, and Palantir Technologies among the drags." "DeepSeek's update landed on Tuesday represents a serious cocktail of capability and availability and traders well remember the original harsh tech-market pullback DeepSeek caused when it was first broadly recognized in January of this year." BRIAN JACOBSEN, CHIEF ECONOMIST, ANNEX WEALTH MANAGEMENT, BROOKFIELD, WISCONSIN: "When you go from rally to rout, it shows how vulnerable the names were to even a scent of bad news. It could have been (Sam)Altman's valuation warning and then Meta restructuring its AI division threw fuel on the fire." PHIL BLANCATO, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LADENBURG THALMANN ASSET MANAGEMENT, NEW YORK: "It's much more about profit-taking and temporary rebalancing here. If you get a Federal Reserve cut or a mention of it on Friday, this will reverse pretty quickly, but this is a lot to do with names pushed up to really lofty levels and profit taking across the board." SETH HICKLE, PORTFOLIO MANAGER, MINDSET WEALTH MANAGEMENT, INDIANAPOLIS: "I think we are starting to see a little bit of rotation. It's always healthy to see a little bit of a pullback to that way, the markets can kind of get re-oriented." "To me, tech was overbought. Maybe it was justified, but it could have been kind of a buy on the rumor, sell it on the news type of thing where we had tech runup into earnings. We had really good earnings, and now it's kind of natural for the market just to sell some of that good news." "I wouldn't be surprised if we see a little bit of rotation into some smaller cap or into healthcare names, or consumer staples. And to me, that's kind of a healthy rotation. But honestly, I don't believe it will be a longer-term trend. It'll probably be a shorter-term trend. I think we'll see money flow back into tech in the next couple months." STEVE SOSNICK, CHIEF STRATEGIST, INTERACTIVE BROKERS, CONNECTICUT "The tech-led selloff that we saw yesterday resumed this morning. That said, dip buyers stepped in around 11am EDT and we've now recovered about half our losses. It's somewhat inevitable to expect them to arrive promptly, though it did take a bit longer than usual." "I believe that some of the early declines are related to profit-taking and risk squaring ahead of (Fed Chair Jerome)Powell's speech on Friday. That is merely rotation and relatively benign, though it gets magnified because of megacap tech stocks' heavy weighting in key indices. But some of the ferocity of the early drop was related to the President's calls for Lisa Cook's resignation." "Note that futures broke through their pre-market lows shortly after he posted on Truth Social. Markets were not perturbed that there are inquiries into the propriety of her personal mortgage applications. She gets a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, like any other person. But when the President weighed in even before the process began, then it raised the specter of politicization. That put markets on the wrong foot early, and negative momentum ruled again – at least for a couple of hours." ADAM SARHAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, 50 PARK INVESTMENTS, NEW YORK: "To see a little pullback here after a big move up is perfectly normal and healthy. If the selling gets worse then you'll see a rotation out of tech and into undervalued areas of the market like biotech stocks or healthcare stocks or small cap stocks because those areas have not participated this year." Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Senator Sanders favors Trump plan to take stake in Intel, others
By Alexandra Alper WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Liberal U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday threw his support behind President Donald Trump's plan to convert U.S. grants to chipmakers, including $10.9 billion for Intel, into government stakes in the companies. "If microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment," Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, said in a statement to Reuters. The awards were part of the 2022 Chips and Science Act, which sought to lure chip production away from Asia and boost American domestic semiconductor output with $39 billion in subsidies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is looking into the government taking equity stakes in Intel and other chipmakers in exchange for the grants, sources told Reuters on Tuesday. Much of the funding for companies such as Micron , Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co and Samsung has not been dispersed.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Intel: US support is 'essential,' but equity stake raises concerns
The Trump administration is reportedly considering taking an equity stake in Intel (INTC) and other chipmakers. TECHnalysis Research chief analyst Bob O'Donnell and Yale School of Management lecturer Gautam Mukunda discuss how the US hypothetical government's investment in the US chip industry makes sense. However, they also raise concerns about the implications of the White House's equity stake and what it would mean for the separation of government and the private market. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Catalysts. When we look at the landscape of the companies that have taken chips act funding, who should we be zeroing in on now as now potentially having some kind of partnership with the government? Well, obviously I think you would probably look at the US-based ones because I think it's going to be pretty hard to convince TSMC and other country companies from outside the US for some of these deals. Um but so I mean it's going to be Micron, there's Global Foundries, uh there's uh TI to some degree, although they got a much smaller amount. So I mean, I think that's probably where it ends up. But look, I mean the bigger issue that we have to be talking about is is this really the right thing? I mean, you know, the government has given subsidies to farmers and to all kinds of other industries and there's never discussions of payback and investment there from a an earnings perspective. And I think it raises some very serious questions that we need to be thinking about because there's potential long-term implications here that I don't think are very good. Um on that front, I was struck by uh a column from uh Greg Ip in the Wall Street Journal that had was out about 10 days ago, even before this latest round of talk about about Intel. And he wrote, a generation ago conventional wisdom held that as China liberalized, its economy would come to resemble America's. Instead, capitalism in America is starting to look like China. And Gotham, I want to bring you in on that. Um companies don't seem to be raising a big ruckus here because those that have have gotten, you know, sanctioned in various ways, right? So, how do you think this this will work between the government and Intel or whoever else? Yeah, companies are objecting because they're afraid. Like it's really just that simple and CEOs of major corporations think of themselves as some of the most powerful people in the world and in many ways they are. But if you compare even the most powerful CEO, the biggest company in the world to the President of the United States, you're looking at an you're looking you're comparing a pygmy to an elephant. There's just not even a competition. And so this is a president who's demonstrated over and over again that he's willing to use the powers of the federal government, even illegally use the powers of the federal government to punish people who he doesn't like and he do who disagrees with or, you know, on a whim. And CEOs individually are all saying, look, I can't play that game. Collectively they might be able to stand up to him, but strikingly the organisms of collective action, the Chamber of Commerce, the, you know, the the the conference board things like that are just not standing up and acting or as acting as organizers to get CEOs to rally together and use their strength collectively. Well, it seems like in part Gotham it's because maybe they're getting some benefits from this as well, right? In the case of Intel, yes, it got that $2 billion infusion from from Softbank, but you know, if it does strike this deal with the government, is it more of an advantage than a disadvantage? Uh I mean, Intel clearly has had some trouble over the last few years, but I don't think they're so desperate for cash that they need this $10 billion from the government when what you're doing is letting the, you know, essentially letting Howard Letnik and Donald Trump into your into your boardroom and allowing them to dictate the course future course of strategy for your company. They're making claims about they're not going they're going to be non-voting shares, but like nobody believes this, right? Like it's completely implausible. And so even apart from the national level issues where the the federal government is not capable of administering this, doesn't have these abilities, none of these things make sense. From an individual level being the like temporarily fostered patron of the Trump administration might be good for a week or two, but I think Lip Buta knows better than anybody, right? That a few weeks ago Trump was calling for him to be fired. Now he's the favorite child. Next week it could be something else and no company can be run like that. Um Bob, what what do you think here? Because you've said also that Intel is essential to American security. So there is that that sort of argument to be made that this is in the national interest to to build this strong homegrown chip industry. It absolutely is and I completely agree with what was just being discussed because look, it's these changes all the time are just untenable for long-term success. And when we think about the critical importance that semiconductors play in the entire economy, not we always talk about it being tech, but remember that semiconductors are in cars, they're in washing machines, they're in pretty much everything. And all of those things are driven by technology advancements. And right now, the most advanced technology in the US is made by Intel. And they've been making these investments to enable other companies to leverage them because, you know, not only are there geopolitical issues, there's just the basic practical issue that you've got one company, TSMC, that owns essentially almost 100% of the most advanced chip making, you know, manufacturing capacity. That just doesn't make any sense from a supply chain perspective at all. You need diversity, you need manufacturing in the US because semiconductors are going to be critical moving forward. You can't just take another company and say, oh well, you can be the next Intel. There have been decades and decades of work done to get to where they are. These things don't change overnight. So, I think it's essential that the government does provide some subsidies. Maybe they encourage other US companies to work with Intel. That's the piece that Intel needs for their foundry business to really move forward to to nail a, you know, Nvidia, an AMD, an Apple, a Qualcomm, these kind of companies to do some work with Intel in their foundry business. That could really turn things around and then start to see more diversification across the supply chain, which is really essential. Again, not just for the US but for the global semiconductor industry.
