Q. In the past, you have argued that optimism is the only rational outlook for the future. That flies in the face of the current mood in America and elsewhere. Do you still believe that and why?
A. That optimism flies in the face of “the current mood” is almost reason enough to embrace it, all by itself. But I carry in my back pocket more computing power than existed on Earth when I started kindergarten in 1949, and a million times more than E. F. Hutton had when I joined that firm in 1967. I have been almost effortlessly cured half a dozen times in my life of illnesses which, had I been born 50 years earlier, would have killed me. Both these staggering improvements in the quality of life are compounding exponentially, as indeed is all information technology—and all technology is information technology.
As the developing world continues to adopt free market principles, it continues to pull tens of millions of people a year out of poverty—first to become producers and then consumers. America remains the most entrepreneurial, flexible, transparent economy in the world. We virtually own science. Nearly all (if not all) of the revolutionary global companies started since the advent of the microprocessor are ours; this country throbs with opportunity for the path-breaking technologist.
We’re one of the richest countries in mineral resources, and the only one which vests the mineral rights in the landowner—just when we’ve perfected the synthesis of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. We may very soon be an exporter of hydrocarbons—a major boon to Americans and a source of strength for the dollar. Cheap natural gas is bringing manufacturing back home. I can go on and on like this. I’ve never been more optimistic in my life than I am today.
Q. If an advisor wanted to focus his or her practice on just one idea for the foreseeable future, what would it be?
A. That when an American (or an American couple) steps across the threshold of retirement, they find themselves facing two doors. Door Number One says, “The money outlives the people.” And Door Number Two says, “The people outlive the money.” And the newly minted retirees must pass through one door or the other. It’s as stark and as simple as that. Forget debt, the demographics of aging, unfunded entitlements, global monetary policy, and all those other amorphous imponderables we can’t predict, much less control. Focus on what we may be able to control, if and only if the client will let us: whether the money outlives the folks, or they outlive their money. There is treasure on Earth and in heaven for those advisors who make it their mission to help people plan their way through Door Number One.
A Talk With Nick Murray
March 2, 2015
« Previous Article
| Next Article »
Login in order to post a comment
Comments
-
Door number one!
-
I have immense respect for Nick Murray and could read what he writes all day. That said, I take issue with the statement: "placing 60% and 70% of one’s portfolio in bonds may be a way of managing sequence-of-return risk, but so is shooting oneself in the head. Both are fatal; one is just more sudden." As a means to avoid sequence-of-returns risk, the Pfau/Kitces recommendation is controversial, as I'm sure Wade and Michael would allow. But more generally, I believe (as do many advisors) that asset allocation should be driven by one's willingness, ability and need to take risk. To the last of these, a client who will need relatively little from their portfolio to provide or supplement their income income in retirement would almost certainly find that a 40/60 or 30/70 portfolio will give them greater odds of sustaining that level of withdrawals. Why, then, would I want to subject them to more risk by putting them in a 60/40 portfolio? So they have a greater chance of leaving more on the table, at greater risk to their spending plan? That doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, I see this a lot -- people think that because a 60/40 portfolio has had a higher safe withdrawal rate than a 30/70 portfolio (see Bengen et al.), then it's the preferred allocation. But for an actual client with unique facts and circumstance, it's unlikely that a "rule of thumb" will suffice. Rather, simulations should be run to see what will work best for that unique client, and it may well turn out to be a bond-heavy portfolio.
-
Preach it Brother Nick. Preach it.