Will You Be Satisfied With 7% Returns?

Will You Be Satisfied With 7% Returns?
By Alex Dumortier, CFA
March 18, 2009 Comments (41)

7.2%.
That's what Jeremy Grantham recently predicted stocks will return -- after inflation -- on an annualized basis over the next seven years.

Is that good enough for you?
Who on earth is Jeremy Grantham? Jeremy Grantham is the co-founder of investment firm GMO, which currently has approximately $90 billion in assets under management.

Grantham is often dismissed as a "perma-bear" when his views go against Wall Street's institutionalized optimism -- but the truth is, he's a rock-solid investment thinker, grounded in reality, who calls 'em like he sees 'em.

He believes that "mean reversion is the most powerful force in financial markets." In other words, periods of abnormally high returns must be balanced out by periods of abnormally low returns, and this holds true across the gamut of different assets, whether it be commodities, stocks, or bonds.

On that basis, at the end of 2001, Grantham predicted that the S&P 500 would suffer an annualized decline of 1.1% over the following seven years -- which was decidedly optimistic, since the annualized real return turned out to be negative 3.9%.

In July 2007, as the credit crisis was in its infancy, Grantham wrote: "In five years, ... at least one major bank (broadly defined) will have failed." We've all witnessed the multiple failures, rushed takeovers, and government rescues in the financial sector since then.

So, it's worth taking his predictions seriously.

7%? Seriously?
It may be hard to imagine 7% annual returns (after inflation, no less!) right now, what with the S&P 500 down approximately 50% from its all-time high in October 2007, but that decline has, in fact, set the stage for investors to earn 7% -- near the average historical return on stocks -- going forward.

The drop has been a source of enormous pain for investors -- but from the point of view of the prospective stock buyer, it's a great opportunity since stocks are at lower valuations than they have been in years.

In fact, Grantham called U.S. blue chips "manna from heaven"; indeed, when the credit crisis began to escalate, he said "they were about as cheap, on a relative basis, as they ever get."
I wanted to verify that claim, and I was able to confirm that over one in four non-financial stocks in the S&P 500 are cheaper in terms of their price-to-book value multiple than they have been in over 14 years. They include these superb companies:

Price/Book Value
Forward Price/Earnings

Oracle (NYSE: ORCL)
3.3
10.4
Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO)
2.5
14.5
Procter & Gamble (NYSE: PG)
2.3
12.7
eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY)
1.3
8.4
CVS Caremark (NYSE: CVS)
1.1
12.3
General Electric (NYSE: GE)
1.0
8.1
Alcoa (NYSE: AA)
0.4
N/A
Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's, as of March 16, 2009.

But what if you aren't satisfied with 7% returns?

Getting to 7% *plus*
Grantham's prediction is based on the S&P 500, in aggregate, being fairly valued (he's currently pegging its fair value at 950). And if you pay fair value for the index, you can expect to earn the weighted average return that the underlying companies earn on their equity.

But within the S&P 500, some stocks will likely be overvalued, and some will likely be undervalued. If you're able to buy an individual stock for less than its fair value, that margin of safety will turbo-charge your expected return beyond the company's accounting return on shareholders' equity.

Grantham expects a subset of U.S. stocks -- those he labels "high quality" -- to produce after-inflation annualized returns of 11.2% over the next seven years. Four percentage points on an annualized basis is an enormous difference -- and gives investors plenty of incentive to identify those "high quality" stocks.

Although Grantham doesn't directly define "high quality," he provides some clues in an interview with Forbes in which he said, "And the best bet, for my money, then and now, a year later, was to buy the great franchise companies, the great quality companies." This suggests that he favors companies that possess a moat -- a sustainable competitive advantage -- and that earn excess returns over their cost of capital.

Helping you earn better returns
No investor is "condemned" to 7% returns going forward -- and neither are we promised them. Investing -- at reasonable prices -- in excellent businesses that are likely to grow is the best strategy for securing your long-term returns.

Of course, even among stocks that are perceived as "high quality," you can expect a range of different returns. The trick is identifying which stocks are genuinely undervalued.


Alex Dumortier, CFA has no beneficial interest in any of the companies mentioned in this article. Procter & Gamble is a Motley Fool Income Investor pick. eBay is an Inside Value and a Stock Advisor recommendation. The Fool owns shares of Procter & Gamble.

Read/Post Comments (41)

http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2009/03/18/will-you-be-satisfied-with-7-returns.aspx