You can't spend too much time studying history and applying what finance has taught in the quest to anticipate prospective risk premiums for the major asset classes. It's tempting to think that a few metrics will do the trick, but it's never quite so simple. Any given factor has limits as a window into the future. An intelligent blending of factors helps minimize those limits, if only slightly. But we need all the help we can get.
That's one reason why we routinely review how other strategists think and act. In a world where no one has absolute knowledge, sharing and comparing capital market assumptions is productive if only to test our own notions of how markets price assets. As a small sampling of what's out there, we offer three recent perspectives on how to look ahead, along with a tidbit from each paper.
The first comes from EnnisKnupp, the institutional investment consultant. In a July 2009 paper reviewing capital market modeling assumptions, the firm reasoned that expected return for equities can be divided into three main components: dividend income, nominal growth in corporate earnings and changes in valuation levels.
Next, WellsFargo advised last month that recent market history posted contradictory results in terms of what standard finance theory predicts, namely, that higher risk is rewarded with higher return. "Asset class returns over the past two years have not provided investors with better performance in exchange for higher risks," the paper notes. "In fact, the better performing asset classes have been bonds, which usually are associated with lower risk." But this divergence offers clues about the future, the author explains. "Over the full market cycle, the relationships we expect to see between asset classes should generally hold." Thus the paper's lead question: "Back to Normal?"
You can surely find more exciting market commentary on the web, but rarely will you uncover more strategically relevant fare. The crowd loves to talk about the trees, but sometimes you can locate intelligent discussion of the forest too.