We’re officially nine months into the year. The asset class, sector, and global market quilts are up to date for Q3 2026. Links to the updated versions are below:

• Asset Class Returns
• Sector Returns
• International Market Returns
• Emerging Market Returns

You can download copies here or save the images below.

Stocks have done well so far this year. While broader markets are higher on the year, most were relatively unchanged in the third quarter. Emerging markets still lead with a 24% total return. The two exceptions were REITs and US small caps. Both fell in Q3 but are still positive year to date.

The energy sector ended the quarter on top with a 40% return through the third quarter followed by the tech sector. All other sectors underperformed the S&P 500’s 13% return.

Continue Reading…

Quote for the Week

Back in 1963, I was in a training program at Wertheim & Co., and one day the firm’s senior partner, J.K. Klingenstein, was our guest speaker. As he was about to leave, one of the trainees blurted out, “Mr. Klingenstein, you’re rich. How can we become rich like you?” Everyone else was mortified, and J.K. was clearly not amused. But then his face softened, and you could see that he was taking the question very seriously and trying to sum up everything he’d learned in a lifetime on Wall Street. The room was silent as a tomb, and finally Mr. Klingenstein said firmly, “Don’t lose.” Then he stood up and left. I’ve never forgotten that moment. That’s what investors should really care about: Don’t lose. Don’t make mistakes. They cost too much. Most of the destruction of investment value occurs in small, private, anguishing experiences that are never discussed and never recorded, because people were doing things they never should have done…

In investing, losing means taking decisive action at the worst possible times — being driven by your emotions precisely when you need to be the most rational.

Trying too hard to win eventually means losing. To win the Indianapolis 500, you first have to finish the Indianapolis 500 — that’s five hundred laps around and around that oval. If you try too hard on just one lap, you won’t live to finish. — Charley Ellis (source)

Continue Reading…

How do you define the perfect portfolio?

It’s probably not the most optimal allocation based on historical market data. The perfect portfolio up to the 1970s, was less perfect in the 1980s. The same can be said for the ’80s in relation to the ’90s, the ’90s relative to the 2000s, and so on to today. The market changes and is too unpredictable for that type of consistency. The data only tells us what happened not what will happen in markets.

It’s probably not whatever offers the highest returns either. That requires foresight, which we all lack. Too much dumb luck and risk involved to be worth considering. You’re far more likely to end up broke instead of rich.

It’s also not some cookie cutter portfolio you copied online. Not the worst choice but it’s missing an important consideration.

So, what is it then? One might argue that the perfect portfolio “is the one you can stick to.” Except that catchy phrase is incomplete.

A new book by my friend Peter Lazaroff, titled The Perfect Portfolio, breaks it down for you.

Continue Reading…

Quote for the Week

Risk and time are opposite sides of the same coin.

This conclusion suggests that duration — the concept of risk that the fixed-income people use — has relevance for all kinds of risks, not just for bonds and mortgages. Duration is a weighted average of cash flows over the life of an investment, with the present values of those cash flows as the weights. Duration does not always fit the bill precisely, because it does not reflect the uncertainty of those cash flows, but it does capture the sense of what we are after.

Indeed, in a fundamental sense, duration conveys more information about riskiness than volatility can convey. As fixed-income investors learned long ago, duration explains volatility — long-term bonds are more volatile than Treasury bills, and stocks are more volatile than long-term bonds. Thus, as I argued at the outset, volatility is a useful concept but an incomplete one. We are closer to the essence of risk when we look at it through the prism of duration. — Peter Bernstein (source)

Continue Reading…

What do fortunetellers, psychics, and stock market forecasters have in common? They all claim to know what happens next…for a price.

But how good are they? Horrible! Yet some investors pay for it anyways. It’s a lesson investors can learn from history.

Alfred Cowles was one of the first to put market forecasters to the test almost a century ago. He conducted two studies, the first in 1932 and again in 1944.

The first study was based on the period from 1928 to 1932. Cowles first looked at how successful 20 insurance companies and 16 financial services firms were at picking stocks that would outperform the market. He next looked at the accuracy of 25 financial publications in predicting the movements of the markets. He also included the 26-year record of the editor of the Wall Street Journal, Peter William Hamilton.

The results were not surprising.

Continue Reading…

Quote for the Week

One of the pieces of advice that I’ve had in my books, going back ten years now, is that investors in bonds should invest only in “full faith and credit” securities. Bonds that have call options or bonds that have credit risks or bonds that are highly structured, like the asset-backed securities and CDOs, just don’t belong in the portfolios of sensible investors.

There’s just systematic mis-pricing of credit and options and complexity. Now it’s obvious when I say that. It wasn’t so obvious when I wrote it ten years ago, and then again in Unconventional Success, and now again in the new version of Pioneering Portfolio Management.

People on Wall Street who are structuring these securities are more sophisticated than the people to whom they are selling them. With that kind of dynamic, when really smart, highly compensated, very clever people are on one side of the trade, and less highly compensated, less clever people are on the other side, you know who’s going to end up in the soup. — David Swensen (source)

Continue Reading…