Don't Expect Anything Over 7%

Don't bank on earning an annual return much in excess of 7% on the U.S. stocks allocation in your portfolio. That was the message almost two years ago, when I forecast an annual return for the S&P 500 of 7.2% over the next seven years. Two years on, and the expected return over the next seven to 10 years has hardly budged at all. But what do I know about predicting stock returns? Instead, let's listen to an authority, Vanguard's Jack Bogle.

Bogle sets the record straight
In an interview published on Morningstar's website on Aug. 12, this is what Bogle had to say about the prospects for stocks over a 10-year horizon (with the S&P 500 at almost exactly the same level it closed at Friday):

Stocks could give you a return significantly higher than that [of Treasury bonds.] Stocks also have a yield of around 2.3%, the same as the 10-year Treasury, but they have earnings that should grow even if the economy grows a little more slowly, let's say it's 4% instead of 5% in nominal terms, that would be a 6% return on stocks. Maybe they can grow a little faster. That would be a 7% return on stocks for example, unless P/Es change radically.

Bogle's arithmetic
In order to produce a return forecast, Bogle breaks stock returns into three components: income return (dividends), earnings growth, and change in valuation (the earnings multiple the market is willing to pay for future earnings). This is his arithmetic:

Stock Returns -- Components


Dividend return


Earnings growth


Change in P/E multiple


Estimated 10-year annualized return

~ 7%

(My return forecast assumed the S&P 500 at 1,057.08 -- a 15% overvaluation. On the date of Bogle's interview, the overvaluation was 23%. The difference between the two is insignificant in terms of the impact on annualized return forecasts -- seven-hundredths of a percentage point, if you're wondering.)

The absolute truth
Although Morningstar put a happy face on Bogle's words with the title "Bogle: Stocks Poised to Outperform," he made a second, critical point toward the end of the interview. While the first part of the discussion focused on the prospects for stocks' relative performance, Bogle then shifts toward his analysis of stocks' absolute performance. Here, Bogle sounds a more cautious note:

So, I'd like to look at potential returns. But I also like to think of the consequences ... if things go wrong, so we can call it some dry powder or we can call it a little formula for sleeping better at night when you go through these volatile times.

Expect the unexpected
Translation: The expected return isn't the return you should expect. Let me explain. The future is uncertain; the expected return may be the highest likelihood return, but stock returns are sufficiently volatile -- even over a 10-year period -- that it is highly probable that your actual returns will differ from them. Since the modern S&P 500 was introduced in March 1957, the average annual return over a 10-year period has been 6.8% (incidentally, this is the midpoint of Bogle's range). However, the standard deviation is 5 full percentage points. In other words, even if Bogle's estimate is correct, the odds of a return lower than 2% is roughly 1 in 6! That scenario is what Bogle is referring to when he says that things can "go wrong." It's not that unlikely.

However, there are ways to mitigate that risk, the most effective of which is to require a margin of safety when you invest. When your expected return is only 7% -- roughly 3 percentage points less than the long-term historical average for U.S. stocks -- you don't want to be overweight stocks. On the contrary, you should be underweight and, in an environment in which the 10-year Treasury yields little more than 2%, that means holding cash. (I'm reasoning here with regard to the U.S. allocation of your portfolio.)

5 above-average stocks and 5 below-average
That advice holds for index-oriented investors. If you fancy yourself a stock picker, you have the option of trying to select stocks that look likely to beat the index. Of course, if you go that route, there is always the risk that you choose stocks that fall short of the market return because their prospects don't justify their valuations. The following table contains 10 stocks that I categorize in one or the other category:

Above-Average Expected Return (>7%)

Below-Average Expected Return (<7%)

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B  ) Allied Nevada Gold
Google AutoNation
Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (Nasdaq: GMCR  )
PNC Financial (NYSE: PNC  ) LinkedIn (Nasdaq: LNKD  )
Zimmer Holdings (NYSE: ZMH  ) (Nasdaq: CRM  )

Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

Owning the average means earning the average
Let me sum up: If you hold broad market index funds or a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks, and you trust Bogle's assessment, you should expect to earn roughly 7% over the next seven to 10 years. This assumes 2%-3% annual inflation; above that level, the expected rate would need to be revised upward. If you want to earn more than that, you're going to need to place some bets by putting together a portfolio of stocks that differs materially from the index. One of the best areas to look for those wagers right now is high-quality, large-cap stocks (such as the ones in the first column of the table above). If you want more high-quality names, the Fool has identified 13 High-Yielding Stocks to Buy Today.

Fool contributor Alex Dumortier holds no position in any company mentioned. Click here to see his holdings and a short bio. You can follow him on Twitter. The Motley Fool owns shares of PNC Financial Services Group, Microsoft, Zimmer Holdings, Berkshire Hathaway, and Google. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Microsoft, Google,, Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, and Berkshire Hathaway. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended creating a bull call spread position in Microsoft. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended creating a lurking gator position in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended shorting

Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Read/Post Comments (13) | Recommend This Article (24)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 4:03 PM, ShaunConnell wrote:

    That's a gross oversimplification of market economics. It's just silly.

    You know the "past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future result"? Yeah, that.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 4:20 PM, TheRealGlaird wrote:

    See my comment about Bogle's logic in my book review, on Amazon, about his twist use of logic. It doesn't work.

    Second, as a retired SW engineer, I can tell you anyone who naively believes that MSFT has a future, after floundering for 10 years, does not have the slightest understanding of technology. Second, has anyone other than the author and Bogle noticed how AAPL has done? AAPL will dominate the PC marketplace. As evidenced by their sequential quarter performance for years.

    Lastly the US stock exchange does not the world of equities make. Bogle doesn't seem to understand that either.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 4:31 PM, TMFHousel wrote:

    << I can tell you anyone who naively believes that MSFT has a future, after floundering for 10 years, does not have the slightest understanding of technology.>>

    MSFT's EPS grew at over 15% per year over the past decade. I'd hardly call that floundering.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 5:55 PM, teeba11 wrote:

    I believe the point TheRealGlaird is making is in the stock. Look at the 10 year chart of MSFT compared to AAPL and you see quite a contrast.

    While Microsoft the company is growing eps, MSFT the stock has done relatively little.

    I believe stock pickers have a good chance to beat the 7% spoken about here. You must do your homework pay attention.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 6:52 PM, esxokm wrote:

    This thesis is a probably a good argument for learning the science of writing calls and puts.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 9:10 PM, TimothyVR wrote:

    So we will experience the longest secular bear market in history.

    There isn't any point in investing.

    This is an interesting perspective for the Motley Fool to take for its banner headline article.

    We must all despair and lapse into misery. I will do that as soon as I post this comment.

    And then I have to decide whether to follow Motley Fool's strange and dogmatic new pessimism on the next decade of investing - or continue to invest in dividend payers.

    I think I will ignore the Motley Fool and continue investing.

    First - I will wallow in despair....Then buy more shares of Coke.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 10:36 PM, wrenchbender57 wrote:

    Mitigate your risk by holding cash? Your return with cash is zero. On the other end of the argument is to invest in higher return (riskier) stocks. Also, the author states that a 1 in 6 probability is "not all that unlikely"? Is this article confusing and contradictory, or it is just me that sees it that way?

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 10:56 PM, harispicks wrote:

    If I can get 7 to 8% consistently every year I will take it. Thanks.

  • Report this Comment On August 29, 2011, at 10:57 PM, harispicks wrote:

    If I can get 7 to 8% "after taxes" consistently every year I will take it :) - Actually thats kind of my goal....for each year.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2011, at 12:37 AM, daveandrae wrote:

    My portfolio's August 26th, 2011, year over year investment performance

    Asset Allocation

    100% Equity


    Harley Davidson - 48.56%

    McDonald's - 26.78%

    Pfizer - 19.38%

    Dow Chemical - 15.35%

    General Electric - 10.43%

    Turnover ratio-


    Total aggregate return-


    S&P 500-


    August 27th, 2010, year over year investment performance

    Asset allocation

    100% Equity

    McDonalds- 33.94%

    Dow Chemical- 18.84%

    Harley Davidson- 12.31%

    General Electric- 6.29%

    Pfizer- (minus) 0.63%

    Turnover ratio – 0%

    Aggregate total return - 14.15%

    S&P 500- 5.55%

    Two year annualized rate of return-


    S&p 500-


    I didn't bother to include today's 4% aggregate gain, for it should be obvious to the reader that there is absolutely, positively, NO correlation whatsoever between 'investment performance" and Investor Return.

    In fact, as you can see, the two are wildly diametrical.

  • Report this Comment On August 30, 2011, at 9:32 AM, jimmy4040 wrote:


    Anyway, Often overlooked is the huge increase in HF trading in the last 5 years. With current volume consisting of up to 70% HF, the opportunities to beat the market are fewer and fewer.

  • Report this Comment On September 04, 2011, at 4:46 PM, UFOFred wrote:


    "the huge increase in HF trading"

    What does trading in Hydrofluoric acid have to do with this article?

    May I suggest -- if you must use acronyms, please _define_ them.

    from the founder and Chief Pooh Bah of CRAP -- the Coalition for the Reduction of Acronym Proliferation.

  • Report this Comment On September 12, 2011, at 3:54 PM, TMFDukenewkirk wrote:


    The authors are talking about market averages. If we pay attention at TMF we aim to do considerably better than market averages, otherwise, as TMF suggests, we may as well invest in indexes. I'm currently beating the S&P, as of today, by an annualized average of 9.3% (over 7 years), and I've built my portfolio with TMF guidance. So if the market simply rocks it with a 7% annualized return, I'm doing cartwheels.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 1545512, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 7/1/2016 2:55:54 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated Moments ago Sponsored by:
DOW 17,940.36 10.37 0.06%
S&P 500 2,099.61 0.75 0.04%
NASD 4,854.00 11.33 0.23%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

7/1/2016 2:39 PM
BRK-B $143.92 Down -0.87 -0.60%
Berkshire Hathaway… CAPS Rating: *****
MSFT $51.16 Down -0.01 -0.02%
Microsoft CAPS Rating: ****
PNC $80.98 Down -0.41 -0.50%
PNC Financial Serv… CAPS Rating: ****
ZMH $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Zimmer Holdings CAPS Rating: ****
GMCR $0.00 Down +0.00 +0.00%
Keurig Green Mount… CAPS Rating: **