Long-Term Investing:
Lessons from History and Reasonable Expectations

Contents:

Why This Tedious History Lesson?
Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics    
The Euphoria: Stocks Perform
The Test: Stocks are Risky
Stuff versus Dollars: Real Returns
The Really Long Haul: How it Affects Risk
But What About the Stomach Churning Over Short Periods?
Where Does That Leave You?
Figuring Out What the Future Might Bring
Stay The Course

Why This Tedious History Lesson?

Anyone can become an astute mutual fund investor. But it’s not like riding a bike. You just can’t crank up the guts, give it a spin, and know that pretty quickly you’ll have learned by doing. That’s because there are a lot of details about markets and asset classes that are not mainstream knowledge and learning from experience could be long and painful. In addition, recent history is probably misleading.

So let’s take the first step—getting some long-term market history under your belt. Before the large-growth and technology peak in March 2000, many investors had never experienced a real bear market. The five previous years had been spectacular for U.S. large-cap stocks. The S&P 500 rose 37.6% in 1995, 23.0% in 1996, 33.4% in 1997, 28.6% in 1998, and 21.0% in 1999. But understanding history means more than remembering the recent difficult market for stocks, or the terrible year for bonds in 1994. It also means more than optimistically noticing that the stock market had created a lot of millionaires during an almost two-decade bull run. Stocks and bonds both have ups and downs—stocks more than bonds. Because these two basic asset classes are the building blocks of any portfolio it makes sense to know something about their long-term performance history. It was clear to us at the end of the '90s (as we had written in previous versions of this article) that both equity and bond returns were unprecedented and unsustainable on a long-term basis. A huge 20-year decline in interest rates fueled extraordinary multiple (valuation) expansion on stocks and price gains on bonds. While the party ended in 2000, the inflated longer-term historical returns have not yet been washed out, and as a result it is all too easy to arrive at unreasonably high expectations. We believe that realistic return expectations are critical. Without them, you have no guidelines by which to adjust your portfolio mix and investment strategy to heighten the probability that you will achieve your investment goals. In addition, without realistic return expectations you are more likely to be disappointed by your performance which may make it more difficult to stick to a sensible long-term investment plan.

By the time you’ve finished this article you’ll have a historical frame of reference for the risk and return trade-off between stocks and bonds. You’ll have a good feel for what kind of upside return potential there is from loading up on stocks. But you’ll also know the downside risk of such a strategy. You’ll understand the big difference a long time horizon makes to your assessment of risk—how being able to ignore short-term ups and downs and focus on the long haul can mean higher returns. Finally, you’ll have realistic return expectations for both stocks and bonds knowing that the recent startlingly good stock returns are not the norm. You’ll be able to make informed decisions about allocating a prudent percentage of your portfolio to stocks given your investment objectives.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics    

This is an old saying, but its veracity has kept it alive. Numbers can be manipulated. One way is to arbitrarily define your historical period. To get your investment bearings you need some historical context—from a period that’s long enough to form realistic expectations for the future, but not one that’s so long that you’re basing your expectations on “ancient” investment history when things were very different from the way they are today. The past is never a blueprint for the future, but you can at least establish some boundaries for expectations by looking at an appropriate period of history.

But what is the appropriate period? Because you want to have a basis for expectations, not to be able to bore your friends at cocktail parties with a wrap up of two centuries of market history, you want a period that is similar to current and expected future conditions. But you also want a period that is long enough to include a variety of economic conditions that could and probably will recur. People have done analyses of stock returns dating back to 1800 and found (using five different pieced-together data series) that the average annual increase in stock prices from 1800 through 1990 was a mere 3%. Sometimes more is better, but not always. Not only are there questions of data integrity, but in the 1800s the U.S. economy was primarily agrarian. Looking at data from such a distinctly different historical period may or may not be interesting to you, but it probably doesn’t help you sort out what are reasonable expectations for your investing life. 

Though many investment analysts use data going back to 1926, we decided data from 1950 forward give you what you want—a relevant, yet rich, period of history. This eliminates data from the Great Depression, World War II, and the immediate post World War II period that others include. We eliminate the Great Depression because the dramatic changes in the economy (automatic and discretionary stabilizers), and financial markets (limits to speculation and conflicts of interest, required disclosure and globalization) prompted by the Great Depression make a repeat unlikely. We are not asserting that another global collapse in production and employment is impossible. However, we think the possibility is remote. We exclude World War II not because we expect peace forever, but because it was such an unusual period.  And we leave out the period immediately after the war because the Treasury controlled interest rates  (which have a huge impact on both stock and bond returns), fairly tightly until after the Federal Reserve Treasury Accord in March 1951. (We started in 1950 because it seemed reasonable to start at the beginning of the decade, even though this meant including a short period prior to the Accord.) 

Choosing these 50-plus years (1950-2001) of data gives you a rich period that includes war, recession, stagflation, strong economic growth, political crisis, stock market crashes (long and short), oil crises, and huge moves in interest rates—all conditions that could recur. In our analysis we focus on large-cap U.S. stocks (which henceforth we just call “stocks”) and intermediate government bonds (which we call “bonds”).

The Euphoria: Stocks Perform

If you look at the last 50-plus years of history, you see that stocks are the high-octane asset class. Stocks have earned much higher total returns than bonds—pounding out a 13.8% average 12-month return compared to 6.5% for intermediate-term bonds. This does not mean that stocks always come out on top. But the odds are with stocks. And the longer the holding period, the higher the probability that stocks will beat bonds. Even over 12-month holding periods (the shortest period we looked at and much shorter than most investors’ investment horizon), stock returns were higher than intermediate bond returns 70% of the time. Our first bar chart illustrates that over longer periods, stocks were even more dominant. The odds of higher returns are stacked overwhelmingly in favor of stocks for anyone with even a five-year time horizon.  Unless you’ve got very short-term goals and the consequences are severe if you don’t meet them, stocks should be an important part of your portfolio. They’re not a sure bet (like U.S. government bonds), but the return potential is too attractive to ignore.

 However, though stocks have been the clear return winners most of the time and in the long haul, there have been periods when bonds were the better-returning investment. Bonds usually, though not always, outperform stocks when the economy is in a recession. In recessions interest rates tend to fall. When they do, bond prices rise, adding a capital gain component to the bond’s coupon returns. Recessions also bring lower company profits, depressing stock prices. Bonds also tend to do better than stocks following a big decline in inflation (which also brings interest rates down). Finally, when real yields (the yield we hear quoted all the time minus the rate of inflation) fall and the yield curve flattens (the difference between yields on short-term and long-term bonds narrows), bonds tend to outperform.

Let’s look at an example. The early ‘70s were definitely good for bonds compared to stocks. Two recessions (all four quarters of 1970 and from first quarter 1974 through first quarter 1975), plus the abysmal performance of stocks in the severe ’73/’74 bear market, during which stocks lost almost 43% of their value, made bonds look relatively good. For the six-year period from June 1969 through May 1975 bonds earned a cumulative 47.3% return (6.7% annualized), while stocks managed to earn only a 9.0% cumulative return (1.4% annualized). During the single worst 60-month period, ending September 1974, bonds outperformed stocks by over 60% (just under 10% annually). In the early ‘70s you would have been much better off if you had allocated 100% of your portfolio to bonds. But knowing when these periods are coming or how long they’ll last once they arrive is tough, if not impossible. Economists generally don’t even know when we’re in recession until we’ve been in one for at least two quarters. (Economists are notoriously bad predictors, but they’re the only ones who will even go on record trying.)  Bottom line is, there’s good reason to focus on the long haul and invest at least some of your money in stocks.

The Test: Stocks are Risky

Returns are not the whole story. Investors are risk averse. You like high returns. But you don’t like getting them by soaring and diving, soaring and diving—even if the soars are bigger than the dives. You might even be willing to take lower returns if you get a smoother ride. Certainly if average returns are the same, you prefer the smoother ride of less-variable returns to the bumpier ride of higher and lower returns. (Roller coasters are for weekend entertainment, not investment planning.) So there’s a risk/return trade-off. You’ll take greater risk, but only if there’s a higher average reward.

Comparing stock and bond returns provides a textbook illustration of the risk/return trade-off. As our second bar chart shows, the pain from owning stocks can be much greater than from owning bonds. Over 12-month periods, investors lost money in stocks twice as often as they did in bonds. Plus the losses in stocks were much more horrifying.  Stocks have provided higher average returns than bonds, but investors had to endure greater risk to get those higher returns. Their will to stay invested in stocks was tested more often and with bigger losses than if they had chosen bonds. Interestingly, psychological studies have shown that investors feel the pain of losses more acutely than the pleasure of gains. This is a good reason to own at least some bonds, even though the odds are that stocks will do better over your investment horizon if it is sufficiently long.

Stuff versus Dollars: Real Returns

Returns are almost universally quoted in nominal terms—in today’s dollars without any attention to how much stuff those dollars will buy. So far, we’ve looked only at nominal returns—the increase in your number of dollars from investing in stocks and bonds, not your increase in purchasing power. But when it comes right down to it, you’re really interested in stuff, not dollars (dollars are just pieces of paper). You want your investments to increase your purchasing power—to allow you (or your heirs) to consume more goods and services. The increase (or decrease) in purchasing power is your real return. Mathematically, real returns are equal to nominal returns minus the rate of inflation. Removing the effect of just paying more for the same goods gives you a measure of how much better off you are if you are focused on stuff. This is important because real returns tell a slightly different story than nominal returns, but the real story is not told nearly as often as the nominal story.

Although stocks have a greater probability of generating negative nominal returns compared to bonds over 12-month periods, they are less likely to provide negative real returns. People still tend to think in nominal terms, so the pain from nominal losses weighs on them. But knowing that you are less likely to lose purchasing power owning stocks during any 12-month period than if you owned bonds, can certainly help you stay invested in stocks when their nominal returns are poor. However, there’s still no free lunch. As the third chart shows, the possibility of a devastating downside risk is still there. Stocks have, at times, experienced far worse real losses than bonds.

Inflation—what eats away at those nominal returns—is murder for both bonds and stocks. Higher inflation drives interest rates up. Bond prices fall in response, and capital losses lower returns. Inflation also erodes the purchasing power from bond coupon payments. This is why bond investors hate inflation.

Inflation is not good for stocks either. It erodes the real value of company earnings. Inflation also hurts stocks because the Federal Reserve inevitably raises interest rates to combat inflation. Higher rates put downward pressure on both price-earnings ratios (what people are willing to pay for corporate earnings) and on earnings growth. However, because stock returns are, on average, higher than bond returns, and companies usually have some power to raise prices to keep pace with inflation, stock returns are more likely to exceed inflation. This is why you are less likely to have real losses, over 12-month periods, in your stock portfolio than in your bond portfolio. However, don’t forget that real losses in stocks (when they come) can be much worse than real losses in bonds.

Focusing on real returns helps you stomach the risk in stocks. Stocks are still risky. Their returns vary more than bonds, so you have to be able to sleep through some turmoil. But the potential for companies to respond to inflation with higher prices has made stocks a better inflation hedge.

The Really Long Haul: How it Affects Risk

As we have discussed, by many measures stocks are riskier than bonds. But if you think about risk over long periods, ten years for example, the incremental risk of stocks over bonds has been inconsequential. The next set of bar charts illustrates what has happened to the frequency and magnitude of losses for longer holding periods.  Looking at nominal returns, you can see that though the probability of nominal losses for stocks has been much greater than for bonds over 12-month periods, the gap narrowed dramatically for 60-month holding periods and closed completely for 120-month holding periods. Worst case scenarios for nominal returns were also not significantly worse for stocks over 120-month holding periods.  

As the third chart illustrates long holding periods even reduced the relative severity of downside risk for real returns. For ten-year periods, the worst-case scenario for real losses in stocks was not much worse than it was for bonds.

But What About the Stomach Churning Over Short Periods?

Even though over long time horizons the downside risk of investing in stocks has not been significantly greater than the risk of investing in bonds, you do not live in ten-year increments. So if you cannot turn a blind eye to short and intermediate-term volatility, and/or you have short or intermediate-term investment goals (down payment on a house, college tuition...), bonds are a rational choice for at least part of your portfolio. If you add bonds to your portfolio you will get a smoother ride and also lower the risk that you’ll miss your short-term investment targets because of timing. For example, from 1950 through 2001 if you had invested in a portfolio that was 40% bonds and 60% stocks, you would have cut the percentage of 12-month periods with a loss from 21% (with 100% stocks) to about 15%. However, the price for your smoother ride would have been lower returns. The average 12-month return would have fallen from 13.8% to 11.0%. Perhaps this sounds like too high a price to pay for a little peace of mind. But remember when you’re sitting on losses, your pain is more intense than the pleasure you feel when you’re sitting on gains. The numbers are pretty straightforward, but determining your psychological risk tolerance is what really counts, and that’s tougher. The table below gives you some idea of the risk/return trade-off — of what you would have sacrificed in returns for the lower risk from adding more and more bonds to your portfolio.

12-Month Holding Period (1950-2001)
Allocation to Bonds Average Return Worst Return % Periods with Loss
0% 13.8% -38.9% 21.0%
20% 12.4% -30.8% 18.8%
40% 11.0% -22.6% 15.0%
60% 9.4% -14.5% 11.6%
80% 8.0% -6.3% 6.7%
36-Month Holding Period (1950-2001)
Allocation to Bonds Average Annualized Return Worst Annualized Return % Periods with Loss
0% 13.7% -10.6% 5.3%
20% 12.4% -7.1% 4.4%
40% 11..0% -3.9% 2.7%
60% 9.6% -0.9% 0.5%
80% 8.1% 1.4% 0.0%

Where Does That Leave You?

Unless you are extremely risk averse (just can’t stand the ups and downs) or have short- and/or intermediate-term investment objectives, the argument for a significant allocation to stocks is very compelling. Contrary to the popular rule of thumb that “100% minus your age” is the percent of your portfolio you should invest in stocks, (the rest in bonds), we think most people (even re­tired people) can afford to allocate a larger percent of their portfolios to stocks. Remember, even if you have just retired, your investment horizon is probably at least 10 years. And if you are planning to leave something to the next generation, it’s much longer.

At any point in time, any thinking person can make a long, well-thought-out list of reasons, (related to global politics and economics), justifying the fear that the next deep, long bear market is around the corner. However, most of the things we can anticipate with a high degree of confidence, everybody else anticipates too. This means that they’re already priced into the market. Other things we worry about are usually “noise,” and don’t materialize. Over the long run, the ups more than compensate for the downs.

This is not to say that stocks are not risky—they are. Despite the long-term upward trend, the stock market does not “go straight up.” Corrections and bear markets are part of the investing landscape—a part that you may well experience first hand in the next ten years. Occasionally there is a major bear market with large and sustained losses. Historically these bear markets have resulted from periods of rapidly rising inflation and/or severe economic slowdowns. It’s very very difficult to anticipate what might set off the next bear market, or whether the demon may be deflation rather than inflation. But bear markets are impossible to time. For this reason, we don’t think long-term investors should ever sacrifice the superior returns of stocks (over the long haul) for the greater safety of a 100% bond portfolio.

Figuring Out What the Future Might Bring

Our tour through the return history of stocks and bonds gives you an idea of the relative risk and return of stocks versus bonds. Now that you have a feel for how these two asset classes stack up against each other, let’s take the analysis a step further.  A closer look at the historical data and current market conditions will help you determine what is a reasonable level of returns to expect for the next ten years. This is important because it will help you judge how large an allocation to stocks is consistent with your long-term investment goals. We start by looking at the average annual nominal and real returns for stocks and bonds decade by decade.

Clearly if you had loaded up on stocks in the 1950s, you had made the right choice. But not only did stocks slam bonds, their absolute returns were fabulous. The U.S. was on top of the world. Stocks have remained the higher-return choice, but the absolute level of returns has yet to match the ‘50s. During the ’60s and especially the ’70s, stock returns were much lower. The Great Society, the war on poverty, the Vietnam War, and the first oil shock all contributed to an inflation spiral. The toll inflation took on financial asset returns in the ’60s and ’70s was huge. The ‘70s were especially bad. Real returns for both stocks and bonds were nil. But remember that if you had chosen to put your money in the cookie jar, your real returns would have been negative. Inflation would have eroded the purchasing power of your dollars leaving you poorer in real terms.

Stocks and bonds bounced back in the ’80s and ’90s. Fed Chairman Volcker’s dramatic announcement of a fundamental change in monetary policy in October 1979 sent the markets into a spin, but it was this tight money medicine that eventually cured the inflation disease. It was not painless. We suffered two recessions in the early ’80s (unemployment rose over 10%—its highest level since the Great Depression), before the economy started growing again. But after the shock treatment, interest rates declined dramatically, and both stocks and bonds did well. Greenspan took over for Volcker in 1987 and guided the markets through the October 1987 stock market crash. Despite an almost 30% decline in the stock market during September, October, and November, accommodative monetary policy contained the damage. The economy kept growing (despite predictions of recession), and the market recovered in short order.  We had a mild recession in 1990 that lasted through the first quarter of 1991, and the stock market lost more than 3% in 1990. The economy then began to overheat in 1994, and Greenspan moved in to prolong the expansion with preemptive interest rate hikes. In the face of rising interest rates rose, bonds did very poorly in 1994. Intermediate-term Treasuries lost over 5%. But overall, despite the ups and downs, the ’80s and ’90s have been great for stock and bond investors.

Unfortunately, if you’re expecting a perpetuation of the stellar returns of the ’80s and ’90s, you will probably be disappointed. The biggest factor driving our pessimism about returns is our outlook for interest rates. As the next graph shows, interest rates have come down dramatically since 1981, (though not in a straight line). Nineteen-eighty-one ended with intermediate-term bond yields at about 14%; in December 2001 they were about 4.4%. Because interest rates can only fall so far (certainly not below zero), your portfolio will not have the same tailwind of declining rates going forward that it did in the ‘80s and ‘90s. This means that achieving your investment goal will be more difficult going forward. You’ll either have to invest more or take on more risk.

To get an idea how much adjustment is necessary, let’s estimate what kind of returns bonds might earn over the next ten years. The math tells us that it is unlikely that intermediate-term bonds will continue to earn 8.5% annual returns for the next decade. There is only one bond investment whose return over the next ten years we can guarantee, and that’s the return from buying a 10-year Treasury and holding it until it matures (ten years). If you do that, you’ll earn the current yield on the 10-year Treasury for the next ten years (about 5.4% at the end of May 2002). But to give you an idea of the possible returns on an intermediate government bond fund, we must make some assumptions about interest rates and the investment strategy.

No one can predict what will happen to interest rates over the next ten years. (Or if there is someone who can, he/she’s been keeping his/her powers a well-guarded secret.) But using a number of hypothetical interest rate scenarios, you can at least get a feel for the boundaries of return expectations. The calculations assume that you begin by buying a five-year, current coupon bond. Then at the beginning of each subsequent year for the next ten years you sell the bond you bought one year prior and buy another five-year current-coupon bond. This is similar to investing in an intermediate government bond fund that keeps a fairly constant five-year maturity. The analysis also assumes that the current five-year Treasury is yielding 6%. The following table describes the interest rate assumptions and what your annual rate of return would be if these scenarios were realized.

None of these exact scenarios will be realized, so your returns will differ from the precise estimates in the table. But the scenarios span a wide enough variety of conditions to give you some boundaries for reasonable expectations. They also help you understand some basics of investing in bonds by illustrating two important points:

1. Changes in yields have two offsetting effects on bond investments. When yields fall, bond prices rise. When you sell bonds after yields have fallen, you earn a nice capital gain (good news). But, if you reinvest the proceeds back into bonds, you must remember that these new bonds have lower yields (bad news). So if you have been investing in bonds for the last 15 years while yields have come down dramatically, you have earned nice capital gains if you’ve sold your bonds. But if you have also reinvested the proceeds back into similar bonds, the yield on your bond portfolio is now much lower than it was. On the other hand, if you sell bonds when yields are rising, then reinvest the proceeds, the yield on your bond portfolio rises. The scenario in the table with the highest return (7.4%) reflects the power of the incremental return from reinvesting your bond proceeds (even though you sell them at a loss) at higher yields as rates rise. 
2. The range of returns, 4.7% to 7.4%, is not very wide, nor do any of the scenarios yield returns to match our experience for the last decade (about 8%).  For you to make investment plans assuming an 8% return from bonds over the next ten years would require making extremely unlikely interest rate assumptions.

Predicting stock returns is more precarious. But we can still set some parameters for what is reasonable. Again, this is important information for your investment planning, because if you plan on long-term returns similar to the last five years, you will definitely fall short of your investment goal. It’s virtually impossible to replicate the recent stellar returns of these five great years over the next ten. Lower interest rates have been a tailwind for stocks, justifying higher price-earnings ratios. But now stocks are overvalued by every traditional measure that investors have used for 50 years. People are paying more for a dollar of earnings now than they ever have—price-earnings ratios are at a peak. How much more are you and other investors willing to pay for a dollar of corporate earnings? That does not mean stocks cannot become even more overvalued. But it does mean there is considerable risk that at some point if there is bad news, you and other investors will reassess what is a reasonable price for earnings. 

To believe that stocks will continue their upward momentum requires a belief that things really are different—that earnings will continue to grow at very high rates (higher than history would lead you to believe), and/or that investors will continue to bid prices up (paying more and more for the same dollar of earnings and requiring a lower and lower risk premium for buying stocks). With earnings under pressure from higher labor costs (now rising faster than inflation), little or no pricing power due to stiff competition from imports, and some limit to how much costs can be cut, we don’t expect companies’ earnings will surprise on the upside.  We also don’t expect investors to continue to bid up the price of earnings indefinitely.

At the end of April 2000 if you were buying the stocks in the S&P 500 you were paying $ 24 for each dollar of expected 2000 earnings. If we look back to the 1960s, a time when conditions for stocks were ideal—inflation was about 2.3% and long-term government bond yields were under 5%—people were paying about $18 for each dollar of earnings. If people were to decide $18 was enough to pay for a dollar of earnings and companies' earnings came as expected, the S&P 500 would lose over 25% of its value.

Some analysts contend current valuations are rational. They think the U.S. economy is in a new era—that old measures of what is a reasonable price to pay no longer apply because the old measures reflect more risk than the current environment justifies. (Remember, if there is less risk, people bid up the prices of financial assets.) The new era analysts claim that because the economy is more stable, and inflation appears to be a thing of the past, there is less risk. We would agree that the economy is more stable and that inflation appears to be well under control, but we would not agree that justifies the price people are now paying for corporate earnings.  

We think your investment planning should be based on a penciled-in return for stocks over the next ten years that is about equal to corporate earnings growth plus dividends—6% to 10%—not 20% or 30%. If you expect much more than 10%, we think you’re being overly optimistic (and the consequences of over-optimism are not pretty). However, and this is important, we are don’t think you should base your investment planning on the fear of a long, deep, bear market. You don’t want to shun stocks completely because there is some risk of a correction. It’s just too hard to predict when the correction will occur and when it will be over. Plus history teaches us that over the long haul, stocks’ ups have swamped their downs. It’s better to have some exposure over the long haul, than to miss the downs and the ups.

In conclusion, the data tell you that you are very unlikely to lose money in stocks over any ten-year period. Also, over the long haul, the odds are heavily weighted to your stocks earning higher returns (because they’re riskier) than your bonds. Finally, it’s unlikely that you will earn returns in either bonds or stocks over the next ten years as high as those of the ’80s and ‘90s. These conclusions mean that you should invest a good chunk of your assets in stocks; you should try to think long-term, and you should plan ahead using conservative return estimates – between 4% and 6% annual returns for intermediate bonds and between 8% and 10% for stocks.

Stay The Course

The U.S. economy has made significant progress since Gerald Ford started the “WIN” (whip inflation now) campaign and Carter talked of “malaise.” Inflation is under control, and despite the big run-up in the deficit during the ’80s, the U.S. is now running a budget surplus. In addition, the U.S. has become the most productive nation on earth. U.S. financial assets have been big beneficiaries of these positive developments both at the macro and micro level.

However, because positive change at the margin becomes more and more difficult, these hefty returns cannot be perpetuated indefinitely. If the economy remains on its “glide path” to sustainable non-inflationary growth, stocks and bonds should provide solid returns, but the big pop is almost certainly over.

You should remember that in the long run, an overweighting to stocks relative to bonds is the best way to enhance long-term wealth accumulation. If bonds earn about 5%, your $1,000, 100% bond portfolio will be worth $1,629 in ten years. With a 100% stock portfolio and 9% returns, your same $1,000 will be worth  $2,367 in ten years. We’re not implying that you will consistently, year after year, earn these returns. Markets go up and they go down, and stocks go up and down by larger increments than bonds. But you should stay the course and not get distracted by the many well-reasoned and believable disaster scenarios that if realized would make the cookie-jar strategy the smartest one around. (As we saw, the cookie jar strategy exposes you completely to inflation risk.)

» Back to top

Disclaimer