I think that depends relative to what and over what period. I don't think the short-term has much meaning. Over the long term I wouldn't consider that "high" but it's not low either.
For instance, if you look at index funds -- I do all mutual funds so that's the easiest way for me to relate, and index funds are non-managed and mostly alike within a category -- S&P 500 funds over the past 20 years have done a bit over 7%. (Average.) And that's not high risk. In fact, that's about the lowest risk equity, but a low/moderate-risk portfolio would not be all equity. Small cap equity index's over about the same period are a bit over 10%. They are higher risk than large cap like S&P but not as high as some other stuff.
Now, "high yield" bonds -- I'm not aware of an index for them (I don't really do bonds), but some funds I found covering that same period were anywhere from 5-10%, but mostly in the 6% region. I did find an index fund for intermediate bonds, about 80% high grade, that averaged about 7%. So I guess for a bond you could call 9% "high" or at least "higher." (There are definitely higher yield/higher risk bonds.)
I could only find one foreign large cap index fund for that same approximate time, which was around 6.5%. Hmm... looks like over the long-term foreign may not be worth the extra risk over domestic. Interesting. (Although my foreign stuff does better, but it's not an index.)
Keep in mind the indexes are sort of middle of the road. So there's always higher things and lower things. The trick of course is finding the higher things.
I have seen specialty funds (i.e. real estate, financial, technology, etc.) that have done as well as 30% or more, but they are also higher risk. But if you have some of the higher risk stuff in a portfolio, I can't see calling 9% "high." If you're trying to stay all low risk, then yeah, it would be. Heck, I've got two allocation funds, that is, part bond and part stock. My "conservative" one that has more bond and the stock is dividend paying stock, averaged around 7% over the past 10 years and that's a conservative fund. My "moderate" allocation (less bonds) has averaged like 9% over 10 yrs.
For stocks I usually hear people calling it a return and the term "yield" used for bonds. That may not be universal, but I wonder if your financial advisor is referring to specifically bonds, which is something I know little about. (Except in textbooks.)
I think that return dynocompte quoted is on the high side. Just before things went sour I was getting maybe 15-20% (don't remember exactly) on what I'd consider a higher risk portfolio, and only one thing was not doing too hot relative to its class. I can't comprehend 30% on moderate risk. (Remember that any diversified portfolio is a combo of lower and higher risk, and the short-term really means nothing. I mean, hey, yeah, I got 75% returns in 2009 on one of my high risk things but like that's going to last.)
So the 9% would have to be put into context and also put into a time, cause things go up and down far too much.
Now I'm curious. I'll have to see what my current portfolio would have been had I had that same one for the past 10 years. Then we can compare it to 9%. :-) Although 10 years might not be the best judge since things were so over-priced 10 years ago.
|