Pleasant outcomes of a concentrated portfolio

Finance theory tells us diversification reduces risk – we subscribe only partly to this theory. We believe in diversification across asset classes (eg. cash, property, stocks), but not within an asset class.

A prudent risk management approach can be implemented with a concentrated stock portfolio.


Diversify across different asset classes, but not within each asset class.

Imagine you’re given a $1m inheritance. But before you can spend it, the inheritance has a condition to it – in exactly 10 years to the day from now, the $1m must be worth at least $3m. You ponder this daunting task – the condition implies that in exactly 10 years, the portfolio must have generated an average return of 11.6% p.a over the next 10 years.

Ideally, there would be an investment that guaranteed you 11.6% over the next 10 years with no risk. We know there are no such investments. If we invested it all in cash, we know we would not achieve 11.6% growth. We could invest it all in property, but we would need to be certain that we’ve picked the right property and even then, 11.6% is a high hurdle.

Investing all of the money in stocks gives us the best chance of achieving this target – over the long term, stocks generate the highest returns of these 3 asset classes, given they are inherently more volatile. However before we invest it all in stocks, there is a possibility that there could be a stock market crash in exactly 10 years time that leads us to fail the condition on the last day. Given our preference for stocks, how can we best duly mitigate risk, whilst attaining our targeted 11.6% return?

We need to balance risk protection, without being so conservative that we are inhibited from generating adequate returns. From our experience, the answer to this question lies in a 2 tiered approach. First, we should spread our investments across cash, property and stocks. Diversification across these asset classes gives us an initial level of protection against potential crash in any one of these markets in 10 years time. In a stock market crash, all stocks crash. Not one sector or industry is immune. Therefore diversification through buying different stocks does not give us much comfort. However, it is less likely that interest rates, housing prices and stock prices all fall simultaneously together on the same day. Therefore, diversifying across asset classes (ie. cash, property, stocks) gives us much greater protection than diversifying in just one asset class (ie. buying many different stocks in the hope of immunising against a stock market crash).

Second, we should look to manage risk within each class. Once we are comfortable with our asset class allocation, we have minimised a large proportion of risk. The smaller portion of risk that remains is how each asset class performs. Conventional financial theorists will argue that diversification within each asset class provides further risk reduction. That is, for cash, we would buy several different bonds. For property, we would aim to buy different property in different suburbs. For stocks, we would buy stocks in different sectors and industries. From experience, we consider diversification to be one such technique when it comes to risk management within an asset class, but not the most effective.

Managing risk in a bespoke way

Diversification within an asset class, for example stocks, is a scatter-gun approach that poses too great an impost on returns. In our view, it is a crude way of approaching risk management that produces average returns.

In contrast, an investor should delve into the detail of each stock to analyse the risk of the underlying business. How prudent is the management team? Do they have a genuine interest to see the business succeed over the long term? Is the business operating in a viable industry? How much debt does the company have? Is the business profitable? These are the pertinent questions that ultimately manage risk, not a scatter-gun approach. Analysis and detail should be used to protect against loss, not broad sector generalisations. We much prefer to carefully select one solid basket to keep our eggs in rather than wantonly select a lot of different baskets in hope that on average they will be good enough. We only invest when we are confident in our understanding of the risks within each business. On the other hand, diversification implies a certain level of uncertainty and lack of conviction in one’s analysis.

Risk management is at the forefront of our investment approach. Thinking back to our example, imagine how hard it would be to generate the required return if we were to lose a significant portion of our capital at the start. Wealth can only be generated over the long term if we first protect ourselves against potential losses. In our search to mitigate risk, we often find that a pleasant benefit of our approach is that we discover great businesses along the way that produce outstanding returns over the long run.

You are an inadvertent investor

 Investing is not an optional activity – we are currently all investors, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

Given that investing is not an optional activity, we need to be aware of our investments and what implications these (intentional / inadvertent) decisions will have on our future.

Regardless of investment goals, investing should be, at the very least, a defence against inflation.


Investing is not an optional activity

Constant updates on financial news, information and statistics fill our newspapers, TVs and personal devices every day. These updates provide us with very detailed information regarding aspects of the economy that may not affect our everyday lives. So why is this information so important that it needs to be on the daily news? The answer, I argue, is that we are currently all investors, whether we choose to be or not. And this news is relevant to all of us whether we like it or not.

Most of us have a bank account and that bank account will contain some money. The money we have that bank account will serve a purpose in our lives. For example, we may be saving for a home, we may be purchasing goods with the money, we may be using it to pay off our debts, or we may just be saving the money as a buffer against unforeseen circumstances. Ultimately, we want this money to serve a purpose for us. We unconsciously make two choices:

1.     spend the money now; or

2.     keep the money for use later.

If we choose to spend the money now, we have less to spend in the future. In economic jargon, this is called an intertemporal choice. [If you’re more interested in this topic, the Chicago Booth School of Business has published an interesting paper here: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/richard.thaler/research/pdf/intertemporal%20choice.pdf]. For the majority of us, we will spend some money now, and keep some for later.

Of the proportion we keep, regardless of whether we make a conscious decision regarding where to keep the money, we will make an investment decision. Even if we choose to do nothing and keep the money in our bank account, we have already unconsciously decided to keep the money as cash. We have invested the money in a bank deposit.

As long as we have savings, we will be making investment decisions, so we are already investors. And as long as we are investors, we should be, at the very least, aware of our choices and what impact these choices will have on our future.

Implications of our choices on our future

Each type of investment has its risks and rewards. Over the short term, we may be more concerned about risks rather than returns. For example, if we anticipate an upcoming expenditure, we will be more inclined to set that money aside in a bank deposit until such time it is required so that the amount is kept safe. The implication of this decision is that a bank deposit typically has a low rate of return compared to other investment options. Over the short term, we would rather preserve our money than take excessive risk, so it is understandable that we may choose to forgo a higher rate of return in favour of preserving our money.

However, the implications change significantly if we adopt a longer-term view. I argue that it is necessary to take risk in our investments over the long term in order to preserve wealth. It is not a choice. The eroding waves of inflation make it unwise to keep all our money in a bank deposit.

Investment as defence against inflation

Over the past 10 years, the price of goods and services in Australia has risen at an annual rate of 2.4% per annum (http://www.rba.gov.au/calculator/annualDecimal.html). In other words, a $100 item in 2006, would now cost us $127 in 2016. If our income remained unchanged over the past 10 years, our ability to purchase goods would have decreased by 27%. The rising cost of goods and services forces us to keep up, otherwise our wealth is eroded over the long term.

Over the long run, term deposits average a 5% to 7% rate of return, providing us with reasonable protection from inflation. Risk is low, but returns are equally low. Some argue that term deposits are safe investments over the long term. I would agree, but I would add that shares are equally low risk of over a long-term horizon. The chart provided by Fidelity confirms that the Australian ASX 200 index has always appreciated over any 6-year period since 1986. See the chart here: http://www.fidelity.com.au/fidelityP2/?LinkServID=B91D14A6-B125-E8DC-BB83AAD60C35BC5A. For no additional downside risk over a 6-year period, shares have generated a return of 9.5% per annum.

With current bank deposits returning 2% to 3%, in my view, it is not an option, but a necessity, to look for investments beyond bank deposits. Investments with the ability to increase along with inflation are preferred instruments for preserving long-term wealth. Whether you are aware or not, we are already running in an investing marathon against the constant headwinds of inflation.