Zaxon
The voice of reason
- Joined
- 5 August 2011
- Posts
- 800
- Reactions
- 881
I'm growing more to believe that even longer term position traders need to factor portfolio heat into their thinking, not just share specific risk management. It does mean you could spend some significant time with large chunks of your portfolio in cash, waiting on each individual position to break even to allow you to open a new one. I would imagine there's some opportunity cost there if you were in a strong bull market. But I guess what you miss in initial opportunity, you make up for when the market crashes and you've limited your total portfolio loss.If you'd just opened 20 positions then perhaps this could happen.
For sure. This is where the "timing the market" from our other thread comes into play. If you detect a downward market, you can save yourself a lot of pain.The earlier we can recognize a sustained move down then the less chance we have of
depleting large swathes of money.
Sometimes you'll be right other times wrong.
For sure. This is where the "timing the market" from our other thread comes into play. If you detect a downward market, you can save yourself a lot of pain.
Yes. It's "how long is a piece of string" territory. But as traders, we time stocks all the time. That's our job. We hope that the mistakes on the downside add up to less that the profits on the upside.Hmm I don't think its that easy.
But the question is at detection how far is the market going to fall?
How early or late do you make that call.
Hind site will be your judge.
My view is to always consider that whilst the market as a whole will not go zero, any individual stock can in practice lose most or all of its value if things go badly wrong.
In the past I've used a sector approach. That is, choose a sector(s) based on in my case FA and then just buy either the top 10 stocks in that sector or, if there aren't 10, everyone who's a significant player without any real emphasis on individual stocks as such.
Agreed. They say diversification is the only free lunch, which is true to some extent. What do you believe is the sweet spot for the number of shares you should hold?Not putting too much into any individual stock is also a good way to avoid getting 'stumped out' (cricket term).
Ouch! What a fascinating example: perfectly flat, and then it falls out of the sky. And RFF is a $455M company, so it's no microcap.A very recent example is Rural Funds Group (RFF), which is in a Trading Halt and will be interesting to see how it comes out of it once the market opens...
It's the type of stock I would have considered, so although I do not hold RFF in my portfolio I could have easily bought in, as I didn't find anything alarming when I researched it.
Back to Risk Management on this thread and there's a lot of useful information in terms of Stop Losses, Market timing etc.
Not putting too much into any individual stock is also a good way to avoid getting 'stumped out' (cricket term). This is something that was also mentioned earlier in the thread:
A very recent example is Rural Funds Group (RFF), which is in a Trading Halt and will be interesting to see how it comes out of it once the market opens...
View attachment 96649
It's the type of stock I would have considered, so although I do not hold RFF in my portfolio I could have easily bought in, as I didn't find anything alarming when I researched it.
So spreading the capital across a number of stocks is a great idea in terms of risk mitigation, as mentioned:
A trailing stop would have minimised loss say at $2
In my opinion, at least 20 different positions when fully invested.Agreed. They say diversification is the only free lunch, which is true to some extent. What do you believe is the sweet spot for the number of shares you should hold?
I'm a big fan of 20 as well. They say 15-30 positions is ideal. And it's said that any more than 30, and you may as well just own an index fund.In my opinion, at least 20 different positions when fully invested.
That way if one goes bust that is a loss of 5% of the portfolio, if equal position sizing used.
True and agree.I'm a big fan of 20 as well. They say 15-30 positions is ideal. And it's said that any more than 30, and you may as well just own an index fund.
Yes, management doing everything they can to make things look rosy as I was reading the announcements that came with the lifting of the Trading Halt this morning.Some settlement to go.
Im sure the bottom of this move will be tested.
Agreed. They say diversification is the only free lunch, which is true to some extent. What do you believe is the sweet spot for the number of shares you should hold?
With 30 positions your risk drops to 3.3% and usually only fully invested when in bull move and with a ISP that 3.3% is usually much lower, per stock held. So even if you put your stop at 50% of purchase price then the risk will be 1.7% of your total capital.In my opinion, at least 20 different positions when fully invested.
That way if one goes bust that is a loss of 5% of the portfolio, if equal position sizing used. Not pleasant but recovering 5% in your portfolio is a lot easier than recovering say a 50% chop.
Try to remember that it takes a 100% return (doubling of the existing funds in the portfolio), just to get back to what you started with (to Break Even) if you lose 50%.
That's quite a list. OK. Let me jump in and put my slant on it. I see employment as highly unstable. Unless you're a nurse or some other stable profession, businesses love restructuring and shedding staff.Employment/Physical Gold/Silver/Land with enough to grow/graze + water supply/Financial instruments.
Yup: 3.3% . Which is a nice position to be in if a stock goes completely bust.With 30 positions your risk drops to 3.3% and usually only fully invested when in bull move
ISP? I'm presuming you're don't mean Internet Service Provider here.and with a ISP that 3.3% is usually much lower, per stock held.
That's right. You could be much more lenient with your stops due to the small positions you're holding. It certainly has its upsides, should you want to manage 30 positions.So even if you put your stop at 50% of purchase price then the risk will be 1.7% of your total capital.
That's quite a list. OK. Let me jump in and put my slant on it.
1. I see employment as highly unstable. Unless you're a nurse or some other stable profession, businesses love restructuring and shedding staff.
2. I'm not much of a prepper. Personally, I'd expect I will grow old and die before I see the collapse of civilization where I'd need to live of the land.
3. So my hypothetical risk management list would go in order: lots of passive income so I don't need to work / adult children living in the same town as me who want to look after me when I get old / (or if no kids) then enough passive income to hire a live-in nurse / finally, a good job (temporarily, since I need to get all that passive income).
I'll bring this discussion back to focusing specifically on investing.Then looking at markets: global diversification as opposed to all-in a single bourse. Returns around the world have been quite different through the decades.
Running multiple, we'll call it "less related" strategies, such as short term trading and long term buy-and-hold, is definitely an area overlooked by most people. And definitely something worth discussing further. How many investment strategies do you run for shares?Diversification of strategies: Skate may shed light on this or Tech/A, but when [if] there is a prolonged bear market, how does a long only strategy fare?
A lot of assets we hold aren't as uncorrelated as we'd like. If you hold a diverse group of shares, there's so much correlation in the market, it's really not diverse at all. How many asset classes do you hold personally?Diversification should mean that your portfolio is uncorrelated. You should always be doing badly somewhere. Then, if the wind changes, that performance may [should] also change.
I'll bring this discussion back to focusing specifically on investing.
The bourse risk is interesting. We saw what happened in Japan. The assumption is that this wouldn't happen to the US, because historically the US hasn't stalled relative to the other bourses. Whether that will remain true in the future remains to be seen.
1. Historically, "total world" ETFs have underperformed US only ETFs, so it's trading performance for diversification. I guess that comes down to what the individual wants out of their investments.
2. Running multiple, we'll call it "less related" strategies, such as short term trading and long term buy-and-hold, is definitely an area overlooked by most people. And definitely something worth discussing further. How many investment strategies do you run for shares?
3. A lot of assets we hold aren't as uncorrelated as we'd like. If you hold a diverse group of shares, there's so much correlation in the market, it's really not diverse at all. How many asset classes do you hold personally?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?