DeepState
Multi-Strategy, Quant and Fundamental
- Joined
- 30 March 2014
- Posts
- 1,615
- Reactions
- 81
Then I would rebalance the portfolio in line with the future prospects as I judge them to be, taking in to account some notion of risk. To the extent that this portfolio differs to the current one, I would consider rebalancing to the target. Rebalancing is about bringing your portfolio back in to line with objectives and prospects rather than letting the market carry it around. In general, it's a good idea. Someone will always find a way to screw it up.Deepstate real life rarely works that way, who can honestly say they estimate the future prospects of all stocks in their portfolio to be equal? Lets assume that your portfolio stocks had unequal (by your own judgement) prospects and that the 100 bagger stock even after rising 100 fold had the best future prosoects ? What would you do then? Ben Graham in his Graham Newman partnership kept the outsized hlidng in GEICO and eventually spun off the holding to shareholders, many of whom continued holding it. So the type of scenario I describe does have historical precedent (the numbers were different but the essence of the scenario was the same).
Awesome.A concrete example of diversification versus concentration by the same person is the hunter hall funds. The Hunter Hall high conviction trust launched a few years ago hit the ball out of the park with stellar performance by Peter Hall. The fund clearly showcased his ability with the fund sometimes having as few as 5 stocks and at one point (from memory) St. Barbara goldmining was more than 30% of the portfolio. You compare that to other other Hunter Hall funds which were highly diversified and had mediocre performance over the same time frame you can see how the burden of having to pick many stocks dramatically weighed down Peter Halls performance.
Maybe I make them because I'm just a mere mortal who can not see the future.Craft, maybe you make lots of mistakes with your assumptions because you own too many stocks ;-)
Refer post #8 for the relevance of "Awesome" and Hunter Hall High Conviction.Deepstate were you being sarcastic?
Deepstate here is a question for you.
Travel back in time to the 1st of December1989. Let's assume you did not know the future. Let's assume you were a Japanese investor and worker living in Japan. Let's say your work pension\retirement fund offered you a chance to invest your retirement money in option A or option B. Option A was a fund replicating the Nikkei 225 and option B was an equal weighted portfolio of Nestle, 3M and Coca-Cola. Which option would you have chosen? Which option was more risky?
The point I am more making is that owning more stocks is not per se less risky than owning fewer stocks. It may or may not be less risky. It depends. You have to consider a wide range of factors.
Deepstate here is a question for you.
Travel back in time to the 1st of December1989. Let's assume you did not know the future. Let's assume you were a Japanese investor and worker living in Japan. Let's say your work pension\retirement fund offered you a chance to invest your retirement money in option A or option B. Lets further assume you could not rebalance or alter your choices for the next 25 years nd that no money would be added or withdrawn from the funds (any dividends or capital returns would be reinvested though). Option A was a fund replicating the Nikkei 225 and option B was an equal weighted portfolio of Nestle, 3M and Coca-Cola. Which option would you have chosen? Which option was more risky?
The point I am more making is that owning more stocks is not per se less risky than owning fewer stocks. It may or may not be less risky. It depends. You have to consider a wide range of factors.
Yes. Was that not evident?So Deepstate based on your above post we are both in agreement that diversification by itself is not necessarily sufficient to create a sensible portfolio , that many other factors come into play.
That being said I concede that on average a diversified portfolio is less risky. Are you willing to concede that in certain specific scenarios a diversified portfolio can be riskier than an ultra concentrated portfolio?
Stock numbers per se are just the most obvious way of talking about diversification, but it is a proxy for some concept of effective diversification. What is wanted is maximum reward for risk and an appropriate deployment of risk.
The above is of course just my best guess.
I am curious Craft out of options A, B and C which one would you choose and why?
What matters is risk adjusted return. Simply put, if you take more risk than you need to for a given view of the world, that's just plain dumb. I'm not going in to the concept of effective diversification any further than to say it is actually the target matter on the risk side of risk-adjusted return (which, for the pedantic, includes a utility function that can be as bizzare and multi-universal as you like so long as someone actually doesn't like losing money in general), as opposed to some magic stock count that solves the world's problems.
How do you decide how many investments to own, how risky they are, how long to hold, and how much to invest in each? Please provide a concrete hypothetical example explained in a dumbed down way so I can understand.
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?