Tag Archives: checkbox

Timely Dow 2 Signal For 2016

The following is from this year’s Note 16 of The Kelly Letter, which went out to subscribers last Sunday morning. The market continues confounding bearish pundits. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 18,000 for the first time since last July, and from its Friday close at 18,005 requires only a 1.5% rise to eclipse its all-time high of 18,272 recorded last May. The year is going well for us, helped along by the strong outperformance of our preferred small- and mid-cap stock sectors in the past two weeks, and I’m already tempted to declare the changes in Tier 3 a success. Our goal there was to reduce the drag of forecasting on the overall portfolio by putting an even larger percentage of capital under the guidance of reactive systems. The two new ones in Tier 3 are Dow 2 and Mo 1, with the speculative portion of the tier reduced to just a fifth of the allocation. Dow 2 sensed the time to move out of Intel ( INTC $31.64) and into Wal-Mart ( WMT $68.72), which has been great. As Intel works to realign itself with a growing emphasis on mobile devices at the expense of personal computers, its stock price is struggling. As Wal-Mart benefits from a turnaround plan that’s farther along and should produce a leaner retailer, its stock price is appreciating. The differential between the two stocks, with INTC down 8.2% and WMT up 12.1%, is a 20.3-point spread. This translates into a significant improvement for us, given our high allocation to the Dow 2 plan. We invested $69,091 in WMT on January 4. It’s now worth $78,478. Had it remained in INTC, which we sold that day at $33.93, it would be worth just $64,427. We’re $14,051 ahead, thanks to the Dow 2 signal. … The last two weeks have provided a convenient case-in-point for why our reactive systems are such a fine way to benefit from the financial markets. They are low-stress and run on autopilot, beating the frantic pros who continue demonstrating their shortcomings with newly failed predictions. I was able to leave the plans alone through a busy schedule that included major earthquakes [in Kumamoto, Japan] as a disruption, and what did I find upon returning? Our money beating the market and therefore most professional money managers. The S&P 500 is up only 3% so far this year. We’re up 5.6%. Even more impressive, unlike most price-only comparisons, these are more accurate total-return comparisons. Stay true to intelligently reactive plans built on decades of market behavior. They are beatable by dumb luck only, which pundits call skill, and which we know to be unreliable. Guessing is best reserved for fun and games, not money management for a better future. In the end, steadily and surely, automated intelligent reaction outdistances professional guessers by a wider and wider margin, while costing far less in fees. Just ask Bill Ackman at Pershing Square, the billionaire hedge fund manager who lost 20.5% last year and another 25% in this year’s first quarter. That’s some bang-up expertise for hire at a high price, eh? No thanks. We’ll stick with what works, and what’s cheap. How convenient that they’re the same thing.

Diversification Myths: Why Are You Investing In Individual Stocks?

By Chris Gilbert The age old question of exactly how many stocks to hold is likely never going to be definitively answered. There are entire books, even courses, on the subject after all. Since portfolio construction is more of an art than a science, in this post I want to break down relevant studies, examine historical data, and analyze some of the best investors in an attempt to come up with the optimal strategy . As always, please share your comments and thoughts below! Talking Points Diversification by the numbers Myths of diversification Why are you investing in individual stocks? “Wide diversification is only required when investors do not understand what they are doing.” – Warren Buffett By The Numbers My investing strategy, which is definitely not perfect, consists of holding relatively few stocks (around 10 or so). This is because I want to invest in wonderful companies purchased at attractive prices. I have found that these opportunities, especially of late, don’t seem to come around all that frequently. This also makes me a big believer in holding a decent amount of cash in my portfolio as well. But why adopt this strategy? It’s simple logic, the more stocks you own, or the more diversified you are, the less likely you are to underperform the market. By this same logic, however, you’re also much less likely to outperform the market. Say you own 2 stocks and one doubles while the other stays flat. You still earn a 50% return. With 4 stocks and one doubling – a 25% return. What about more? Say you own 10 stocks and one doubles while the others go nowhere. You’d still earn 10%. 20 stocks… 5%. 100 stocks… 1%. While this may be an oversimplified example, you get the point. The more stocks you own the more your results trend toward average. But let’s look at some more numbers. In the book, Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management , Frank Reilly reviewed studies regarding randomly selected stocks and found that as little as 12 stocks could attain around 90% of the maximum benefits of diversification. He also goes on to note if the individual investor is properly diversified, 18 or more stocks = full diversification according to his research, then the investor will average market performance. According to Mr. Reilly the only way to beat the market is by being less than fully diversified. In his book, You Can be a Stock Market Genius , Joel Greenblatt came to a similar conclusion. Greenblatt found statistics that showed owning only 2 stocks could eliminate 46% of non-market risk. This number climbs to 72% with 4 stocks, 81% with 5 stocks, and 93% with a 16-stock portfolio. As you can see, the amount of non-market risk can be decreased with the more stocks you own. Which was already obvious. But let’s keep going. You would need to own 32 stocks to eliminate 96% of non-market risk and a whopping 500 stocks to almost eradicate it (99%). Greenblatt’s point is, there seems to be a pattern of diminishing returns after a certain number of stocks. Personally, I would argue maximum benefit is to be had between 8-16 stocks. Myths Of Diversification Myth #1 – You can diversify away risk One of the main reasons investors are afraid to concentrate their portfolio is the belief that it’s too risky. While it may be true to a point, can you ever totally remove risk? We’ve already seen you can partially remove non-market risk, also known as unsystematic risk, by holding more stocks. But systematic risk is a different animal. This type of risk cannot be diversified away. Consider all of the factors that affect the stock market such as macroeconomics, irrationality, or interest rates. You’ll never be able to remove these elements from the equation if you own 1,000 stocks. Think of systematic risk as the inherent risk of investing in stocks. Myth $2 – Overdiversification is safer So what, you say. It still seems safer to own 100 stocks compared to 10. But is it? While you may dilute your unsystematic risk, how much do you really know about your portfolio? Would you even know which stocks you own? Maybe you invest in index funds, which is totally fine for some by the way (more on that later), but if you’re an individual investor and you own 40+ stocks, there is now way to know the ins and outs of every one. We’ll call this practical risk. Practical risk means you may lose your main advantage in the stock market, competitive insight. When you overdiversify, you may miss out on a great opportunity and be saddled with a regrettable investment because your focus is stretched too thin. Myth #3 – Diversification can increase success I’ve already explained two reasons why this is a myth. The more stocks you hold, or the more diversified you are, the more your results trend toward average. This inherently decreases success, unless you want average. Secondly, when you own too many stocks, practical risk increases. Overdiversification makes it very difficult to invest in wide-moat, wonderful companies. There simply isn’t that many great opportunities available at any given time. This also decreases chances of success. Lastly, when you begin to invest in many different stocks just to increase diversification, you increase portfolio turnover. This inevitably leads to more fees and commissions, which also puts a damper on potential success. “We believe that almost all really good investment records will involve relatively little diversification. The basic idea that it was hard to find good investments and that you wanted to be in good investments, and therefore, you’d just find a few of them that you knew a lot about and concentrate on those seemed to me such an obviously good idea. And indeed, it’s proven to be an obviously good idea. Yet 98% of the investing world doesn’t follow it. That’s been good for us.” – Charlie Munger Why Are You Investing In Individual Stocks? So we’ve seen the more stocks you hold, the less chance you have of underperforming the market. This also means the less chance you have of outperforming the market as well. By this logic, the only way to increase our chances of success is to hold less stocks than a completely diversified portfolio. By doing this, we take on the inherent risk of owning stocks, so the real question to ask yourself is why are you investing in individual stocks? “If you want to have a better performance than the crowd, you must do things differently from the crowd.” – John Templeton If your answer is to invest your money in a proven vehicle that, historically speaking, beats all other investment options… and you don’t want to take the time and effort to perform proper fundamental analysis on each and everyone of your stocks, then I would recommend an index fund . I mean let’s face it, we’re not all Warren Buffett or Peter Lynch and we’re likely not going to be. But there is still no situation I would ever recommend going out and buying 50 some odd stocks just to say you’re diversified. As we just talked about, this can actually increase risk and reduce your chances of success in a variety of ways. Index funds, on the other hand, are a great way to expose yourself to the stock market and are likely to beat every fund manager over the long haul anyway. Now, if you’re answer is you think you can beat the market, then I recommend you keeping a fairly concentrated portfolio of 8-12 stocks. Why 8-12? Well, for one, you don’t want to be too diversified for all the reasons stated above. And secondly, we’ve seen you can only diversify so much before the benefits begin to severely drop off. Lastly, if you’re really practicing a true value investing strategy, it’s unlikely you’re going to find an abundance of opportunities out there. To mitigate risk, search out high-quality companies with a competitive advantage, and purchase when they’re selling at a discount to their intrinsic value. By concentrating your portfolio, you can obtain a thorough understanding of each company, and coupled with a value investing strategy, decrease risk while increasing returns. Summary Strictly reviewing the numbers, it makes little sense to overdiversify your portfolio. Overdiversifying will not eliminate all risk nor increase your chances of success. If you are willing to practice a value investing strategy and research each of your investments, then focus your portfolio to 8-12 stocks. If not, invest in an index fund. Disclosure: None

Measuring Performance Vs. A Benchmark: The Case Of The Low Volatility Factor

When is tracking error not really an error? By Nick Kalivas, Senior Equity Product Strategist, Invesco PowerShares Traditional indexes were never intended to define what makes a sound investment opportunity, which has fueled the popularity of factor-based investing. But they do serve as useful benchmarks for investment performance. How closely a portfolio or index tracks a particular benchmark index is referred to as “tracking error.” Tracking error is often considered in the context of a portfolio relative to an underlying index. But tracking error can also exist between two indexes, which raises questions. Take, for example, the case of low volatility investing – one of the most popular investment factors in use today. Could the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index – a commonly used barometer of low volatility stock performance – result in too much tracking error relative to its parent index, the S&P 500 Index? Because the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index selects 100 stocks from its parent index with the lowest realized volatility over the previous year, the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index can have sector exposure that is materially underweight or overweight relative to the S&P 500 Index. Should this be a concern? That depends on your perspective. The relationships between tracking error and low volatility exposure The table below shows the impact of blending the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index with the S&P 500 Index over a five-year period. It reveals a number of informational nuggets. Relationship between low volatility exposure, tracking error and performance April 30, 2011, through March 31, 2016 Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. First off, note the correlation between factor tilt and performance. During this time period, investors who had more low volatility exposure realized higher absolute and risk-adjusted returns. By itself, an allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index outperformed the S&P 500 Index by 22.5% (13.60% to 11.10%), with 24.4% less volatility (9.30% to 12.30%) over the five-year period. The results are consistent with the low volatility anomaly, which states that low volatility stocks may outperform higher volatility stocks and the broader market on an absolute and risk-adjusted basis.1 Note that the return per unit of risk increases as the low volatility factor tilt increases (0.90 for a 100% S&P 500 Index allocation, for example, to 1.22 with a 50-50 blend). Also note the proportional correlation between allocation to the S&P 500 Low Volatility Index and tracking error. The chart below plots this relationship alongside risk-adjusted return. Source: Bloomberg L.P., March 31, 2016. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. As you can see, the relationship between low volatility factor exposure and tracking error is linear. Tracking error is relatively small when small amounts of low volatility are blended into the S&P 500 Index. A portfolio with a 30% weighting in low volatility stocks, for example, had less than a 2.50% tracking error to the S&P 500 Index; 50-50 blend produced 4% tracking error. Keep in mind, though, that risk-adjusted returns also improved with increased tracking error. What all of this implies is that investors and their advisors can mix and match according to their comfort level. Blending material amounts of the low volatility factor into a portfolio will likely lead to increased tracking error relative to the S&P 500 Index, but can also enhance the performance of a portfolio on both an absolute and risk adjusted basis. What’s your choice? Learn more about the PowerShares S&P 500 Low Volatility Portfolio (NYSEARCA: SPLV ). Read more blogs by Nick Kalivas . Important information Correlation is the degree to which two investments have historically moved in relation to each other. Tracking error measures the divergence between price behavior of a portfolio and the price behavior of a benchmark. Volatility measures the standard deviation from a mean of historical prices of a security or portfolio over time. The S&P 500® Low Volatility Index consists of the 100 stocks from the S&P 500® Index with the lowest realized volatility over the past 12 months. An investment cannot be made into an index. Typically, security classifications used in calculating allocation tables are as of the last trading day of the previous month. There are risks involved with investing in ETFs, including possible loss of money. Shares are not actively managed and are subject to risks similar to those of stocks, including those regarding short selling and margin maintenance requirements. Ordinary brokerage commissions apply. The Fund’s return may not match the return of the Underlying Index. The Fund is subject to certain other risks. Please see the current prospectus for more information regarding the risk associated with an investment in the Fund. Investments focused in a particular industry or sector, such as the industrials sector are subject to greater risk, and are more greatly impacted by market volatility, than more diversified investments. The Fund is non-diversified and may experience greater volatility than a more diversified investment. There is no assurance that the Fund will provide low volatility. The Global Industry Classification Standard was developed by and is the exclusive property and a service mark of MSCI, Inc. and Standard & Poor’s. S&P® is a registered trademark of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) and Dow Jones® is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow Jones). These trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC. S&P® and Standard & Poor’s® are trademarks of S&P and Dow Jones® is a trademark of Dow Jones. These trademarks have been sublicensed for certain purposes by Invesco PowerShares Capital Management LLC (Invesco PowerShares). The Index is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and/or its affiliates and has been licensed for use by Invesco PowerShares. The Fund is not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates and neither S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, Dow Jones, S&P or their respective affiliates make any representation regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s). Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. Business relationship disclosure: This article was posted on the Invesco PowerShares’ blog by an Invesco PowerShares’ employee on April 21, 2016: http://www.blog.invesco.us.com/measuring-performance-vs-benchmark-low-volatility-factor