Tag Archives: investing-strategy

New 50-Year Bull Market For Precious Metals? (Podcast With Avi Gilburt)

Click to enlarge Avi Gilburt is a student of Elliott Wave analysis and has been following gold (NYSEARCA: GLD ), silver (NYSEARCA: SLV ), and other precious metals for years. In this interview, he takes us behind the scenes to better understand Elliott Wave. In addition, Avi gives his argument for why he believes we are near the beginning of a 50-year bull market in precious metals. That means both the metals and miners (NYSEARCA: GDX ). (Click the play button above to hear the podcast.) When I pressed Avi for more details about what he expects a 50-year bull market in the metals to look like, he compared it to the Dow going from ~100 in 1941 to 18,000+ in the past year. Click to enlarge This chart just shows the last 30 years for the Dow, but still helps put Avi’s point in perspective a bit. I hope you enjoy the interview as much as I did. I look forward to your thoughts and comments below. – Brian Disclosure : This article is for information purposes only. Comments made my guests do not necessarily represent the views of Brian or Investor in the Family. There are risks involved with investing including loss of principal. Brian and Investor in the Family makes no explicit or implicit guarantee with respect to performance or the outcome of any investment or projections made. There is no guarantee that the goals of the strategies discussed by Brian and Investor in the Family will be met. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bond

Source: beralinka / Shutterstock U.S. Treasuries are not cheap. At roughly 2%, nominal yields are less than a third of the 60-year average of 6%, according to Bloomberg data. Although they are not as egregiously expensive as 10-year Swiss government bonds-currently trading at a yield of negative 0.25%-U.S. bonds are offering a relatively paltry real return, even after adjusting for low inflation. Moreover, government bonds are potentially more volatile. For now, that volatility is being suppressed by the lethargic pace of the Federal Reserve’s (Fed’s) tightening cycle. But there is plenty of risk embedded in traditionally safe government bonds. Low coupon rates mean that investors get almost all of their cash flow at maturity. This pushes up a bond’s duration or rate sensitivity. In practice, a 10-year bond yielding 2% is more rate sensitive than a 10-year bond yielding 6%. If rates start to rise, bond volatility will be exacerbated by higher durations. Another way of looking at this: With a 2% coupon, a relatively small rate move will wipe out a year’s worth of interest. But despite high prices and the potential for more volatility, there is still a very good reason to continue to own government bonds: diversification. Use bonds as a hedge While government bonds currently produce little in the way of income, U.S. Treasuries have been providing a hedge against equity risk. Since the financial crisis, but really since the bursting of the tech bubble, bonds have been more likely to move in the opposite direction to stocks. This trend has only intensified since the financial crisis. Why should this be the case and is it likely to continue? Looking back over the past 25 years, a period of low and stable inflation, stock/bond correlation has generally moved in tandem with monetary policy, as measured by the effective federal funds rate. In the 1990s, when investors were more worried about inflation and an aggressive Fed, the correlation between stocks and bonds tended to be positive. However, as the Fed has increasingly pushed the boundary of monetary accommodation correlations have fallen. What history tells us Over the past quarter century the level of the fed funds rate has explained nearly 50% of the variation in stock/bond correlations, according to Bloomberg data. Take a look at the chart below. During this period, when the policy rate was above 2%, the average correlation was close to zero. In periods when the fed funds rate has been below 2%, as has been the case since late ’08, the average correlation has been roughly -0.25. (A correlation of 1 means two asset classes move in lockstep. A negative correlation means they move in opposite directions. A zero correlation means their movements are unrelated.) As long as the Fed remains reluctant to raise rates, history would suggest that the correlation between stocks and bonds is likely to remain negative. Click to enlarge A negative stock/bond correlation is important for managing portfolio volatility. Portfolio risk is not simply the sum of the volatility of the individual assets; it is also influenced by the correlation between those assets. To the extent that longer-term government bonds provide diversification-a scenario more likely in an environment in which the policy rate is low-bonds have a role to play in a portfolio, even if they are expensive and more volatile. Russ Koesterich , CFA, is Head of Asset Allocation for BlackRock’s Global Allocation Fund and is a regular contributor to The Blog . ‘This post originally appeared on the BlackRock Blog’.

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