Investing

In the area of finance and investing, like many other fields, the questions you ask are perhaps more important than the answers to them. But again in this area, even the simplest of questions can have a variety of complex answers.

Which Stocks?

So something as basic as how should I select which stocks to invest in – can have multitude of answers. In my view, this kind of question will, perhaps, have at least 3-4 questions as its answer to start with, when asked to an expert. When individual investors ask this question (or of a similar kind) to a financial planner or an advisor or an expert, the investor is most likely to get either unclear answers with a number of riders.

Or a set of additional questions like how long can you hold, what is your risk appetite, etc. And do not get me wrong. These are perfectly valid questions from the point of view of the advisor, as the expert is trying to assess the investor before giving a customized answer. But it will still leave the investor confused – specially the next time he wants to take a similar decision on selection on stocks.

So, I am going to try and attempt simple answers to this question in this note.

Don’t Invest in Stocks Directly

My first answer is – if you can help it, do not invest in stocks directly at all. Invest in an index fund instead (or if you like a fund manager – invest in an actively managed well performing fund). Despite that, if you still want to invest directly in stocks, my second answer would be restrict yourself to the Index stocks or the top 50 stocks by market capitalization.

Simply construct a portfolio by buying companies that have high return on equity, low or no debt compared to equity, high profit margins over time and consistent dividend paying history; and buy them when their valuations as measured by Price to Earnings or Price to Book are lower or reasonable compared to long term averages. And better still, buy them regularly over time to build a portfolio.

Can you beat the Index?

Beyond this, if you still want to expand your universe of stocks, then the only reason you need to go outside the top stocks by market capitalization is if you can beat the index. And for that, you will need hard work, continuous research, adoption of an investing approach that is not followed commonly and lots of patience.

Once you decide that you are prepared to do that, I think the parameters you look for in stocks for investment change. You then enter a territory where there is lack of credible historical performance, unpredictability, unproven business models and perhaps low liquidity. You are then buying a promise for the future, and your interests are then best served if you strictly buy value.

In such a scenario, you should then look for stocks that are cheap in relation to assets and/or earnings. And cheap would mean different benchmarks depending on margins, growth expectations and debt – but essentially the focus should be on buying cheap.

Funds trump Direct Stocks mostly

So in a nutshell, the simple answer to this question of ‘how do I select which stocks to invest in?’ is firstly this – do not do that selection at all. Leave it to the index or a fund manager who is smarter than you and the index. If you think you are smart, go ahead and buy index stocks over a period of time – you are then buying into good businesses at reasonable prices. If you think you are even smarter, go ahead and buy stocks outside of the top stocks family, when they are cheap by earnings and asset measures – you are then buying into reasonable businesses, so be sure you get them at a good price.

Using this simple framework, you will perhaps be in a position to answer this question on ‘how should I select which stocks to invest in?’ Though not precise, but at least, I hope, it provides a decent guideline to arrive at a stock selection decision.

I have often heard a lot of financial planners advise an asset allocation strategy based on the age of the investor – something on the lines of invest 100 less your age into equity or similar. While the broad logic of this strategy is that with increasing age, the capacity of an individual to earn himself out of a market crash reduces, purely age based asset allocation might, like many other things in finance and investing, be the right answer to the wrong question.

Life Circumstances, not Age

A student who has taken an education loan or a young married person saving for the down payment of a house can hardly justify investing 80% of his savings into equity. Whereas a middle aged double income couple with their mortgage paid off or a retired millionaire with 20 more years of life would be foolish to invest majority of their net worth in fixed income. In fact, it would be risky for the youngster to put 80% of his savings into equity if a market crash catches him when he needs the money for his house. And equally risky for the retired old man to depend on his fixed deposits to face 20 years of inflation.

I have found that asset allocation percentages need to be an output determined by life circumstances, net worth, current income, overall risk tolerance and age. Age can be a good determinant of some of the above, but it is too simplistic to assume that it is the only one. In many cases, it is not – and hence, it turns out that portfolios are more conservative or riskier than they should be.

Risk Tolerance, not Age

Historical data suggests that the possibility of losing money in equities over a 10 year period is quite low. Hence the equity percentage of the portfolio must largely depend on the ability of the individual to, more or less, forget his money and ride out a period of 10 years with no need for the money put in equity (and perhaps, put more into equity, if required during crashes). Now this ability is something that depends on factors like risk tolerance, current income, net worth, temperament and life circumstances, of which age is just one determinant.

The more you have of this ability, the more should you tilt your asset allocation comfortably towards equity. And age has, perhaps, little but not much to do with it.

I have always felt that individual investors (or perhaps any investor to some extent for that matter) have never got a complete handle of the decision on when to sell. Traders or speculators mostly have a fixed target for profit or stop-loss, but investors never seem to enter a stock with a clear exit goal.

Rebalancing as a strategy might provide answers to solve this quandary – more than anything else for the individual investor. At a portfolio level, it provides you with a clear answer on when to sell, and, if required, it can be translated and implemented at an individual stock level also by more mature individual investors. Setting asset allocation limits at various levels in a portfolio can provide you with clear triggers on when to sell. So then, you stop asking yourself questions like – should I sell stock A at this price or wait for some time – questions which have no clear answers anyway. On the other hand, that answer is provided at an overall portfolio level, based on allocation limits.

For example, to provide a complex set of rebalancing rules, consider the following: If you determine that equity will account for 60% of my portfolio, and within that, large cap stocks will account for 50% of the holdings, and then no industry will account for more than 25% and no stock more than 10%, then it becomes easier to take decisions on what and how much to sell when these allocation percentages go out of whack. And if you are not a direct stock investor, but take your exposure through mutual funds, it gets much easier than the above scenario, assuming that your fund manager is dealing with the rest. Therefore, ‘I bought stock A at X, should I sell it now at this price Y’ becomes a wrong and somewhat irrelevant question, and thankfully so.

Of course, rebalancing is not a strategy that guarantees the highest returns. In certain cases, you may end up selling your winners, which in hindsight may not feel great. But for individual investors, who may have no particular reason to feel a sense of conviction about a specific stock, it provides a good way to reduce or manage risk. I do not think at a mathematical level, rebalancing has a very high impact on returns, but it sure reduces risk of excessive falls and locks in some of the profits. And if done correctly, it will also ensure that you buy equity at a time when every one is running away from it – in which case rebalancing affects your long term returns too.

An important effect of this strategy might well also be at a mental or psychological level – because an individual investor feels he is in control and has been smart to book profits when his portfolio grows and to buy stocks when they were low in price.

Therefore, less for returns, more for managing risk, and most importantly for the psychological advantage of getting emotion out of buy/sell decisions, rebalancing is a crucial strategy for portfolio management for individual investors.

The core objective of diversification is to reduce risk. The idea is that peaks and troughs in a specific investment should not affect overall portfolio return objectives.

One must define risk less as volatility, and more as a either a complete or partial, but permanent loss of capital. In that case. an individual investor would be well-advised to consider diversification to reduce risk of a few primary types:

Asset Market or Systematic Risk

What if I am invested in the wrong asset class or market? This is best reduced by a prudent asset allocation decision. Investors should identify different types of asset classes that they want to be invested in. Along with that, they must define ideal target percentages in each asset class. This will minimize the impact of being invested in the wrong asset class.

Unsystematic Risk

What if I choose the wrong stock or bond or property? Investors can reduce this by investing in a pool of candidates within the same asset class. So if it is equities, it is best to be invested in a bucket of unrelated good businesses, or in commodities or real estate, again try and be invested in unrelated asset candidates. This will minimize the impact of being invested in the wrong securities.

Timing risk

What if I invest at the wrong time? You may have a well-diversified pool of securities in a well adjusted portfolio of asset types, but what if you invest at the peak of the markets? This is best reduced by making periodic investments in the assets of your choice, so that timing risk is reduced. This will minimize the impact of being invested in any asset at purely the wrong time.

For individual investors, more than chasing returns, if prudence is exercised in constructing a portfolio with the objective of reducing risk of the above three types, there are good chances that the returns will take care of themselves.