In Praise of Concentration

March 19, 2012

Our separate account portfolios are quite concentrated, typically only 20-25 stocks at one time. Having a concentrated portfolio creates a little bit of additional volatility, but it also increases the odds that a strong performer will have an outsized positive impact on the account. A recent article in Advisor Perspectives discussed this and other benefits of portfolio concentration.

Investors who avoid concentrated equity miss out on the triple benefits of excess returns, lower risk, and lower correlations. A portfolio concentrated in best-idea stocks has an excellent chance of generating excess returns. In turn, the cumulative excess return to investors lowers the risk of underperformance over time. Finally, a portfolio comprised of a small number of stocks is characterized by a low stock-market correlation. Thus the concentrated equity triple play: higher returns, lower risk, and lower correlations.

Concentrating a portfolio on a few choice assets dramatically increases an investor’s chance of superior performance. Nonetheless, most advisors and investors shun portfolio concentration as unacceptably risky. To a great extent, this is driven by the myth that adequate diversification is impossible unless one holds many stocks…

Many believe that concentrated portfolios are much more volatile than are broadly diversified index portfolios. It turns out the diversification benefit of adding additional stocks to a one-stock portfolio is largely captured within the first few additions, as shown [in Figure 1] below.

The author, C. Thomas Howard, includes a graphic that shows clearly how rapidly additional diversification is achieved by adding stocks to a portfolio.

Source: Advisor Perspectives (click on image to enlarge)

With 20 stocks, you’ve already eliminated more than 90% of the standard deviation from the market! In our particular portfolios, given that we also enforce a certain amount of macrosector diversification, the reduction in tracking error may occur even more rapidly.

The author discusses a number of papers (which are in the appendix of his article) that point out that “best ideas” have a strong likelihood of outperforming and that more stocks just tend to water down returns.

Instead of limiting themselves to their 10 or so best ideas, the typical active equity mutual fund manager holds 100 stocks. As shown in Figure 2, the “last”-ranked stock earns a negative excess return of between -2% and -3%. In fact, excess returns go negative somewhere around 30th-best stock. Thus, the typical portfolio is comprised of 30 positive excess-return stocks and 70 negative excess-return stocks. Not exactly a recipe for success!

So why don’t funds limit themselves to their best ideas? There are powerful institutional incentives to overdiversify and destroy performance.

The primary incentive is that mutual funds earn fees based on assets under management (AUM) — the bigger, the better. But getting big makes it increasingly difficult to focus strictly on best ideas; thus the resulting purchase of many more stocks in order to “round out” the portfolio. The need to fit a particular style box and closely track a “style index” can also force advisors to water down their portfolios, as can the need to soothe investor fears by keeping volatility low.

Collectively, these incentives encourage a fund manager to move away from a concentrated portfolio; all too often, he or she may essentially become a closeted indexer.

In short, there are institutional incentives to move away from concentrated portfolios, often to the detriment of long-term investor returns. I added bold type to the tidbit that excess returns go negative somewhere around the 30th best stock. If that is the case, there is no point in adding more names beyond those that have a prospect of adding excess returns.

What’s the downside of a concentrated portfolio? Well, there’s certainly more short-term volatility, even if the long-term returns are higher. And a concentrated portfolio isn’t exactly designed to “soothe investor fears.” As always, the road to better returns is usually psychologically uncomfortable!

To receive the brochure for our Separately Managed Accounts, click here.

Click here and here for disclosures. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

Posted by:


From the Archives: Capturing Trends

March 19, 2012

Intuitively, investors feel like the more nimble they are, the better they will do. They put tremendous pressure of themselves to capture every wiggle in the market. Yet, much of the time, going faster is counterproductive.

In this blog post, “Understanding How Markets Move,” noted psychologist and trader Brett Steenbarger uses the simple example of a moving average system applied to the S&P; 500. The more you speed up the moving average, the worse it does. That seems counter-intuitive, but you have to keep in mind that trends are what make money and trends are often slow. The faster you go, the more noise you capture, and thus, the worse you do.

We find exactly the same process at work when using relative strength. Reacting to short-term relative strength does not perform well over time. The best-performing models follow intermediate to long-term relative strength—and just tough out the periods that are rocky. Many clients have trouble sitting still when going through a rocky period, but as Steenbarger points out in his post, you have to deal with the asset you’re trading. Stocks have their own time frames for trends and an impatient investor isn’t going to speed it up. If you want to trade financial assets, you have to work with them on their own terms.

—-this article originally appeared 12/16/2009. Repeat after me: going faster is counterproductive. The last nine months or so have been lousy for trends, so it’s prime time for thinking that trends could be captured if only one were more nimble. Tough periods don’t last. The market will trend again when it feels like it!

Posted by:


Weekly RS Recap

March 19, 2012

The table below shows the performance of a universe of mid and large cap U.S. equities, broken down by relative strength decile and quartile and then compared to the universe return. Those at the top of the ranks are those stocks which have the best intermediate-term relative strength. Relative strength strategies buy securities that have strong intermediate-term relative strength and hold them as long as they remain strong.

Last week’s performance (3/12/12 – 3/16/12) is as follows:

Another strong week for the market and an especially strong week for the RS laggards (led by Financials).

Posted by: