How many shares should an investor hold?

(1) Some theory

Most of the investors in Free Capital  hold concentrated portfolios, sometimes of fewer than ten shares (Luke, Owen and Taylor). Others such as Eric, John Lee, Peter Gyllenhammar and Sushil hold up to 60 shares.  Who is right? How many is too many?

Many experienced investors advocate a small number of holdings. I used to think this was always good idea.  I still think this is probably right for a knowledgeable investor with a relatively small fund. But for an investor managing millions or tens of millions of pounds (like most people in the book), I'm not so sure.

If N  is my number of stocks to hold, I think the optimal N is a function of the following variables...

N  =  f { quality of knowledge about return dispersions (↓),

              £ size of portfolio (↑)

               volatility of shares (↑)

               capital gains tax rate (↓) }

 ...that is, a decreasing function of quality of knowledge and CGT rate, and an increasing function of the £ size of your portfolio and the volatllity of the candidate shares.

Let me explain....

Decreasing function of quality of knowledge about return dispersions  This point is fairly obvious. If you know with certainty which share in the market will give the best return over your time horizon, all your portfolio should be in that one share(*).  If you know nothing about the return dispersions the optimal portfolio is indexation.  In reality, most of use are somewhere in between.    Exceptional investors with exceptional quality of knowledge should hold a relatively concentrated portfolio. 

For example, most  years between 1977 and 2000, Warren Buffett appears to have held around one-third of his portfolio in his largest holding (usually a different holding in each successive year). I don’t hold one-third of my portfolio in one share, because I’m not that good.

(* Side-note This “obvious” point may not be mathematically correct.  See information theory: if transaction costs are zero, a constantly rebalanced universal portfolio must asymptotically out-perform the best-performing share in the market.  Of course, in practice transaction costs are never zero.  But the point illustrates that the question  discussed in this post is quite subtle; observations which are "obvious" are not necessarily correct.)

Increasing function of £ size of portfolio With a small portfolio, liquidity is not a constraint.  If you know with certainty which share will give the best return over a time horizon, you can put all your money in that one share and sell at the end of the time horizon.  With a larger portfolio, liquidity becomes a constraint. Even with perfect knowledge, you can no longer "buy at the bottom and sell at the top."

 With a larger portfolio, a larger number of holdings becomes optimal –  not because it “spreads risk”, but because it increases liquidity, and so increases options to change your mind as prices and your expectations change.

 For example, if I invest £50,000 in each of my 10 best smallcap ideas, I can sell any which rise to be fully valued. If I invest £500,000 in my single best smallcap idea, and it rises to be fully valued, I probably won’t be able to sell all of it anywhere near that price (who is going to buy?).  Even with perfect knowledge dispersion of returns, it’s attractive to invest some in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th… best ideas, and thus create options to sell shares when they go up, and buy when they go down.

 Increasing function of the volatility of candidate shares If the candidate shares are highly volatile, it becomes attractive to switch frequently, buying individual shares when they are low and selling when they are high (volatilty pumping). To do this, you need liquidity, that is you need to restrict your size in any one share, to ensure you can “buy at the bottom and sell at the top."  For given £ size of portfolio, smaller size in any one share implies a larger number of shares.

Decreasing function of the CGT rate If the CGT rate is high, the tax penalty on turnover is high, so the optimal portfolio probably has low turnover.  You should pick only shares which you are happy to hold for 10 or 20 years (I call these “diamonds” – see last post); this probably means very few shares indeed, and these shares are difficult to identify (ie the chance of "false positive" errors is high). 

 On the other hand if the tax rate is zero, there is no need to attempt the difficult and error-prone search for a very few 20-year diamonds.  You can instead buy “flower bulbs” (see last post), which are always more plentiful than diamonds, and much easier to recognise.  Flower bulbs can only be bought in small size, because you need to be able to sell easily and promptly when the flower blooms.  For a given £ size of portfolio, smaller size for individual shares implies a larger number of holdings.

Some further practical considerations are given in the next post.

Guy Thomas Sunday 20 February 2011 at 12:57 am | | Default | No comments

Diamonds and flower bulbs

Diamonds These are the shares orthodoxy says you should buy: shares in businesses with exceptional economics and long-term comparative advantage.  They are shares you would buy if you followed the Buffett doctrine: choose shares you would be happy to hold if the stock market closed tomorrow for five years. 

 Flower bulbs These are shares which are cheap just at the moment, but without any exceptional long-term quality. Flower bulbs trade on a P/E ratio of 5, or have net cash per share in excess of the share price, or some other idiosyncratic cheapness – together with no negative “hygiene factors” (see Vernon, Chapter 7). Flower bulbs can usually be relied upon to bloom, but they don’t have any exceptional long-term qualities.  A flower bulb can be a good buy, but only in modest size: you need liquidity to sell when the flower blooms. 

 Which should you buy, diamonds or flower bulbs?  I used to think diamonds, but I’ve come to realise that real diamonds are rare, and very hard to distinguish from fakes.  To recognise a diamond, you need long-term foresight of its durability. I’ve always found this very difficult.  My error rate for false positives as a diamond assessor is too high.

 Flower bulbs are much more common than diamonds, and easier to recognise.  You don’t need long-term foresight.  You just need to recognise something that is going to bloom, and keep your holding small enough to sell when it does.

 I’ve largely given up looking for diamonds. Nowadays, I spend much of my time scavenging the dustbins of the stock market for flower bulbs someone has thrown away by mistake. Less glamorous than prospecting for diamonds, but more reliable.  Remember Bill, Chapter 3: "Investing is a field where knowing your limitations is more important than stretching to surpass them.”

Guy Thomas Sunday 20 February 2011 at 12:55 am | | Default | One comment

What makes a successful investment bulletin board?

Originally written for Chapter 3 of the book (but removed in editing)

Properties of successful bulletin boards

Operating his own bulletin board, Nigel has thought about the conceptual ingredients of successful online discussion communities.  Most popular boards have most of the following properties.

Pseudonymity: Many people do not want their postings, particularly on a sensitive topic such as personal investments, to be searchable by employers or casual acquaintances, or even family members. 

Persistent identity: Although pseudonymity is desirable for privacy reasons, any meaningful discussion amongst users requires some form of persistent identity, that is, a stable one-to-one mapping of aliases to users.

Read More

Guy Thomas Monday 14 February 2011 at 4:09 pm | | Default | No comments
Used tags: ,