Concentrate or Diversify, 2 Questions with 3 Answers - Weekly Blog # 594

Mike Lipper’s Monday Morning Musings

Concentrate or Diversify, 2 Questions with 3 Answers

Editors: Frank Harrison 1997-2018, Hylton Phillips-Page 2018 –

I have been asked to respond to two intellectual investment questions that parallel real word actions. The first question comes from a long-term subscriber of these blogs. The second comes from my preparatory work for a potential investment management client.

1. European Portfolio Manager response to Sub-Zero Interest Rates?
2. Appropriate Structure for a Long-Term Charitable Account?

In my mind both questions revolve around the same risk management question. Is it better to concentrate one’s assets and energy or spread the risk by diversifying? Too often investment people view their problems as special and quite separate from the real-world problems of others. We do this at the risk of not seeing the universality of problems.

Perpetuation of the family/species is at the core of human and animal creation. Due to potential violence, insufficient food, and medical risks, some produce multiple offspring with the hope that some will survive. Others choose to produce a limited number of descendants and protect them carefully. This is the very same quandary that investors face, particularly those with responsibly for others.

One approach to a decision process with two alternatives is to create a barbell type solution by combining the two extremes of diversification and concentration. To be prudent we should not use this barbell decision model. The third element to consider is the presence of other factors, which often determines the appropriate decision.

Reactions to Negative Interest Rates
On the surface, paying a financial institution for the privilege of letting them hold your money, which they then lend out without sharing the proceeds with you, appears to violate Newton’s laws of physics. It suggests a collapsing universe rather than an expanding one, raising the question of why an investor would contribute to such a scam?

Jim Grant, one of the best columnists on fixed income, called for the end of the 38-year bond bull market in this week’s Barron’s. In his column he quoted from a 1981 article by Parker Hall, a deceased but old friend who heralded the beginnings of the bond bull market. Today’s question is somewhat more complex than just betting on a cyclical turnaround in bond prices. It has been made more complicated by the policy dictates of various governments for political purposes. Although interest rates are expressed in their local currency, e.g. euros, they are compared to rates in other currencies and are exposed to different inflation rates. Governments, officially or unofficially, direct their central banks to induce low interest rates to create and preserve jobs, often through problematic loans which create additional market distortions.

Most large fixed income portfolios are managed through or for the political establishment, making it difficult for many managers in Europe to meaningfully exit from negative interest rate paper. However, I am seeing some increased diversification into both high-quality corporate bonds and very long-term government bonds, including century bonds. The latter is interesting in that they’re betting they can, over the long-term of possibly 100 years, reinvest the low yielding coupons at higher expected interest rates. (It is worth noting that the biggest return in long-term bond investing is through the reinvestment of payments at current rates).

If European fixed income managers can get out of the euro they generally will, often by buying US paper. Most cannot and are therefore effectively corralled into the euro and forced to extend their maturities. However, there is a limit as to how much they can lengthen their maturity structure, as many portfolios are designed to pay pension benefits. In most European countries the retirement ages are lower than in the US, thereby limiting maturity elongations.

Portfolio Structure for a Charitable Investment Account
The payout needs for any account requires current cash to make payments. There are two main ways to achieve this. The traditional way is to let the gross income earned on the entire account make the required payments, but due to market price fluctuations the available cash will fluctuate. To the extent that current income is insufficient, proceeds from sales can supplement the cash generated from dividend and interest payments.

We are advocates of another approach which divides expected payment responsibilities into specific timespan portfolio sub-accounts. The most current timespan portfolio should generate the funding necessary to make required payments. This portfolio could be structured in a way where cash or short-term investments satisfy the payment obligations before being replaced with the next timespan tranche. The advantage of this approach is that it makes certain that current bills are paid, regardless of market volatility. It also allows the rest of the portfolio to be invested for longer term horizons.

Charities, even private ones, are fiduciary accounts that are distinct from personal accounts. No one must know how well or poorly one’s personal account performs. Most fiduciary accounts make reports as to the success of their investment program from time to time and the frequency of this reporting can influence how a portfolio is managed. Financial markets are by their nature volatile. Over very long periods a fully invested portfolio of reasonably selected securities or funds should produce a higher return than a portfolio that has frequent changes.

To some degree, in dealing with fiduciaries it is more difficult to manage their expectations than manage the performance of the funds and/or securities. Using a rough rule of thumb, the potential peak to bottom declines are as follows:

     A 10% decline - Three times in a ten-year period
     A 25% decline - Some time over a ten-year period
     A 50% decline - Once in a generation of approximately 25 years

Many investors do not achieve the general returns available in the market because of timing their moves in and out of the market.

Diversification reduces specific risks of individual securities. However, it also reduces the opportunity for doing much better or worse than the market average. Over an extended time period, wise concentration in a small number of choices produces the highest returns, but the results can be volatile.

Pulling these thoughts together the following structure may be appropriate for a charitable account, assuming a ten-year horizon:

     10% in Money Market funds and short-term US Treasuries
     40% in growth funds of various sizes, most in mid/small-cap funds
     30% in international funds, with 2/3rds in Asia
     20% in value funds

The selection of individual funds will be guided by risk tolerance, size of the account, operating procedures, and special factors. The higher the risk tolerance the greater the commitment to a concentrated portfolio of funds.

If you need help in constructing or reviewing your portfolio, please contact me.



Did you miss my past few blogs? Click one of the links below to read.
https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2019/09/mike-lippers-monday-morning-musings.html

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2019/09/excess-capital-less-equity.html

https://mikelipper.blogspot.com/2019/08/an-awkward-moment-with-frustration-not.html



Did someone forward you this blog?
To receive Mike Lipper’s Blog each Monday morning, please subscribe by emailing me directly at AML@Lipperadvising.com

Copyright © 2008 - 2019
A. Michael Lipper, CFA

All rights reserved
Contact author for limited redistribution permission.