Forum Topics Hypothetical Concentrated Portfolio
Rocket6
2 years ago

For those that missed it, Henry Jennings and Marcus Padley spoke at Finfest. Both of these gents aren't everyones cup of tea, and there are some eyeroll moments in there from Marcus where he preaches trying to time the market, but it is well worth a listen.

In what is extremely relevant to this thread, and another thread discussed on Strawman in recent weeks (portfolio concentration vs diversification), the title of this event was titled: chickens don't make money. I am sure you get where both are getting at when they mention this....holding 40 stocks makes it very very difficult to hold life-changing stocks. Further, they go one further -- if you do this, just track the index (I agree). You have to take risks and be different from the crowd. They talk about super concentrated portfolios and encourage it (with caveats) and then tell the story about the 'six-million dollar man'.

A recording of the event can be found here. Highly recommended.

And for what's it's worth, I agree with them. I didn't comment on the other thread, but like Henry and many others, I have what I consider a concentrated portfolio: I currently hold 12 stocks in my satellite portfolio, with 80%> allocation in just six companies. I believe this is the way to go, but as Henry stresses, you've got to do the work.

24

Timocracy
2 years ago

Oh boy the Marcus Padley talk with Owen was a bit hard to watch unfold. Maybe it plays better in the recording but he really did come out of left-field. Still, great to have differing perspectives. Just came off a little strong IMO :)

8

Rocket6
2 years ago

I haven't heard/seen this one yet @Timocracy, hopefully Equity Mates feature it on their pod in the coming weeks!

6

@Rocket6 doesnt Henry have about 50 stocks in his model portfolio? also MP site has multiple portfolios. so they have to be right on at least one of those calls. ive lost interst in them to be honest

9

Rocket6
2 years ago

@Solvetheriddle I am not sure mate, I don't follow them closely enough. I actually really enjoy Henry's commentary on the call and other bits and pieces; always an enjoyable listen who I think calls a spade a spade. He did mention that he still runs a pretty aggressive portfolio for his age (and considering his health problems), but I'm not sure what that entails.

Might be a case of practice what you preach?

6

reddogaustin
2 years ago

@Rocket6 i watched it on youtube instead... so i could read their body language. These guys have aged and show it!

I'd believe that 'most' portfolios are ~20 stocks. But find it hard to believe that those 20 are picked by a broker, or the individual, starting with the top 50 and removing via the method described. Crazy if true.

Also their claims about how little people know about the stocks they may invest in. Do so many buy blindly? That scares me... but it also explains the markets gyrations!

I did enjoy MP's claim to trade etf's in retirement by timing the market.

Still a facinating thought exploration to buy that one stock and ride it, because you know it so well.

5
edgescape
2 years ago

Interesting we are having this discussion as I'm already trimming out my losers and trying to add on my winners.

However it is hard psychologically to try and add on something going up.

I remember doing a shortlist during the covid pandemic and a few stocks which I sadly never bought included MIN, PME and OZL. And maybe ALU as well.

Instead I went for A2M which was a big mistake. And I bought ALU way too late.

The lesson here is I did not look closely at management and the people within the company, not just the financials, the technology or the product or service they are offering - and so I'm starting to slowly learn this. Honestly I never knew Chris Ellison had such a big reputation in mining which seems to count lots these days in the business world. Wish more was written about him here because he doesn't seem to get much credit.

16

Timocracy
2 years ago

What also ruins the psychology of adding to winners is when you sell out at a decent premium besides the minimum $500 stake and watch it fall over a 12-18 month period back down to where you first bought it. Then having to consider whether you should pile in again etc but that builds on the discussion of focusing on the business rather than the price of the shares!

9
UncleWally
2 years ago

I'll have a go @Vandelay

My three picks are Audinate, Nanosonics & Pointerra.

I've held these companies on and off for quite a while now, they all seem to have quality management and I think they all have a big opportunity in front of them.

Of the three the only company I've bought recently is 3DP but wouldn't hesitate topping up the others if Mr Market delivered me a juicy opportunity.

27
Vandelay
2 years ago

After reading the great posts in the "Concentrated versus Diversified" forum thread. It got me thinking and thought it might be fun thought expirement to ask the strawpeople; if you were only allowed by law to own only 3 x company's stock at any point in time, what companies would you own today? In this scenario, you dont have to hold them forever, just what would you hold now, balancing the risk of a 3 x stock portfolio while trying to outperform. (No ETFs thats boring)

I think I'd go with Google (quality and undemanding multiple), Sol Patts (diversified aussie conglomerate paying a dividend) and AVA (a bit of spice and upside potential)

18

reddogaustin
2 years ago

Hahaha @Vandelay Sol Patts is basically an ETF by stealth!

I would own, right meow, Google, Micro$oft and Amazon. Tomorrow, the same, 5 years from now, the same.

Cloud and data. The future.

20

Vandelay
2 years ago

Damn you caught me out!

If i had to hold 3 stocks forever, theyd be the 3 you chose.

12

Bear77
2 years ago

My three would be FMG (based on FFI potential mostly - more than the iron ore), AVA and Microsoft.

Although I'd prefer to reject the premise, coz the whole point of share market investment is the ease of changing investments, so it seems a strange thing to just pick three stocks and sit on them forever. What happens if one gets bought out for cash? What happens if the competitive environment changes significantly in the future for one of them? In reality, I wouldn't hold less than 5, and I'd prefer to hold at least 10. And If I held 5 or less, I'd want a few of those to be funds, like a NASDAQ ETF, or a global managed fund like MGF. It seems counter-intuitive that you'd restrict yourself to just exposure to three businesses. I understand the premise, as an academic exercise, but I don't think there are too many situations where it would actually be a solid workable plan that produces the results intended. You can make it work by looking in the rear-view mirror and saying - those three companies would have been the ones to hold - but we don't get to go back in time. And the future is inherently unknowable and unpredictable. One of the best features of the share market is the ease of switching from one investment to another, and without that very important feature, I think it loses most of its appeal - for me anyway.

17

Rocket6
2 years ago

Another great thread. For what's it's worth, I will keep this local. But like @Bear77 and on another day I would consider the NASDAQ ETF to give me exposure to the tech giants.

Like @Vandelay Sol Patts is too hard to exclude for me. A reliable performer over time with the added benefit of balance, diversification and exposure to unlisted companies. I will also pick Audinate (great management team who are slowly creating a monopoly) and Novonix (the right place at the right time, led by the right people -- a very good chance, to me at least, that they will be a cash flow machine in a few years time with significant govt backing).

22

Vandelay
2 years ago

@Bear77 i agree, having to hold 3 stocks forever would be a silly premise. My original thread question was "if you were only allowed by law to own only 3 x company's stock at any point in time, what companies would you own today? In this scenario, you dont have to hold them forever"

The thread was more about being forced into being concentrated and whether that would change the stocks i held today. Turns out it did for me!

20

reddogaustin
2 years ago

@Vandelay

I would like to add a qualifying statement to my picks.

Changing horses mid-race for me has never worked, as I cannot pick the best timing. So I would like to acknowledge, that if I could only hold 3 companies, and change them daily if I wanted too, I wouldn't. I would review them annually (at the same time I submit my tax return).

And of course, if the rules of this hypothetical changed, I would pick 3x ETFs.

8

Vandelay
2 years ago

I agree @reddogaustin !

I'd only be changing if the business quality deteriorates or thesis is proven incorrect. But I'd argue that should always be the case even if you can hold as many stocks as you like.

11