HOME PAGE
Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street
INTRODUCTION
what is F Wall Street?
THE BLOG
for non-conventionalists
RESOURCES
coming soon
CONTACT ME
e-mail Joe Ponzio
Joe Ponzio's F Wall Street
You are here: Home ›› F Wall Street Blog ›› Investing Basics ›› What Is The Best Asset Allocation Strategy?

What Is The Best Asset Allocation Strategy?

Feb
8

A common question among investors — both conventional and non-conventional — is: How should I allocate my portfolio so I am best prepared to capitalize on (or protect myself from) the coming years in the markets? Mutual fund, which were designed to, in part, shield people from volatility, aren't living up to their promises and even "well-diversified, long-term" mutual fund investors are finding it difficult to "stay the course" like their advisers instructed.

Here's how to do it.

If you are new to F Wall Street, allow me to present to you the four types of investors that are striving for long-term growth:

  1. The general conventionalist is looking for long-term, steady growth and can not, or does not want to, stomach the stock markets. 50% of the population falls into this category.
  2. The enterprising conventionalist is also looking for long-term growth but is willing to tolerate minor fluctuations in stock prices. 35% of investors are enterprising conventionalists.
  3. Safety-seekers can tolerate market fluctuations...to a point. Daily and minor fluctuations are largely irrelevant; large price changes are still gut-wrenching. >14% of investors are safety-seekers.
  4. Non-conventionalists could care less about market or price fluctuations and look to find value and opportunities in every market. <1% of investors are non-conventionalists.

Though each of these investors can achieve satisfactory results over the long run, their psychologies will greatly affect how they should be invested.

The General Conventionalist Portfolio

You do not have to be "in the markets" to grow your money. Mutual funds are not your solution. Consider investing your entire portfolio in investment grade bonds, preferably laddered in 10-year increments. Don't be afraid to venture into secure foreign bonds if US rates are too low (e.g., at the time of this writing, the 2-year Australian government bond is yielding 7.5% and matures in September of 2009 — a potential candidate as you build your portfolio).

Stuck investing only in your 401(k), with no bond selection? Folks, this is your livelihood. You have to beg your employer or human resources department to give you a better selection or consider hiring an independent 401k provider to manage your plan.

Over the past 40 years, the general conventionalist could have earned nearly as much as a stock market investor with virtually no risk and very minimal volatility. If the markets have you tossing and turning or you are worried about putting money in stocks right now, you are probably a general conventionalist.

Expected return: 7-9%

The Enterprising Conventionalist

Would you feel "safe" having some of your money in stocks if those stocks were, say, Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney, and General Electric? You know, "boring" stocks that pay dividends and don't move "too much"? If so, you are probably an enterprising conventionalist. As such, you should consider putting 50% of your portfolio into a bond ladder (as discussed above) and 50% of your portfolio in large companies that pay dividends.

When looking for these companies, consider sticking with large, household names. Buy them when they are on sale (cash is fine when they are not) and put them on the shelf. As you add money to your account, split it between the bonds and the stocks. For you, 8-10 household names may be enough.

Enterprising conventionalists may want to consider reinvesting dividends and should strive to balance their accounts by adding the stock portion of new contributions to the smallest positions based on their percentage of the whole. (e.g., if nine of ten stocks add up to 93% of the stock portion, then each of those nine is 10.3% of the stock portfolio and the remaining stock is just 7%. In that case, consider buying the tenth stock.)

Expected return: 8-12%

The Safety-Seeker

Think bonds are too conservative and boring? Would you be content beating the markets by one or two points, on average, over the long-term? Gut-wrenching markets still make you somewhat sick? You, my friend, are probably a safety-seeker.

Safety seekers should also consider a 50/50 split in their portfolios. The "boring" part should be invested in much the same way as the enterprising conventionalist's stock potion; the remaining half can be divided in a more non-conventional way (below). The safety seeker should never use margin and should keep workout opportunities to a maximum of 5% of his or her portfolio.

As a safety-seeker, you should probably avoid companies with market capitalizations under $500 million simply because the volatility generally associated with smaller companies can really shake your nerves and cause you to make emotional, rather than business, decisions.

Keep in mind: There is no shame in being a safety-seeker. In my book (to be published by Adams Media), you'll hear the story of a safety-seeker who, starting with just $10,000, amassed a $1.4 million fortune as an at-home mother with kids in high school and medical school.

Expected return: 12-15%

The Non-Conventionalist

The non-conventionalist watches the markets only to the extent that he or she is looking for opportunities. For these investors, the Dow at 14,000 was growing increasingly boring; the Dow at 12,000 or 10,000 is delicious. Non-conventionalists have an appetite for business and have trouble sleeping when the markets are crashing because their minds are replaying the day's annual reports and workout opportunities.

Non-conventionalists never buy hoping to make good sales at a later time; they buy when they can get substantially more value than that for which they are paying. They know that the markets will eventually reward them for their good decisions and they accept that the ultimate timing and amount is out of their hands.

If you are a non-conventionalist investor, you may consider investing 80% of your assets in long-term, undervalued companies and up to 30% in workouts. I know — the math doesn't work. Non-conventionalist investors use margin (though sparingly) so that, when great opportunities come along, they can invest $11,000 for each $10,000 in their account — or 110% of their assets.

The 80% portion should be diversified. That is, the non-conventionalist investor should consider having between three and eight companies. Because they put their money where they are offered the most value, non-conventionalists need not hold more than the very best opportunities.

The 30% workout portion should also be split amongst a wide variety of opportunities. Depending on your portfolio value, you may have as few as none and as many as fifteen workouts at any given time. The actual amount, of course, depends on how much value each workout is offering. (e.g., the Tribune workout was my only workout at the time and I had a full 30% of my assets in the position).

Expected return: >15%

The Non-Conventionalist Approach to Buying

Buying workouts is fairly straightforward. To lift a bit from Benjamin Graham, if, upon thorough analysis of the deal, you see an opportunity for both safety of principal and a satisfactory return, you should buy. The greater the opportunity (for both return and safety), the more you should buy.

When approaching businesses, you should have a definite price in mind. Then, you should begin buying in 10%-20% chunks — once a week or so. That is, if you plan to commit 20% of your portfolio to a particular opportunity, begin buying in 2%-4% increments over five to ten weeks. This serves two purposes: (1) it allows you to capitalize even more if the price continue to drop, and (2) it prevents you from guru-itis, the belief that you are always right and everyone else is always wrong. (You will be wrong from time to time.)

Come on Joe, I'm not working with millions here!

How much is enough? Assuming you are putting 10% of your portfolio into each opportunity, that you intend to buy over five weeks, and that you pay an average of $10 in commissions for each trade, a non-conventionalist investor should have at least $50,000 so that no single transaction costs more than 1% of his or her investment.

If you are working with less than $50,000, then you'll have to make some sacrifices. Your purchases will have to be made over just two or three weeks or in a single transaction. You'll be forced to engage in less workouts and have to be much more careful in your selection.

Still, don't be disheartened if you currently have just a few thousand dollars. Put money aside every month and keep in mind that my kids collectively own just two stocks as I build their portfolios. For them, workouts are out of the question right now. I hope they each have 80 years of investing ahead of them so I'm not concerned with capitalizing on every opportunity I see today. The next 80 years should present a few more.

A Final Note/Disclaimer

The "Expected return" assumptions above assume that the next forty years are substantially the same as the last forty. That is, through wars, recessions, high and low federal funds rates, elections, housing booms and busts, tech bubbles, inflation, deflation, leveraging, deleveraging, and salad oil scandals, our economy and country will survive. If I'm wrong, your money will be worthless, all the stocks and bonds in the world won't save you, and the General Conventionalists buying Australian bonds will look like geniuses!

 

Filed under Investing Basics Print this article
Comment on this [ 11 ] By: Joe Ponzio

comments

Now that was a long one. Hope it is helpful. And please excuse the shameless plug for my company's 401(k) services, but I would rather people knew about it than didn't.

by Joe Ponzio on February 8, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Interesting post.
I don't think anyone can complain against some mentions of your company or your book, so long as the content is still there. All of us here thrive on capitalism.


by Night on February 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
Good article. I probably fall in the safety seeker and non-conventionalist area. I only buy quality companies, but only when undervalued.

Definitely a god call that at most, 1% of your cost should be commissions. I know of to many people (even some that "trade" frequently that said they buy in $1,000 or $2,000 blocks and *hope* for a 10% move). People tell me this and I immediately think, oh great. Stock moves 10%. You pay about 80% of your gain to commissions and the rest is taxed. Sometimes I wonder how the mathematically adapt people (some engineers) could make such trivial errors.

And I am one to talk because before I ever made my first investment or read a book, I first looked at commissions and realized while $20 (round trip) does look small, that is 2% of $1,000 in stock. I immediately decided before I ever invested any of my money that would buy in blocks no smaller than $5K each.

I think the attention to fees is the first thing investors should learn about/realize. It really should be chapter one of any introductory book on investing. But people writing books are a bit more savvy as investors and they probably over look these things and that some readers (probably a vast number of Mad Money readers) only invest in $500 or $1,000 blocks. I'm sure Jim Cramer points this out, or is he to busy "making investing "fun""

I hope that was not to rantish :-)

by kfh227 on February 8, 2008 at 7:48 PM
I enjoy your posts - keep up the great work!

I was curious how I would go about purchasing an Australian government bond?

by nn55 on February 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM
kfh227: Don't get me started on fees. I reviewed a 401(k) plan for a company today and almost choked. A Nationwide variable annuity inside of a 401(k) for a small company. I'll spare you the details, but get this: annual expenses and fees of 4.7% to 5.6%, plus a $500 a year administration charge to boot. And they say lawyers are thieves!

nn55: You can go directly to the source The Australian Office of Financial Management or you can find a broker that allows it. Many brokers will not advertise that they can purchase these bonds, but a call to the bond desk or fixed income center can confirm this.

by Joe Ponzio on February 12, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Joe,

Thanks for the blog. I am learning tons.

With respect to kfh227, I agree. I was able to qualify for Wells Fargo PMA/brokerage acct. No maintenance fees and 100 free trades. B/c I set individual accts up for my wife and I, I get 100 trades/acct. The research is weak, but that why we have Joe!

Best wishes to all,

by Aaron on February 12, 2008 at 10:12 PM
I believe I fall somewhere between Safety Seeker and Non-Conventionalist with perhaps a dash of River Boat gambler thrown in. I contribute heavily to my tax deferred account which is roughly divided into half Pimco's PTTRX bond fund and Vanguards VINIX. Both have minuscule fees. Then I have an account with an online broker at $7 commissions, one of the lower ones around. The value of the stocks there is roughly 30% of my total portfolio, thus, 1/3 bonds, 1/3 S&P 500 index and 1/3 my own picks.

I understand the basic concepts of value investing and they fit my way of thinking and personality. But here is my problem, I'm having a hard time with the math and I don't know how to use a spread sheet. I'm trying to understand all the stuff you guys talk about, but it doesn't come easy for me. EPS, ROE, ROIC, DEBT/EQ, BOOK, Pay out Ratio, etc. are all easy for me to understand and I use them to screen for stocks over at Yahoo! finance. But when you start talking about discounted cash flow and things like depreciation and amortization, my eyes start to glass over.

Another further problem I have is that I don't fully believe in these mathematical operations, as they seem to me full of guesswork. So what I've been doing is just running screens for companies with little or no debt, high ROI, decent EPS growth and then some secondary pluses like insider ownership and dividend payout. From there, I try to pick a stock in a company that is in an industry that I think will grow significantly. These are obvious, tech, healthcare, minerals and commodities and the industries that support and supply them.

The final step, is to decide what price constitutes "cheap" or "having a proper margin of safety" and this is where you guys do all the complicated math and spreadsheet work and I just go by price history, relative PE and lots of reading to see if the "stories" ring true or not. I also depend on my natural instinct as a cheapskate, one that buys his groceries, clothes and everything else, only when they are on sale and then I "back up the truck".

I look at my watch list and it seems in line with other value investors and further more, I would not buy even at the prices that some of them have bought:

BAC - Buffet bought in the fifties, I still haven't bought, though I was sorely tempted at $37
PFE - Will buy under $20
AMAT- Bought at $17.83
UCTT - Bought at $10 (My river boat gambler struck)
GLW - Will buy under $20
CX - Will buy under $21

So, considering that Pabrai sold his oil company "too soon" and that Bill Miller called the bottom and jumped into home builders way too soon and that I could buy BAC cheaper than Buffet did tomorrow morning, I'm I fooling myself that I might not be giving up all that much by not being a spread sheet guru?

by English Major on February 14, 2008 at 3:06 AM
"salad oil scandals" -- LOL.

Joe, love your blog. Keep up the great writing!

by James on February 29, 2008 at 4:30 AM
I'm a bit confused about the section "The Non-Conventionalist Approach to Buying".

If one finds a stock that meets the price they're willing to pay for it, why must a person purchase it in small increments over a several week period of time.

While it does make sense that the stock price could fall, giving you a lower average cost, it also makes you susceptible to the price rising. Considering the volatility of the stock market, it's a crap shoot to assume one way or the other. If it's a crap shoot to assume prices will go in any given direction, to me, it makes more sense to put my money in when I know it's good.

I also don't understand how it relieves "guru-itis" when the reason one should buy a stock in the first place is because the "guru" portion of the buy isn't a factor; only one's valuation of the business. I feel that if someone needs to pull out of their deal because they realized they've fallen trap to "guru-itis", then is it possible not enough research/valuation was done to begin with?

P.S. I'm just learning and I'm not trying to critique your remarks. Instead, I'm trying to understand and do so by posing "devil's advocate" like questions.

Thanks for the web site. It's great info.


by Kurt on April 10, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Kurt,

Great question. I love the "devil's advocate" because it challenges everyone and makes us think more.

There are basically two types of opportunities - the "there's nothing exciting, don't get your panties in a bunch" opportunity and the "back up the truck!" opportunity. In this post, I was referencing the former.

First: "Back up the truck!" From time to time, the markets will present an opportunity that you just have to buy - right now, as much as you can. These usually fall in the workout category, but you might find them in general holdings as well.

In these instances, it is okay to immediately invest the appropriate portion of your portfolio in these opportunities.

For the "don't get your panties in a bunch" opportunities, I have found that it is often better to creep into a position rather than, well, get my panties in a bunch. Maybe the markets don't like me; maybe they like to mess with me. But when I start buying, the price often drops.

For the most part, the price drops or remains relatively steady (within a few percentage points) for quite some time. As such, I'm rarely in a hurry to jump into a general, underpriced stock.

Will I miss some opportunities? Absolutely! It just happened to me - we started acquiring shares in a company slowly. I expected to get a better price as things continued to melt down in the markets, so I waited to load up more. The company accounced a major contract, the stock jumped 42%, and I had just 7% or so of the portfolio in it (I wanted 10% to 15%).

Things don't usually work out that fast, so I missed some opportunity on that particular deal. Then again, we've also made extra money by cautiously creeping in and getting a slightly better price. If, as it had done for the weeks leading up to my purchase, it had dropped to the $33 or $34 range, the return would have been north of 50% on more money.

Which is better - 42% on some of the money, and more cash to find another opportunity? Or, 55% on more of the money, and less cash to find another opportunity?

In the end, I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. Still, I've found that the markets allow us to creep in and, at times, get better prices regardless of what happened on this particular deal. (Example: Wal-Mart - discussed on 8/17/2007 - for the next three months or so, you could have found a better price and crept in than if you just went full-boat in. Spacing out your purchases and waiting for better prices could have been the difference between up 18% and up 30% right now.)

Make sense?

by Joe Ponzio on April 14, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Indeed, it makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

by Kurt on April 23, 2008 at 8:37 PM

 

post a comment

Comments are moderated which means they will not show up on F Wall Street until they are approved. Please keep all comments on topic and clean.

Your name

Your e-mail (optional, will not be displayed)

Comment: