We've all heard it before: don't put all your eggs in one basket. Intuitively, it makes sense. If we concentrate our assets in one area we will have a lot of problems if that area does poorly. Therefore, if we spread things out, the risk of significantly underperforming is mitigated. This is not a new concept. King Solomon, who is considered one of the wisest men to ever walk the earth, preached this strategy 3,000 years ago. In Ecclesiastes he wrote, "Divide your portion into seven or even eight for you do not know what mistfortune may occur on earth."
This all makes sense in theory. But it is hard to implement and stick with a diversified strategy over time. Why? Because you will always have a number of asset classes in your portfolio that are underperforming. It will be tempting to "sell the losers". The last few years are a great example of this. A diversified portfolio has significantly underperformed the S&P 500. The simple fact is a diversified portfolio will ALWAYS underperform the best performing asset, since diversified nature of the portfolio will normalize the return somewhere between the best and worst asset class. Today it is even more difficult because the asset class you see all the time (CNBC, internet, etc) is the one that is doing the best, and therefore, the one all diversified investors are trailing.
Below is a chart of the best and worst performing asset classes from 2006-2009:
One thing to notice is the difference between the best and worst asset class each year. In most cases the delta is in excess of 50%. The other thing to notice is how there is no pattern to discern what is going to be the best, or worst, investment in a given year. As an investor, if we choose a diversified portfolio we have to give up the fantastic gains we could experience by putting all our money in the best asset class in order to avoid having all our investments in the worst one. For most of us, this is a worthwhile tradeoff. You just always need to remember that when you are properly diversified you'll always have something to complain about.
If you read this blog regularly, you know that we advocate a passive, low-cost, diversified investment portfolio. Most people equate that to index funds. For the majority of investors, index funds are a great alternative to their actively managed counterparts. But not everything about index funds is perfect. About 10 years ago we started to hear about some of the "front-running" that happens with index funds. Bloomberg has an article out called: The Hugely Profitable, Wholly Legal Way to Game the Stock Market:
When an index reconstitutes, it removes a group of stocks and adds another group. If you are a hedge fund or trader and you can guess in advance which stocks they will be, you can buy (or sell) them in advance of billions of dollars moving into (or out of) these specific securities. This is one of the reasons we choose to use a passive alternative to index funds. Here is another excerpt depicting a real-life example:
Don't get me wrong. Index funds, when compared to actively managed funds, get you 80% of the way there. The other 20% are some of the fringe activities that can be done to improve returns- developing a patient trading strategy, overweighting known risk premiums like small and value stocks, and other small moves like securities lending and not being a slave to tracking error. Improving portfolios, one small step at a time by the factors presented above, can have substantial positive impact on portfolio returns.
Information contained herein has been obtained from sources considered reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. It is not intended as the primary basis for financial planning or investment decisions and should not be construed as advice meeting the particular investment needs of any investor. This material has been prepared for information purposes only and is not a solicitation or an offer to buy any security or instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.