Just to recap, these are the 4 major type of risks that
we are susceptible to when we are investing:
- Systematic Risk
- Company/Industry Specific Risk
- Human Error
- Black Swan
Taking into account these risks, here is my personal
guide on how many stocks one should hold:
- As many
excellent stocks that one can find at a good price
- As many stocks
as one is able to understand in depth and have the sufficient time to
follow
- As many stocks as
one can have without incurring too much transaction fee in the form of min
brokerage fee (not applicable for standard chartered brokerage user)
- As many stocks
as you can afford to suffer a total wipe-out in any of the stock.
- As little
concentration in a similar industry unless you are being kept highly aware
of the intimate details of the industry or you are very confident in it.
Rule no 1 is pretty simple as it is one of the best
defences against any risks other than human error. An excellent stock is one
with an excellent business or one with a very clean balance sheet who can
bounce back easily even after what might be a calamity to some. BP is going to
survive through the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill, so has many other companies did
in the past – AMEX, GEICO, Adampak, Cerebos. In the case of systematic risk,
all one needs to do is to continue to average down without the need to sell
them at a discounted price.
Rule no 2 is a guide to the maximum number of stocks that
one should have. If you are studying or working, it is pretty unlikely that you
can take a portfolio of 10 stocks especially when the reporting season and AGM
are here. If you are retiring, it seemed like going for 30 stocks is plausible
given that you have all the time in the world and if you are really passionate
about it. Going for that many AGMs will also help to enrich your life and
prevent degeneration of the brain.
Rule no 3 will apply more for those without as much of a
capital at the start. If you are not using Standard
Chartered brokerage, the
brokerage fee is going to eat up a significant amount of your return. Imagine
spending $1000 to buy a stock and you will have incurred a total transaction
fee of $60 in buying and selling, which will set you back by 6% even before you
started out.
Rule no 4 is about the minimum number of stocks that you
have. Are you comfortable having a total wipe out of 50%? If not, then you
really should not just have 2 stocks in your portfolio. Generally, 4 stocks
should be the minimum to prevent a severe hit to one’s portfolio. But then
again, rule no 1 will still apply, if you cannot find that many excellent
stocks, no point trying to increase your number of stocks. Mediocre business
will only bring in mediocre return in the long run.
Rule no 5 is to prevent systematic risk as well as the
occurrence of black swan. It is perhaps one of the most tricky as you have to
factor in many other factors. Some industries are predominantly less risky than
others (VICOM, SPH) where a black swan is really required to destroy them (I
have no idea how it can happen; maybe the government decides to revoke their
licensesJ).
Concentration also has to do with how confident and how well you understand the
stocks. That being the case, confidence bias exist and you may still be
subjected to human error.
If you are working in the company, it is still wise not
to throw all your money into the company though you can have a much higher
concentration. The reason is simply because you do not want to get retrenched
and suffered capital losses simultaneously should anything happen to the
company or industry. Unless you are part of the key management where your job
is really to grow the business and enjoy the fruit of your labour.
Generally, the minimum number of stocks that one should
hold should be at least 3-4 while the maximum should be really around 30 which
will mean you are able to devote 3 days per quarter to each of your companies. The
above is my belief on optimum portfolio diversification, please feel free to
give any criticism or suggestion.
No comments :
Post a Comment