Post: 732 July 13th, 2015

Diversification – don’t leave home without it

Insurance and portfolio management have a lot more in common than most people think.

Imagine for a moment that you own an insurance company and your entire portfolio is made up of ten very big policies, all paying you healthy premiums.  Imagine also that you know a lot about your insured policy holders, and you feel confident about each policy.

But, being a responsible person, you hire an actuary to take a look at your risks.  After careful examination, the actuary comes to you in a panic.

“You’ve got a big problem” he says.  “A few of those claims going wrong could really hurt you.”

Then he adds some grist to his words.  “You only have a small number of large policies.  Most of the insured risks are from the same area and it is possible one big event could affect multiple claimants at once.  In other words, the risks between policies are correlated.”

“Correlated?” you say.

“Yes,” he responds, “It means that a risk affecting one can affect others.  The problem for you is that one rare event could bring this company down.”

It’s clear you’re unimpressed.  The actuary continues, undeterred.

“Your portfolio of policies is completely under diversified, breaking the first rule of risk management.  Let me put it this way – you could make a killing, get average results or get killed.  But the chances of getting killed are way too high!”

You don’t like the sound of getting killed.  “What’s the solution?” you ask.

The actuary responds, “Obviously, you need more policies; smaller policies, from more locations with different and less correlated risks.”

This story isn’t just hypothetical.  In 2011 AMI Insurance held 35% of the market share in fire and general insurance in Christchurch.  Clearly, the risks on those policies were correlated, in so far as one event affected nearly all policy holders at the same time.  AMI had the audacity to allude to the fact that they were victims of their own success…but equally they were victims of their own hubrisregarding risk control.

What’s the connection to a portfolio of investments?

Well there is quite a strong connection if your share portfolio includes only a dozen or so New Zealand shares and a few from Australia.  A portfolio concentrated in such a way is susceptible to two big risks:

  • A sudden reversal in the fortunes and price of any one business you own.
  • Something happening in New Zealand that seriously affects the profitability of all businesses in this country (they’re called recessions).

Like an insurance company that wants to control risk, you don’t want a few huge holdings.  You want thousands of small holdings (shares) in your portfolio, across dozens of countries and hundreds of different industries.

This is exactly what a diversified asset class portfolio offers.

You know that some of those businesses will fail or deliver very poor returns, but it doesn’t matter, because any one company is only a miniscule part of your portfolio.

Similarly, an insurance company with a diversified group of policies understands that someone will make a claim, and they have spread the risk of that eventuality so that the impact will be minimal.

This approach, while making perfect sense from a risk perspective, has one important drawback.  Whilst it removes the chance that your portfolio will get ‘wiped out’ by some inevitable poor returns, it simultaneously removes the chance that you will make a killing.

It essentially destroys the potential of a get rich quick event, but if that’s your game, why have a dozen or so shares?  Just pick your favourite one and pray…

Of course you wouldn’t insure your home with a company that had such a foolish strategy.   Why would you insure your future that way?

Diversification – don’t leave home without it

Post: 727 July 13th, 2015

A simple explanation of volatility and prices

The value of shares goes up and down a lot, and all this volatility creates uncertainty for investors.  It’s not very clear, for most investors in shares, exactly what the value of their share portfolio will be at any point in the future.

We’ve been asked why shares are so volatile.  Hopefully this explanation will help.

Shares represent ownership in business.  Shareholders have a claim on the profits the business makes – these profits are paid out as dividends, or reinvested into the company in order to grow future profits.

The most basic model of valuing shares takes both of these inputs – dividends and growth (by growth, we mean growth in profits) – and combines them in an equation to form a price.

The model states that Price (P) equals the next dividend (D1) divided by my required return (r) minus my expected growth (g).

Put together, the model looks like this:

A simple explanation of volatility and prices

Let’s try out the model.  We’ll say next year’s dividend is going to be $0.25 per share.  Let’s say I require a 10% return on my investment to make it worth my while, and let’s also say I expected dividends to grow at 4% per year into the future.

The model would say the price =equation1

An investor with the assumptions above would be willing to pay $4.17 for shares.

Now, let’s alter the growth assumptions.  We’ll run one scenario where growth is 3% and another where it’s 5%.

5% growth:equation2

3% growth:equation3

A 1% change in growth doesn’t seem like a big deal – the company is profitable in either case – yet a 1% increase in the growth projection translated into a $0.83/$4.17 = 20% increase in price.  A 1% fall in the growth projection caused a 14% fall in price.

The point of this is to illustrate that changes in projections about future growth (even small ones) can cause big changes in prices.  In the real world, there’s a lot of disagreement about the growth potential of businesses.  This disagreement is good, as it creates willing buyers and sellers.  When buyers and sellers come to some agreement that growth prospects have improved or worsened, prices will move pretty quickly to adjust.

Should you only invest in businesses with high projected growth?

One conclusion you may be tempted to make is to only invest in businesses with high growth forecasts.

That would be the wrong conclusion.

One thing this model points out to us is that an investor should really be indifferent between an investment with 3% growth, an investment with 4% growth and an investment with 5% growth.

Why?

In each case, the price adjusts, so an investor could expect roughly the same return with any of the three growth projections.  What this means is that great companies are not always great investments, and bad companies are not always bad investments.  The important thing to consider is what you are paying to invest in either.  At the right price, you are indifferent.  In fact, evidence suggests that investments with low prices provide higher returns over the long run, even though they often have low growth projections.  This is probably because these companies have poor prospects and investors require higher returns (a higher r from the equation above) to own them.  At any rate, the model helps us understand why this would be the case.

Hopefully this has helped you understand why markets concern themselves so much with growth, and why prices can move so much and so quickly, as well as.  It should also have explained why price movements are so important.  They reset the investment equation so that firms with very different growth potential are actually comparable investments.

How would prices change if growth projections stayed constant?

While the above is useful, it may leave you with the impression that growth rates have to increase for you to get a positive return on your investment.

That isn’t the case.  Prices will still increase in a world where there is no change in growth projections.

Why?

Let’s say that growth doesn’t change.  It stays at a forecasted 4%.  What would happen to prices in that world?

Even in that case we can expect prices to appreciate because of two things:

  • In this world, you received the dividend
  • In this world, you achieved the forecasted growth

If growth was 4%, next year’s dividend would not be $0.25.  It would be $0.25 plus 4% growth.  It would be $0.26.

Doing the same equation as above, a business with a $0.26 dividend, 4% projected growth and 10% required rate of return would translate into a price of $4.33.  That’s around a 4% increase from $4.17.

equation4

You then add your dividend yield to this gain, which is the dividend divided by the price.

equation5

Add them together: 4% (capital gain) + 6% (dividend yield) = 10% (return).

Thus, in the default world the price will go up every year, and you’ll get that 10% return every year.  Of course, we also know that rarely occurs.  Economic cycles, business decisions, interest rates and a host of other things each year influence the prospects of businesses to grow profits.  And, if both buyers and sellers agree that growth projections have changed, prices will change quickly to reflect this fact.

By looking at investments this way you can see why shares have an expected return, where that return comes from and that it does not require improvements in forecasted growth to achieve the expected return.