Arjun Divecha emerging market fund manager at GMO was interviewed in the current issue of Barron's. He had an interesting quote that I sort of touched on conceptually in this week's video.
All the smart clients have been rebalancing. Think about this: If you had 5% of your money in emerging markets in 2003, it has appreciated 450%. You have to be cutting back if you don't want 25% of your overall assets in emerging markets.
A phrase I sorted of stumbled across while writing an article for TheStreet.com is volatility budget or some may prefer to think of it as their risk budget. Each investor can only allocate so much of their portfolio to volatile holdings. That number will vary depending on the person but everyone needs to know how much they can allocate to volatility and then must figure out the best way to access volatility in their account.
The example in the video I gave about allocating 5% to emerging market was just that, an example. I obviously agree with the quote above that 25% in emerging is too much. I would say 20% is too much. I don't believe I have ever allocated more than 10% to emerging, but I think I might have grown into a greater than 10% weight a couple of years ago which I have long since paired back.
Unfortunately there was no mention in the interview about how much emerging market exposure Mr. Divecha thought to be ideal.
Emerging has done so well in the last few years that there are probably quite a few investors (professionals and do-it-yourselfers both) who are confusing a raging bull market with something else. While I do believe the stories behind the price moves are different I would not want to be too exposed to the idea that the stock cycles are different.
Having a moderate allocation means not having to worry. How to define moderate? If your emerging market exposure were have a 50% haircut could you live with the impact on the overall portfolio? So if you have 10% (which is more than what I have) then a 50% hit would take 5% out of your overall account.
Different subject;
I looked at the video I made for 2007 and got a lot of things wrong. My prediction for the stock market will undoubtedly turn out to be wrong; I expected the market to be down a little to 1350-1375. As mentioned in the video I did not expect emerging markets to keep its hot streak going. I thought (maybe I should say hoped?) that the yield curve would have normalized by now with rates going up to something like 6% on the ten year.
I was pretty right, surprisingly, about the Fed cutting rates which was really the only thing I was right about. In the video I said I was right about a few things but, no. I was sort of right about healthcare. I said it would do well and measured by iShares Healthcare ETF (IYH) it was up about 9% YTD through Friday compared to not quite 5% for SPY (neither includes dividends). I say sort of right because even though it did better than the market that 9% pales compared to energy's (XLE) 35% lift, utilities' (XLU) 17% gain and staples' (XLP) 12% gain.
If you think of that as adding all that up to very wrong I could not really out-debate you on the point but, and this is what is important, you will see when I make the video to re-cap the Q4 and full year performance that being this wrong did not hinder results. A point I have been trying to make repeatedly is to not be too levered to your opinion because you could be wrong.
I have been expecting a bear market to start for a while (I think it did start in the last couple of months) but have been plenty invested along the way, though not 100% in, because despite what I thought the market kept going up, until just recently--that is if I turn out to be right about the bear market.
Since BusinessWeek seems to have discontinued it annual survey and replaced with opinions from just eight different strategists (if I missed something here with this someone please let me know) I will have to figure out a different way to make a forecast. For anyone who was not around last year I unoriginally used to take the BusinessWeek annual survey and try to figure whether the consensus was too bullish or too bearish.
The picture is what we used for our holiday card this year; Happy Holidays!





18 comments:
Roger: If you put a 5% allocation to a sector, such as Emerging markets, and they go up as in teh example 450%, I wonder of he would have pulled back last year or the year before.
But, as you mentioned and has been true with Small Caps from 2000-2006 or REITs for several years, sectors can stay hot for several years. So, if a 5% allocation grows to 30% and you take your 5% off the table, aren't you playing with the house's money going forward?
i have yet to meet anyone who thought of what they lost in 2000-2002 as being the house's money.
A bit off topic but Great holiday photo. It sort of says it all about how great it is to live in the pine forest of Central Arizona.
Best to all of you in 2008
this is what low impact living is all about, thank you
thanks for the comments this year--looking forward to your predicitons for 2008- have you read john mauldin's weekly email wave@frontlinethoughts.com ? would recommend it for your readers. next week or so he will have his prediction for 2008--also check in the archives for his prediction for 2007- he was right on. geo best
Great picture. Merry Christmas.
2007 seems a better year looking back than it did while living through it.
Great picture.
Sound advice all year even when I disagreed with you.
I do not think any of MY money belongs to the house. What house? Seems like some people confuse investing with gambling.
I look forward to your comments in 2008 especially since I read both housing and credit card delinquencies are increasing. I do not expect 2008 to be boring.
not boring is a great way to phrase it succinctly.
Family first.My wife and I miss having our immediate family together.
Fortunately, they all "check in" weekly:
USAF Maj. Tom and USAF Capt. Jamie with a grandson in Colorado Springs.
USAF Capt. Gail and USAF Captain Rusty in Dayton, OH. soon to be in Pakistan (again).
USCG Lt. Cmdr. Brian and Sarah in Coronado, CA. with two grandaughters.Brian is presently at sea for three months in the eastern Pacific doing drug and gang interdiction. He was in Iraq for twelve months with Navy Seals ops in 2003-4.
All the kids have been doing appropriate investing and love their jobs.
I like investing. But I love the most precious asset - the family.
Most contributors here likely agree that there are some things in life more important than making some bucks.
So, Happy Holidays to you, Roger and your readers. And your families.
thank you, T. I hope your children are all safe as they serve.
Just a few words in Larry's defense -
A LOT of what is discussed on your site helpfully addresses the challenge of managing the emotions that can buffet trading decisions.
Any mechanisms employed to help control or distance the emotional elements (reacting in fear, or succumbing to greed) may be helpful. As your recent posting suggested, diffr'nt strokes...
Some may consider all of what is invested to be part of the same "aggregate portfolio", and therefore, there is an ever present obligation to monitor concentrations (if you are intending to remain responsibly diversified).
But some (myself included) also use secondary accounts for "high beta" investments with greater expected losses. In these high beta accounts, diversity may actually reduce expected returns. (To bring it directly into the "gambling" analogy, if I put a chip on every number of the roulette wheel, I may be fully diversified, but I am also guaranteed to have picked losers. If I have reason to believe, or have knowledge, that the wheel occasionally falls out of balance and until repaired it will hit red more often than black, then it makes little sense to buy diversity for diversity's sake.)
If I (or Larry) believe that sectors show positive temporal correlation (return at t1 is positively correlated to the return at t0), then it makes sense to support that belief with an overweighting (in the aggregate portfolio approach) or, in Larry's approach, taking the excess weighting and deploying it (in a second account) in proportion to one's confidence in the positive temporal correlation assumption.
The danger may be in failing to capture true "base portfolio" gains if you are consistently skimming the outperforming sectors. This is because the "base portfolio" - perfectly allocated - will either remain constant, or will in fact decrease, in size. (The underperforming sectors will not be "topped up" since the dollars to do so have been skimmed into the "high beta" account.) You may have to set some arbitrary "growth" factor (increase the base portfolio by x% over period of length t by redistributing from high performing sectors to underperforming sectors), and then only use the funds available remaining thereafter for the "high beta" account.
Of course, this leaves you exposed to two completely subjective assumptions: why x% and why period of length t? (Roger seems to use as benchmarks market indices, but these won't help unless you are picking stocks against sectors - if your fundamental portfolio elements are the sectors themselves (via ETFs, etc), you may have to live with some irreducible subjectivity.
Happy Holidays.
R
Wow. Too heavy for me.
Merry Christmas all.
Hi Roger.. happy holidays. Yes, it is impossible to do 100% predictions all the time! :)
I am an EM investor - in fact, dedicated to one EM [oops!] My personal obligations would require me to liquidate my current holdings. Yes, this is a personal decision but I am happy to do so!
Holy crap, if I had a wife that looked like that I'd work at home too.
Rick
Oh, what kind of dogs are the long hair lab look alikes. We lost our yellow lab two years ago and my wife (not as young and not as blond) wants me to get another dog.
we believe the two big dogs are litter mates. We think they are lab/Airedale mix.
I miss the dogs running around in your weekly video.
Post a Comment