Showing posts with label Boring Stocks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Boring Stocks. Show all posts

Saturday, April 25, 2015

The Coffee Can Portfolio






If I were given $10,000 today, how would I invest it? I would build a coffee can portfolio. As you’ll see, it is an elegant and simple solution to a set of knotty problems.

Those problems are largely behavioral issues of our own making. For example, most investors tend to buy high and sell low, the opposite of what you should do.

One of my favorite stories in this regard involves Ken Heebner’s CGM Focus Fund. It was the best U.S. stock fund of the decade ending in 2009. The Focus Fund earned 18 percent a year for its investors, beating its nearest rival by more than three percentage points. Yet according to research by Morningstar, the typical investor in the fund lost 11 percent annually.

How? Investors tended to take money out after a bad stretch and put it back in after a strong run. They sold low and bought high. Incredibly, these people found the best fund you could own over that decade and still managed to lose money.

This is all too common. Investors are bad at timing their buys and sells. People get emotional. They chase hot stocks. They can’t wait to grab gains. They’re impatient and too focused on short-term results.

Also, most people trade way too much. All that activity smothers their returns. Brad Barber and Terrance Odean showed this in a famous 2000 paper titled “Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.” Their conclusion: “Individual investors who hold common stocks directly pay a tremendous performance penalty for active trading.”

All this trading incurs costs. You pay commissions, which are often slight but can still add up. You pay bid-ask spreads. You pay taxes. (Although you can shield this liability in a tax-free account.) You pay fees if you invest in any mutual fund. These fees go a long way toward explaining why most mutual funds have trouble beating an index like the S&P 500.

In short, the way most people invest is the exact opposite of what you should do. As Jerry Seinfeld told George Costanza: “If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”

Which brings us to the coffee can portfolio.

A money manager named Robert Kirby came up with the idea in 1984. He wrote about it in an essay for the Journal of Portfolio management. In it, he tells the story of how he managed the portfolio of one client for about 10 years, and then her husband died.

She inherited his estate and told Kirby she would add his portfolio to her own. Kirby saw the list of stocks in the husband’s portfolio and wrote, “I was amused to find that he had secretly been piggy-backing on our recommendations for his wife’s portfolio.”

But then he saw something that shocked him. The husband had followed Kirby’s advice – with a twist. “He paid no attention whatsoever to the sell recommendations,” Kirby wrote. “He simply put about $5,000 in every purchase recommendation. Then he would toss the certificate in his safe-deposit box and forget it.”

Well, the results were quite interesting. The husband had a number of small stocks worth less than $2,000. But he also had several worth more than $100,000. And he had one holding worth more $800,000. This one holding alone exceeded the value of his wife’s entire portfolio. It was humbling for Kirby, as you might well imagine.

Hence, the idea of the coffee can portfolio. The strategy simply amounts to buying stocks and socking them away in a proverbial coffee can for 10 years. Kirby explains that the idea harkens to the Old West, when people used to put their valuables in a coffee can and hide it somewhere.

The success of this portfolio depends entirely on what you initially put it in. This reduces the investment problem down to its core. What should you buy knowing you can’t sell it for 10 years? My hunch is with a little reading and thinking almost anyone can come up with a promising list of five to 10 stocks.

Make sure you own a variety. If you pick just five, make sure they aren’t all oil stocks, for example. You also want to avoid faddish stocks or things that look like they might not be around in a decade.

It’s not easy. But it removes a lot of the obstacles that prevent people from doing well. There are no transaction costs after you set one up. There are no capital gains taxes to pay. There are no investment advisers to pay, either. (Thus it will never be popular with investment professionals). There is no trading, no fiddling around trying to buy low and sell high. You simply decide what goes in the coffee can today and then you go on about your life. Open in 10 years and see what you have.


Thursday, April 2, 2015

Why Boring Stocks are More Profitable to the Pocket than Exciting Ones





This spring, a reader wrote to me with a complaint...

He was irritated with my coverage of "World Dominating Dividend Grower" stocks (WDDGs).

These stocks are too "boring," he said. Why pay to hear how these companies continue to do the same darn thing day in and day out?

If you're a regular DailyWealth reader, you know what I mean by "World Dominating Dividend Grower." These businesses are usually the No. 1 companies in their industries. For example, UPS is the No. 1 package-delivery company in the world. Wal-Mart is the No. 1 retail network. Intel is the No. 1 maker of semiconductors.

These companies have thick profit margins, fortress balance sheets, and pay out large and growing dividends. Because they are so good at what they do, and because of their dominant position in their industries, they are extremely resistant to outside competition. This allows their shareholders to safely compound their wealth over many years.

They are the ultimate safe haven in today's volatile market... even safer than gold. But according to the reader's complaint, there wasn't enough "new" stuff happening with these stocks to justify the time I spend telling readers about them.

It's extremely unlikely this person will ever make substantial money in the stock market.

You see, the urge for "action" is one of the hallmarks of the average stock market loser. Put bluntly, it's how poor people view the market. They see it as a place for "action." But investing isn't about action and excitement. That's what Las Vegas gambling casinos are about.

Only after someone grows to favor "boring" over "action" does he start thinking like a rich investor, rather than a poor one. You need to understand investing is about making money and keeping it safe, and that's what WDDGs do for you...

In fact, back in 2008, when the stock market fell 38% for the year, and more than 53% from its late-2007 highs, Wal-Mart returned 18%, and McDonald's returned 6%. Not all World Dominators performed that well in 2008, but they all did better than the overall market.

Yes, they're boring... But think about why they're boring.

They don't change much over the years. Coca-Cola looks a lot like it did 20 years ago, except it's bigger now. Same with Wal-Mart, McDonald's... and most other WDDGs.

Coke will continue to exploit the world's largest beverage distribution system. Wal-Mart will keep selling everyday goods at the cheapest possible price. McDonald's will keep selling fast food, based on what its customers demand. Boring. Very boring. But very profitable.

Contrast that with exciting businesses, like biotech. Most biotech companies don't have any sales, because they're just research companies. They usually wind up going out of business. Small exploration mining stocks are also exciting. And they, too, generally have no revenues... and most of them wind up worthless.

It's very hard to make money in exciting industries like biotech and exploration mining. But the WDDGs just keep doing the same old boring thing year in and year out... And their sales and profits grow almost every year, year after year, decade after decade. Their dividends keep growing every single year, year after year, for 10, 20, 30, more than 50 years in a row in some cases.

For investors, putting money into WDDG stocks is so boring, it's almost like putting your money in a plain old bank account... except this account can make you double-digit average annual returns over a long period of time, decades even... instead of the 0.2% you get in bank accounts these days. Over the past year, the World Dominators in my 12% Letter portfolio grew their dividends at an average rate of about 11.5%.

If you want excitement, go to Las Vegas. If you want to make money, invest in boring businesses that dominate their industries and pay higher dividends every single year.

Good investing,

Dan Ferris