Monday, November 02, 2009
Price Targets?
Jeff from Milan (two days in a row for him) asked a question that despite his being good naturedly heckled could make for a useful post. He asked a question that I took to be about how to set price targets and time horizons for stocks.
Jeff will not like my answer but here it goes; I construct diversified portfolios from the top down. My idea of diversified means to always have some exposure to each of the ten big S&P 500 sectors. Embedded in that is the overweighting and underweighting of each of the sectors based on what I think is going on in the world and then filling in those sectors with stocks or funds of different countries, volatilities, cap sizes and so on.
Each holding then becomes a proxy for a certain part of my outlook and so plays various roles in the portfolio. It would be great to be so correct with a stock pick that it starts out as the best proxy and then remained the best proxy for ever. I bought Bank of America (BAC) many years ago thinking it could be held forever and I did hold it for quite a while. Fearing big mergers, I sold it when they announced that peculiar Merrill Lynch deal. I've owned Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) for many years and I hope to hold it forever but if it ever does something so obviously stupid I would not hesitate to sell it right away.
So something can be a very useful proxy, the best way to capture a sector or whatever (obviously this is subjective) and then something changes either slowly or overnight and so a change should be made. Recently I said goodbye to another longtime friend by selling Plum Creek Timber. This was more of a slow change in the story and quite possibly the change may have just been changes of perception but I lost faith in its ability to act as a diversifier. Additionally there is probably less need to hold onto as many diversifiers now compared to two years ago even if there is one more scare the hell out of them decline.
One type of trade I have done over the years (and blogged about) is selling down and or buying back up a position. The best example might be Statoil. I first bought it years ago around $14, sold partial positions above $40 twice and bought some back in the mid teens during the panic. The stock has always been the best proxy (again this is a subjective opinion) so I have continued to want to hold it but at times it became too big and the one time it got too small. I imagine it will have some sort of very fast move again at some point where it gets ahead of itself (like both previous runs above $40) and if that even happens I'll sell it down again.
I tend not to make price targets a top priority. The drivers for making changes tend to be turning out to be wrong about a stock (either it not working out as hoped for or the story changing after having bought it), rebalancing (as mentioned above) or the top down need to make a change in the portfolio like changing a sector weight or take defensive action. Another catalyst, and this doesn't happen too often, is the need to work in a new theme like water or infrastructure.
Jeff will not like my answer but here it goes; I construct diversified portfolios from the top down. My idea of diversified means to always have some exposure to each of the ten big S&P 500 sectors. Embedded in that is the overweighting and underweighting of each of the sectors based on what I think is going on in the world and then filling in those sectors with stocks or funds of different countries, volatilities, cap sizes and so on.
Each holding then becomes a proxy for a certain part of my outlook and so plays various roles in the portfolio. It would be great to be so correct with a stock pick that it starts out as the best proxy and then remained the best proxy for ever. I bought Bank of America (BAC) many years ago thinking it could be held forever and I did hold it for quite a while. Fearing big mergers, I sold it when they announced that peculiar Merrill Lynch deal. I've owned Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) for many years and I hope to hold it forever but if it ever does something so obviously stupid I would not hesitate to sell it right away.
So something can be a very useful proxy, the best way to capture a sector or whatever (obviously this is subjective) and then something changes either slowly or overnight and so a change should be made. Recently I said goodbye to another longtime friend by selling Plum Creek Timber. This was more of a slow change in the story and quite possibly the change may have just been changes of perception but I lost faith in its ability to act as a diversifier. Additionally there is probably less need to hold onto as many diversifiers now compared to two years ago even if there is one more scare the hell out of them decline.
One type of trade I have done over the years (and blogged about) is selling down and or buying back up a position. The best example might be Statoil. I first bought it years ago around $14, sold partial positions above $40 twice and bought some back in the mid teens during the panic. The stock has always been the best proxy (again this is a subjective opinion) so I have continued to want to hold it but at times it became too big and the one time it got too small. I imagine it will have some sort of very fast move again at some point where it gets ahead of itself (like both previous runs above $40) and if that even happens I'll sell it down again.
I tend not to make price targets a top priority. The drivers for making changes tend to be turning out to be wrong about a stock (either it not working out as hoped for or the story changing after having bought it), rebalancing (as mentioned above) or the top down need to make a change in the portfolio like changing a sector weight or take defensive action. Another catalyst, and this doesn't happen too often, is the need to work in a new theme like water or infrastructure.
Labels:
portfolio strategy,
top down
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)





14 comments:
Roger,
I sure would not want to heckle anyone. However, I am struggling with my investments as a long-term strategy. I have none for long term. I have been very successful with short term and think that I have nailed that down but not the long term. You have provided a good answer to get me going. Look at S&P sectors and at one time you mentioned that if it a sector was oversized to use it as a warning signal. Theme investing has been on your past posts and I have to get a grip. Thanks Roger for your kind effort of explaining what you do for long term investing. I have start looking at S&P sectors and try to d some analysis. Theme, well, later for me.
Best,
Jeff From Milan, Italy
Jeff -
Since you "have been very successful with short term and think that [you] have nailed that down" you will have a much easier time when you realize the long run is just a series of short runs.
The long run is easy in a bull market. The short run in a bear is a bit more difficult. You've got the harder of the two figured out.
Matt From Tampa
Gartman does not set price targets. he simply tries to determine if and investment (trade) is increasing or decreasing. Simply getting the trend correct is sufficient for him and he recognizes these trends can end quicker or last much longer than one would expect.
You can do this at weeks, months, years, or decades level
I find looking at "long term" trends months to years and looking at decades trends separately works best for me. If both the decades and year out trend look up, then I have a good investment. If I get the year out trend wrong I can hold until things turn around. If I get the decades out trend wrong - I may be screwed. This is where diversification is found to be quite helpful
Jeff,
1) that was my comment yesterday about two years in the future.
2) you sure may not want to heckle anyone but you do have a tendency toward hubris or unsubstantiated statements in some of your past posts.
3) If you have the "short term nailed down" so well then why isn't that your overall strategy - why do you need both strategies? Can't your short term be your long term strategy (as long as it continues to work to your satisfaction)?
4) As a previous poster stated - the long term is a series of short terms.
Bluesman
Matt,
thanks for the encouragment. I will have to do some work on the S&P sectors. I like to thank all of you for being a great bunch including Roger, you Matt, RW, Bill B, and SD.
Best,
Jeff from Milan, Italy
I am reminded today of several bits of wit and wisdom.
A wise old gentlemen once proclaimed: "I am so well diversified that I am virtually assured of never experienceing a capital gain".
Another I recall is: the difference between a long term investor and a short term one is the long term guy is underwater with his investments. Otherwise, he would be a trader and not an investor.
Just thought I would pass these along today.
Bluesman,
I like to have the other strategy to compliment the other operation. It would be easier on the personal/emotional side to invest for the long term and be successfull, since there is no need to be there every minute.
Your comment is well taken. If you refer about my comments about the market going to 1166, well I have been saying that sort of thing since June/July. I think I have been correct. The way I reasoned such was that we had gone up since mark and in june/july we had a nice size correction at such point I figured that we would have another leg equal size from march, it calculates to S&P 1120's. So we have come close to S&P 1101. But, your comment is well taken.
Best,
Jeff from Milan, Italy
Interesting comments this morning...
Question:
Roger, have you addressed
the following topic before?:
How risky are international
utilities and how secure
are their dividends?
Where can I find this information?
Thanks in advance...a loyal reader
I'm sorry but your questions are unanswerable. How risky? Utilities tend to be less volatile. Should interest rates go up that tends to weight down prices of utility stocks but how risky?
The only way I know to assess dividends is to watch fundamental reports coming from the company. A serious economic slowdown tends to mean less commerce which could mean less electricity consumption.
Very interesting comments from Roubini these last few days. He thinks we are in 'the mother of all carry trades' that will go on for as long as it does, then snap back violently. Until it does (probably when interest rates rise so that real lending rates are positive), he sees the US dollar weakening and assets rising in unison.
I've seen other commentators saying interest rates are going to stay low well into 2010, because of the weakness of the recovery and its dependence on the government's initiatives (cash for clunkers etc). Apart from increasing consumption, have there been any steps to ensure the private sector in the US can stand on its own two feet - through tax breaks for industry, innovation or whatnot, once the Fed turns off the presses.
Sorry for the OT, although this sorta ties in with Jeff from Milan's question about timing.
Jeff from Milan: just a couple ideas for you to consider. One is the Permanent Portfolio / Variable Portfolio idea. In this methodology the Permanent Portfolio is a buy/hold portfolio with strict re-balancing bands. This makes it very mechanical and not prone to human error. The Variable Portfolio is then used for trading, speculation, real estate, entrepreneurship - what ever the portfolio owner can do to add value.
The PP is supposed to provide steady growth and stability. Also the PP can (hopefully) keep growing even in weird markets that you are not sure how to trade.
Another idea is the alpha-overlay pattern where index funds are used to create a diversified portfolio. Then the manager buys or sells securities with a minority of the funds to tilt the portfolio to where the they think out-sized returns are to be had.
One last idea is a Value-Momentum system where half of your money is betting on mean revision and half is following the trend. If your trading program is mostly a trend following momentum approach, then maybe you could execute a value seeking sector rotation system with part of your account. These two styles have had negative correlations in the past so they can form a diversified whole.
I believe that the Permanent Portfolio/Speculative Portfolio approach for the securities portion of your investments is a great idea. Harry Browne brought this idea to the forefront in the 1970s.
I applaud Roger for touching upon what has been for me a challenging endeavor - buying/selling a specific stock over a long period of time. I still have to fight the habit of "sell it and forget it" - after almost four decades of investing.
T
Matt and T, Thank so much. I have lots of work to do. Mostly I like to thank Roger for being so kind in answering the question but also bringing such valuable blog.
Best,
Jeff from Milan Italy
SEC Requests copy of financial film spotlighting naked short selling and stock market manipulation--especially focused on SIRI shares.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/forum/sec-requests-copy-dvd-stock-shock/21622
I saw "Stock Shock" and it was eye-opening. DVD is at Amazon.com and www.stockshockmovie.com
Post a Comment