Wikinvest Wire

Friday, September 30, 2011

Thinking Loooooooong Term

Last weekend I had a post up that tried to poke holes in the Five Stocks to Hold Forever types of articles. In that post I mentioned in passing that while we don't have to pick five of anything to hold forever, it would make more sense to think about this in terms of countries instead of individual stocks.

An editor at Seeking Alpha asked me to write something up following through on the five country idea which I was not thrilled about doing but then a reader asked the same thing. In thinking about this a little I thought that what this really should be about was five (or any number important to you) top down segments which could include countries but also themes and sectors.

One theme would be things related to food and water. Yes this is a Malthusian argument but it seems very obvious that there is now not enough food and water in many places and a lot of money will be spent trying to solve this problem as the world population continues to grow. Some do not believe in this and so they would have no interest in the theme.

There are plenty of ETFs and individual stocks for this theme taking on all sorts of attributes in terms of countries, volatility and yield.

Another theme but also is about country selection is the Brazilification of other countries. You can probably guess that I mean countries that are likely to become more prosperous and see a middle class emerge/proliferate as they sell resources to other countries. We own Brazil which is relatively mature in this phase but still has a ways to go IMO. We also own Colombia for similar reasons. As I have mentioned before I can see owning Mongolia and Kazakhstan at some point as part of this idea. There are ETFs filed for both countries and we own individual stocks for Brazil and Colombia. At some point I imagine there will be other countries to add to this list like maybe some of the other 'stans or a couple of countries in Africa.

As disclosed in previous posts we have exposure to about a dozen foreign countries and for reasons I've talked about before I guess Chile and Norway would be my two "favorites" but I don't necessarily expect them to be the top performing countries. Both countries are low octane and the fundamentals are very solid which creates a backdrop for ongoing and meaningful outperformance of the US even if they are not the ones that go up 1000% in the next ten years.

Assuming I keep both countries for the next ten years, or even add to their respective weightings, chances are it will be some other country that is the top performer and I obviously don't know which one it would be which is why I believe in owning many countries. In the last decade commodity related countries and small emerging markets seemed to be the best performers and I think that argument is still fully in tact but what if it is some other grouping of countries? What if instead it is the small emerging debtor nations like Hungary and other countries of that ilk? I can't make a fundamental argument for Hungary but that might change.

What about the CIVETS, the N-11 and any other grouping of countries, those could all work out too--or not.

There are other ideas we could also add to the list including natural resources, Africa and some Asian markets where there is really not much of a stock market yet; Laos and Cambodia come to mind. Who's to say that five years from now there won't be a Cambodian cement company with ADRs on the NYSE?

My favorites will be my favorites until they aren't, if you take my meaning.

Unrelated tree house picture.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Morning, Roger. You've mentioned a couple of healthcare stocks in the past, but you don't blog much on aging boomers when you discuss trends. Maybe it's just obvious to everyone, but I'm wondering why you don't devote a few more pixels to the associated opportunities.

BTW, I saw mention yesterday of a magazine called "Trends" at SA.

Roger Nusbaum said...

great question. it seems as though the aging of the baby boomers is having more negative effects on the economy and perhaps the markets than positive effects. I think net net there will be less to this as manifested in stock prices than people expect.

Paul said...

Roger - Ritholtz briefly discusses a major concern and theme of mine this morning under his post "Random Thoughts". Check out the last bullet point...I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on the subject. The very first comment that follows his post highlights the issue. Thanks in advance!

Roger Nusbaum said...

good idea for a blog post, thank you Paul

Stephen Drone said...

What do Columbia and Mongolia have to offer ? do they export a major natural resource?

Roger Nusbaum said...

Colombia exports oil and has agriculture. Mongolia has coal and ore.

Anonymous said...

Roger, reference you 7:40 post. Something to consider is the tendency of the market to go through long-term secular bull and bear cycles. Depending on interpretation, there were 3 secular bears during the 20th century; 1906-21, 1929-49, and 1968-82. The 3 bears averaged 16 1/3 years duration, and secular bull markets occurred between them. If you determine the current market is in a cyclical bear that started in 2000 and assume it will be of average duration, we are about 2/3 of the way through it. I'd say this bodes well for young people who are just starting out investing; build your foundation now during the bear phase and then ride the next secular bull to new wealth.
My thoughts,
JCarr

Roger Nusbaum said...

JCarr, the idea of 15 or 20 year bear market is something i've written about before and buy into to some extent. The second of half of your comment I'm less sure of as I think more of a muddle with that leads to a relatively weak growth trajectory is more what I expect.

Anonymous said...

With the ECRI oficially making a recession call today, I am wondering what your thoughts are about how much of this is priced into the financial markets, if it is priced in at all....

Thanks, Warren (there will be no recession) Buffet

Roger Nusbaum said...

clearly part of the reason for the decline is fear/expectation of a recession. equities discount future expectations even if not completely correctly. The market is down noticeably from its recent high which is progress in discounting a recession but recession or not I do not believe the low for this go around is in. I don't think it will be anywhere near as low as March 2009 but I have said before we are in a recession or about to be and history will look back at all of this is one big event.

Roger Nusbaum said...

oh, almost forgot, there is an argument that we never left the recession after accounting for the GDP revisions.

Anonymous said...

Roger, I certainly see the "muddle" idea of where we may go from here, or even from the end of the current secular bear, whenever that may occur. Governments in most of the industrialized world have borrowed from the future for the last half century via deficit spending, and now the bills are coming due. Japan and Greece, with national debts far in excess of reasonable, are on the leading edge; and the US is not far behind and currently lacks the political will or willingness to take real corrective action (Republicans think we have a spending problem [too much government spending], while Democrats think we have a revenue problem [too little taxing]). I think we will have to wait at least until after the current election cycle to see real progress in addressing the problem. And, I think there is a definite possibility that the next generation will have a lower standard of living, primarily from paying off their inherited debt (with higher taxes moving resources from the productive private sector to the non-productive government sector), than we baby boomers had; hope I am wrong on the lower standard of living thought (maybe increases in productivity will offset, or partially offset, the increases in taxes). Pretty dismal this morning, huh? Is the stock market still the place to be?
JCarr

Roger Nusbaum said...

JCarr

Is the stock market the place to be? Yes IMO but probably not the US market (to be clear I think foreign companies traded here will work when chosen selectively).

Lower standard of living seem plausible of course but technological advancements may make that more difficult to quantify but generically feeling less wealthy seems like the better bet.

Baby boomers end in 1964 and Gen Y starts in 1967 (as I understand it) what about those of us born in 1965 or in my case 1966? We have no label! Probably better off...

Anonymous said...

Roger, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_x), you are Generation X, but Wiki notes there are no universally accepted birth dates for when Gen X begins and ends. They also note you are the "13th Generation" to be familiar with the flag of the US; hope you are not superstitious! Thanks for the engaging conversation and, for what it's worth, I also think the stock market (with stocks carefully selected and monitored) is the place to be (though "sell in May and go away" was certainly good advice this year, something I did not do).
JCarr

Stephen Drone said...

Jcarr: just to point this out- we do have a revenue problem. Revenue got out of whack with GDP after the 2001/2003 tax cuts (setting aside war spending and revenue issues due to recession).

Anonymous said...

C'mon Roger, bite the bullet...

Write a SA article on the pitfalls of dividend investing done using lists of self-annointed experts.

T

Any thoughtss on MLB playoffs? I like the Tigers as a dark horse.

Anonymous said...

Stephen Drone. I am not at this side taking a side on whether we have a spending or revenue problem; truth be known, I think the solution will require compromise and give from both sides. It is interesting, however, and to provide balance to your statement, federal government spending is currently quite a few percentage points greater relative to GDP than it has historically been.
JCarr

Stephen Drone said...

Oh, believe me I'm not saying we don't have a spending problem.

Proud Member Of