Many investors think that they
are conservative but in reality they are aggressive in their investment life
when they focus their investments in the same company or industry where they
work and generate their income. For instance, a medical representative invests
only in pharma stocks, a civil engineer concentrates on reality space and a
software engineer buys only IT stocks. That can make for a volatile mix and
undue risk.
If we run into those people who don’t think
this concentration is a problem and suggest that they talk to investment real
estate professionals about what happened to them in the early 2008 and late
2009 when the bottom fell out investment real estate market, or to computer
system consultants after Y2K or to thousand of tech investors in the know who
lost all or most of what they had in the dot.com bust. Also Read: Syndromes of Risk-taking Ability!
Nevertheless, some investors
still will want to stay with same industry or company they know or in position
with which they are grown comfortable, rather than adequately diversify. Even
though I have seen it literally hundreds of times that many investors have been
holding huge percentage of their money in a single stock for long years and think
they are being conservative.
The
Portfolio Issue
Many investors make the same
mistake of assessing their overall risk on an investment-by-investment basis.
If they are supposed to be extremely aggressive in the traditional sense, they
want every position to be a highflier. On the other hand, if they are supposed
to be traditionally conservative, they want every single investment to be
conservative. But risk and reward should be managed at the portfolio level.
Every investor should understand that he will never be happy with every single
individual position in his portfolio or with every slice of his investment pie.
After all, a diversified portfolio that is needed to be periodically re-located
and re-balanced is the way to enhance returns and still reduce risk.
Keep
emotion out of investment decisions
Theoretically, we all know that
investing in equity is generally for the long haul and that, over time, markets
go up. But the actions of very few people reflect that knowledge. Almost
everyone says they are a long-term investor, but few act that ways. When the market
turns in negative territory, many investors run for the exits and almost always
suffer a double whammy i.e. the loss from a collapsed market and the loss from
their newfound risk aversion.
Many investors could be likened
to vegetables gardeners who are so concerned about how the carrots are doing
that they dig them up daily and examine the roots. Then they wonder why they
get wilted carrots and wilted investments. So, anyone ask them, “If you planted
a garden and examined the roots every day, what would happen to your carrots?” So,
it is imperative to know that both vegetables and investments need time to grow
and flourish.
“A portfolio is like soap. The
more you touch it the smaller it gets”
Conservative
Versus Aggressive
As you have seen that becoming too
conservative an investor after being burnt his fingers in a bear market is
usually a misguided approach. The potential risk can be as or worse than risk
associated with making a bold move. For example, a investor who is overly
averse to taking investment risks could fall short of financial goals and
dreams because he or she was not aggressive enough in investing.
In the real sense, conservative
and aggressive are merely arbitrary labels with different meanings depending on
one’s point of view. The definition depends on individual circumstances. For
instance, an aggressive investor may become conservative with the death of his
father even though his portfolio is unaffected.
Take another instance; a couple
considers themselves conservative because they are taking so little risk with
their current assets. Their portfolio is about 90 percent fixed incomes and
their view of risk might be a major obstacle to accomplishing their long-term
financial goals. In that sense, it seems
by definition conservative [investing] has to do with preservation. To date,
their concern has been solely with preserving their assets as they are. In our
professional opinion, we see them as aggressive because while consider they,
being conservative is that, the probability of their succeeding in their
financial goals is quite low.
Perhaps, the best definition of an aggressive
investment stance, then, is one that has a low probability of achieving a
person’s financial purposes and goals and also preserving that individual’s
vision for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment