Jump to content

Concentration


nkp007
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have discovered that I feel very comfortable with a very concentrated portfolio. For example, I don't mind having positions that each make up 30%+ of my total portfolio. A dream scenario for me would be 3-5 asymmetric holdings and nothing else.

 

Anyone else feel this way? I know that many of us are investing in the same companies, but there seems to be a vast difference in how concentrated we are. It confounds that someone can love an idea so much, but then limit it to a 4% position.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If your profession is investing money, diversification becomes a comforting thought. 

 

Also - if you invest in a process like Graham and Dodd diversification makes a lot of sense. 

 

I have a 30%+ position but it's pretty hard for me to see so few risks that this becomes attractive.  I am a worry wart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me2, but I think a lot depends on what type of ideas you are looking for and your temperament. If you are a statistical Graham stock investor, you better be diversified.

 

Here is Zeke Ashton on the other side of the coin, and I love the "find ideas that work best in your hand".

 

 

 

 

I have discovered that I feel very comfortable with a very concentrated portfolio. For example, I don't mind having positions that each make up 30%+ of my total portfolio. A dream scenario for me would be 3-5 asymmetric holdings and nothing else.

 

Anyone else feel this way? I know that many of us are investing in the same companies, but there seems to be a vast difference in how concentrated we are. It confounds that someone can love an idea so much, but then limit it to a 4% position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klarman's thoughts from the 2008 Graham & Dodd Breakfast:

 

“It seems to me that, as we know, you diversify most of the diversifiable risk away from a portfolio by owning 20 or 25 positions, and that if one is able to tell a good investment from a bad, one should be able to tell a great investment from a good. So I see no sense in having the same size position with your best idea and your hundredth best idea to round out a 1% idea type of portfolio. When we take a concentrated position, I’d say a dozen times over 26 years, we have had a 10% or so position. It also depends on the definition: Is a position in a type of investment a position or is it only a particular issuer? So a little definitional clarity might also be needed. But in general, in one particular company’s securities, every 2 years or so we have a 10% position. Most of the time, we have 3, and 5, and 6 percent positions as our most favorite ideas. We will take them higher when a cheap position becomes much, much better a bargain or when there’s a catalyst for the realization of underlying value. We favor catalysts because it gives you a much shorter duration on the investment and greater predictability that you will in fact make money on that investment and aren’t subject to the vagaries of the market and the economy and business over a longer period of time. So we would not own a 10% position in a common stock that was just plain cheap unless we had a seat on the board and control, because too many bad things can happen. But we’d own a 10% position in a senior, distressed debt investment where there was a plan in place, where the assets were very safe – either cash or receivables or something where we could count on getting our money back, and where we saw almost no chance of principal loss over a couple of years and a chance of a very high, meaning 20% plus, type of return. So that’s how we think about it. I think when people make mistakes, it often is on both sides of diversification. Occasionally, new managers especially, that aren’t that experienced in the business, will have a 20% position or perhaps even two in one portfolio. And those two might even be correlated – [i.e.] same industry, [or] the same exact kind of bet in two different names. That’s absurdly concentrated; maybe not if you have enormous confidence and it’s your own money, but if you have clients, that’s just not a good idea. But 1% positions also are too small to take advantage of what are usually the relatively few great mispricings that you can find. When you find them, you do need to step in and take advantage.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klarman's thoughts from the 2008 Graham & Dodd Breakfast:

 

“It seems to me that, as we know, you diversify most of the diversifiable risk away from a portfolio by owning 20 or 25 positions, and that if one is able to tell a good investment from a bad, one should be able to tell a great investment from a good. So I see no sense in having the same size position with your best idea and your hundredth best idea to round out a 1% idea type of portfolio. When we take a concentrated position, I’d say a dozen times over 26 years, we have had a 10% or so position. It also depends on the definition: Is a position in a type of investment a position or is it only a particular issuer? So a little definitional clarity might also be needed. But in general, in one particular company’s securities, every 2 years or so we have a 10% position. Most of the time, we have 3, and 5, and 6 percent positions as our most favorite ideas. We will take them higher when a cheap position becomes much, much better a bargain or when there’s a catalyst for the realization of underlying value. We favor catalysts because it gives you a much shorter duration on the investment and greater predictability that you will in fact make money on that investment and aren’t subject to the vagaries of the market and the economy and business over a longer period of time. So we would not own a 10% position in a common stock that was just plain cheap unless we had a seat on the board and control, because too many bad things can happen. But we’d own a 10% position in a senior, distressed debt investment where there was a plan in place, where the assets were very safe – either cash or receivables or something where we could count on getting our money back, and where we saw almost no chance of principal loss over a couple of years and a chance of a very high, meaning 20% plus, type of return. So that’s how we think about it. I think when people make mistakes, it often is on both sides of diversification. Occasionally, new managers especially, that aren’t that experienced in the business, will have a 20% position or perhaps even two in one portfolio. And those two might even be correlated – [i.e.] same industry, [or] the same exact kind of bet in two different names. That’s absurdly concentrated; maybe not if you have enormous confidence and it’s your own money, but if you have clients, that’s just not a good idea. But 1% positions also are too small to take advantage of what are usually the relatively few great mispricings that you can find. When you find them, you do need to step in and take advantage.”

 

Also, keep in mind Klarman usually has 20 to 40% in cash.  So a 6% position is more meaningful to his total invested assets.

 

I'm still in phase one, we're still buying cigar butts, there's a good business in buying them and it's a lot of fun … I think Buffett's a better investor than me, because he has a better eye towards what makes a great business – Seth Klarman

 

I said this in another thread, but I think that Buffet is the greatest business analyst of all time and Klarman is the best securities analyst of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klarman's thoughts from the 2008 Graham & Dodd Breakfast:

 

“It seems to me that, as we know, you diversify most of the diversifiable risk away from a portfolio by owning 20 or 25 positions, and that if one is able to tell a good investment from a bad, one should be able to tell a great investment from a good. So I see no sense in having the same size position with your best idea and your hundredth best idea to round out a 1% idea type of portfolio. When we take a concentrated position, I’d say a dozen times over 26 years, we have had a 10% or so position. It also depends on the definition: Is a position in a type of investment a position or is it only a particular issuer? So a little definitional clarity might also be needed. But in general, in one particular company’s securities, every 2 years or so we have a 10% position. Most of the time, we have 3, and 5, and 6 percent positions as our most favorite ideas. We will take them higher when a cheap position becomes much, much better a bargain or when there’s a catalyst for the realization of underlying value. We favor catalysts because it gives you a much shorter duration on the investment and greater predictability that you will in fact make money on that investment and aren’t subject to the vagaries of the market and the economy and business over a longer period of time. So we would not own a 10% position in a common stock that was just plain cheap unless we had a seat on the board and control, because too many bad things can happen. But we’d own a 10% position in a senior, distressed debt investment where there was a plan in place, where the assets were very safe – either cash or receivables or something where we could count on getting our money back, and where we saw almost no chance of principal loss over a couple of years and a chance of a very high, meaning 20% plus, type of return. So that’s how we think about it. I think when people make mistakes, it often is on both sides of diversification. Occasionally, new managers especially, that aren’t that experienced in the business, will have a 20% position or perhaps even two in one portfolio. And those two might even be correlated – [i.e.] same industry, [or] the same exact kind of bet in two different names. That’s absurdly concentrated; maybe not if you have enormous confidence and it’s your own money, but if you have clients, that’s just not a good idea. But 1% positions also are too small to take advantage of what are usually the relatively few great mispricings that you can find. When you find them, you do need to step in and take advantage.”

 

Concentration is definitely a double edged sword, and a dangerous tool in the hands of an inexperienced investor.

 

E.g. My 40% position in Research in Motion when I started out. That's a lesson I won't ever forget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These kinds of threads always amuse me. You see the same themes in other threads like the performance ones. It is always stated as "fact" that a concentrated portfolio such as one "WEB" or Munger might have is optimal. Yes, these posters will say, there are those who like smaller positions but that is a crutch for their ignorance and they are most likely investing in disgusting cigar butts anyway so what does it matter. What is never said is that each investor should invest in what they do best, what makes the most sense to that person and makes them the most comfortable.  There is more than one way to skin a cat.  No way is inherently better than another way. It's all about making money. Make it how you can.

 

Otherwise it's like Miguel Cabrera or Albert Pujols counseling each player that the only real way to play ball is to hit a ton of dingers, otherwise you're not a real ballplayer. Forget that the guy they're telling it to is a little scrappy guy who relies on speed and defense. But guys like Ozzie Smith make it to the HOF too. There's more than one way to get to paradise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with the thought of great concentration - it's just that those kinds of high-conviction bets don't seem to come as often to me as to some other people. I had my biggest position take a 50% drop last spring. It did make up all of that and then some in 2012 and I held throughout the ordeal despite deteriorated business prospects.  But I was sweating for a bit. Even more so - I bought stock for my neurotic mother before hell broke loose. She has made 20% on the position in less than a year but I can assure you that for her it was definitely not worth the emotional toll it took. I guess I can see better what fund managers go through now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I equally weight between ten holdings. I can't decide whether that is too concentrated or too diversified, so I'm thinking it's just right. The weightage is based more on likelihood of "success" on a specific position rather than the expected return on it. Since I have no idea if one position is more likely to succeed than another position, so I assume they're equally likely to succeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have discovered that I feel very comfortable with a very concentrated portfolio. For example, I don't mind having positions that each make up 30%+ of my total portfolio. A dream scenario for me would be 3-5 asymmetric holdings and nothing else.

 

Anyone else feel this way? I know that many of us are investing in the same companies, but there seems to be a vast difference in how concentrated we are. It confounds that someone can love an idea so much, but then limit it to a 4% position.

 

I am comfortable with a concentrated portfolio while it is rising.  I am uncomfortable with it while it is dropping.

 

Regardless, I typically have less than 10 positions because that's all I am able to follow adequately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the general investing world I guess I'm fairly concentrated, I hold 50 positions, yet compared to most on the board I'm just hedging my ignorance.  I do have 20% of my portfolio in one position, but that's the result of it running up 10x, not a concentrated bet, although in a lot of ways it is now.

 

Here's my thing with concentration, I would like to hear from an investor who's invested the last 10-15-20 years with a consistent 3-5 positions.  If they have market beating returns they should know a lot about what separates their winners from non-winners, so the next logical conclusion is why aren't they only investing in the one or two best companies they find?

 

I know Ericopoly gets a lot of press in these performance threads, but he seems to embody the person I'm thinking of.  He knows for sure when something's a winner, so he goes all in on it, and his returns reflect that.  To me this is the logical conclusion of investing like that.  If you can look at a list of investments, know which is the best, and know which will return the most why diversify out of the best?

 

The bigger question for the 3-5 position people is why do you have so many positions?  If you have consistently outperformed like that why do you need so many positions? Why not pick the one or two that will do the best?

 

I would have no problem concentrating all of my money in one position, the only qualification would be that it would be a position I'd have control over.  I'd sell all my stocks to invest in a business that I was the CEO or Chairman of.  But that's just my personality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know his history, but Pabrai funds has been around since '99 and currently has 6 disclosed positions. No idea if he always held such a concentrated portfolio, but that may be a good place to start looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oddball,

One way to think about it is with a diversification utility curve and a confidence curve. 

 

The diversification curve has a positive slope and is concave down. Diversifying from 1 position to 2 positions offers the greatest utility - diversifying from 49 to 50 offers much less. Likewise the confidence curve has a negative slope and is concave up. You probably have a larger drop in confidence between your #1 and #2 ideas than between your #49 and #50 ideas.

 

Where the curves cross will determine the individual portfolio structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The bigger question for the 3-5 position people is why do you have so many positions? If you have consistently outperformed like that why do you need so many positions? Why not pick the one...

 

If you happen to be wrong or some unforeseen event takes place, which impacts your specific pick, then you can be wiped out unless you are hedged. Game over! With 3-5 positions you get chance to fight for another day. No need to hedge or do anything fancy. Plain vanilla stock piking will do with 3-5 positions

 

I generally have 5-15 positions but rarely with equal size.  It depends on situation. At times, I can be concentrated( 50 -70%) in 3 positions even if I happen to have some other positions.

 

Having said that, I think every one should do what they feel comfortable with. I can never hold 50 positions but there is nothing wrong in having 50 positions if it works for some one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the general investing world I guess I'm fairly concentrated, I hold 50 positions, yet compared to most on the board I'm just hedging my ignorance.  I do have 20% of my portfolio in one position, but that's the result of it running up 10x, not a concentrated bet, although in a lot of ways it is now.

 

Here's my thing with concentration, I would like to hear from an investor who's invested the last 10-15-20 years with a consistent 3-5 positions.  If they have market beating returns they should know a lot about what separates their winners from non-winners, so the next logical conclusion is why aren't they only investing in the one or two best companies they find?

 

I know Ericopoly gets a lot of press in these performance threads, but he seems to embody the person I'm thinking of.  He knows for sure when something's a winner, so he goes all in on it, and his returns reflect that.  To me this is the logical conclusion of investing like that.  If you can look at a list of investments, know which is the best, and know which will return the most why diversify out of the best?

 

The bigger question for the 3-5 position people is why do you have so many positions?  If you have consistently outperformed like that why do you need so many positions? Why not pick the one or two that will do the best?

 

I would have no problem concentrating all of my money in one position, the only qualification would be that it would be a position I'd have control over.  I'd sell all my stocks to invest in a business that I was the CEO or Chairman of.  But that's just my personality.

 

The almost impossible, unimaginable situations. Because you do not know if everyone suddenly does not drink Coke tomorrow, a terrorist attack on all Coke facilities etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oddball,

One way to think about it is with a diversification utility curve and a confidence curve. 

 

The diversification curve has a positive slope and is concave down. Diversifying from 1 position to 2 positions offers the greatest utility - diversifying from 49 to 50 offers much less. Likewise the confidence curve has a negative slope and is concave up. You probably have a larger drop in confidence between your #1 and #2 ideas than between your #49 and #50 ideas.

 

Where the curves cross will determine the individual portfolio structure.

 

This makes sense, maybe I could clarify some.  If someone put 50 ideas in front of me with capital to invest in all of them I would pick the best.  I can clearly see which are better, the problem is I'm not starting from a clean slate.  I already have a portfolio with some cash, so I'm looking at a new idea, and if it meets my hurdle requirement I consider it against maybe another one or two ideas at the time and invest.  So far I have 50 companies that I believe will all give me 50% or greater upside, or 10-15% in an ongoing basis.  The portfolio has been assembled over time in this piece-meal construction, one or two names at a time.

 

But since I always have 10% in cash or so I rarely sell one cheap thing to buy something cheaper, although I'm doing that this afternoon once New Zealand opens.

 

I should also state that my entprepreneur example is actually probably backwards.  The entrepreneur is actually extremely diversified, they have hundreds if not thousands of customers.  Whereas someone working for a salary is extremely concentrated, they only have one employer.

 

But as Kraven said earlier, Know Theyself.  I don't invest fulltime, and I don't have the ability to watch my holdings very closely.  I sleep just fine with my portfolio and will go days without checking anything without a second of worry.  Many of my companies only report once or twice a year, and never report news, so I need to think even less about them.

 

I could imagine keeping up with the informationflow on some of the larger caps the board likes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the general investing world I guess I'm fairly concentrated, I hold 50 positions, yet compared to most on the board I'm just hedging my ignorance.  I do have 20% of my portfolio in one position, but that's the result of it running up 10x, not a concentrated bet, although in a lot of ways it is now.

 

Here's my thing with concentration, I would like to hear from an investor who's invested the last 10-15-20 years with a consistent 3-5 positions.  If they have market beating returns they should know a lot about what separates their winners from non-winners, so the next logical conclusion is why aren't they only investing in the one or two best companies they find?

 

I know Ericopoly gets a lot of press in these performance threads, but he seems to embody the person I'm thinking of.  He knows for sure when something's a winner, so he goes all in on it, and his returns reflect that.  To me this is the logical conclusion of investing like that.  If you can look at a list of investments, know which is the best, and know which will return the most why diversify out of the best?

 

The bigger question for the 3-5 position people is why do you have so many positions?  If you have consistently outperformed like that why do you need so many positions? Why not pick the one or two that will do the best?

 

I would have no problem concentrating all of my money in one position, the only qualification would be that it would be a position I'd have control over.  I'd sell all my stocks to invest in a business that I was the CEO or Chairman of.  But that's just my personality.

 

The almost impossible, unimaginable situations. Because you do not know if everyone suddenly does not drink Coke tomorrow, a terrorist attack on all Coke facilities etc..

 

Right, so you need some element of diversification against that.  I prefer to diversify both in the companies and countries I own companies in.  If something were to happen in the US I have money in companies and currency outside the US.  Maybe I'm paranoid, but as rranjan says I'd still live to fight another day..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest longinvestor

I would like to hear from an investor who's invested the last 10-15-20 years with a consistent 3-5 positions.  If they have market beating returns they should know a lot about what separates their winners from non-winners, so the next logical conclusion is why aren't they only investing in the one or two best companies they find?

I know Ericopoly gets a lot of press in these performance threads, but he seems to embody the person I'm thinking of.  He knows for sure when something's a winner, so he goes all in on it, and his returns reflect that.  To me this is the logical conclusion of investing like that.  If you can look at a list of investments, know which is the best, and know which will return the most why diversify out of the best?

The bigger question for the 3-5 position people is why do you have so many positions?  If you have consistently outperformed like that why do you need so many positions? Why not pick the one or two that will do the best?

 

I like this thread a lot, have tried initiating one myself several years ago. It appears very few, including this board's members do that. I'm basing this on frequent posts suggesting market timing, lots of trading and the like.

 

How I wish I was the 3 position (& successful) investor over  the past 10-15-20 years but that will have to wait for another 5 years, minimum. I have transitioned to my 3 position portfolio since 2008. BRK(60)-FFH(30)-LVLT(10). I've owned these three and other things between 2000-08. The best thing now is that I sleep more with 3 compared to 5 or 10 positions. And the extra sleep comes from having less to read. I have a big passion for music and have freed up so much more time for that with concentration. And btw, I glossed over my five year transaction history on Fidelity and I've paid virtually zero $ in transactions / fees.

 

Of all things that helped me get over any inhibitions to concentrate, WEB's suggestion that over the next 10-20 years the market is likely to return about 5% helped the most. I am very comfortable with an outperformance of 2-3%. If there is no outperformance at all, I like the fact that my money is coinvested with owners who are hell bent on not losing principal. I have done 9% annually over the past 5 years. Not bad for sitting on the butt. I don't do options, any kind of leverage etc. Too much work and don't like to be bound by time. 

 

Now the question you have posed, why not just 1 or 2? Why not 1?  I suppose your mind does not suddenly make that further concentration a reality. Or does it? . But I already derive comfort thinking that one day, I am going to own 1 or 2 things for the rest of my life.

 

Concentration is all in the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to hear from an investor who's invested the last 10-15-20 years with a consistent 3-5 positions.  If they have market beating returns they should know a lot about what separates their winners from non-winners, so the next logical conclusion is why aren't they only investing in the one or two best companies they find?

I know Ericopoly gets a lot of press in these performance threads, but he seems to embody the person I'm thinking of.  He knows for sure when something's a winner, so he goes all in on it, and his returns reflect that.  To me this is the logical conclusion of investing like that.  If you can look at a list of investments, know which is the best, and know which will return the most why diversify out of the best?

The bigger question for the 3-5 position people is why do you have so many positions?  If you have consistently outperformed like that why do you need so many positions? Why not pick the one or two that will do the best?

 

I like this thread a lot, have tried initiating one myself several years ago. It appears very few, including this board's members do that. I'm basing this on frequent posts suggesting market timing, lots of trading and the like.

 

How I wish I was the 3 position (& successful) investor over  the past 10-15-20 years but that will have to wait for another 5 years, minimum. I have transitioned to my 3 position portfolio since 2008. BRK(60)-FFH(30)-LVLT(10). I've owned these three and other things between 2000-08. The best thing now is that I sleep more with 3 compared to 5 or 10 positions. And the extra sleep comes from having less to read. I have a big passion for music and have freed up so much more time for that with concentration. And btw, I glossed over my five year transaction history on Fidelity and I've paid virtually zero $ in transactions / fees.

 

Of all things that helped me get over any inhibitions to concentrate, WEB's suggestion that over the next 10-20 years the market is likely to return about 5% helped the most. I am very comfortable with an outperformance of 2-3%. If there is no outperformance at all, I like the fact that my money is coinvested with owners who are hell bent on not losing principal. I have done 9% annually over the past 5 years. Not bad for sitting on the butt. I don't do options, any kind of leverage etc. Too much work and don't like to be bound by time. 

 

Now the question you have posed, why not just 1 or 2? Why not 1?  I suppose your mind does not suddenly make that further concentration a reality. Or does it? . But I already derive comfort thinking that one day, I am going to own 1 or 2 things for the rest of my life.

 

Concentration is all in the head.

 

Good response, and I think you'll do well.  In a sense you've just delegated any diversification decisions to Buffett or Watsa, which both aren't bad choices.  I'd say your portfolio is more akin to owning two value funds that don't have outright expenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of my portfolio is in my signature below, roughly 30% in my first holding. 10-15 positions is plenty to keep up with and I would spend the same amount of time on 5 if I was really concentrated. I read once (maybe Klareman?, probably misquoted) that 80% of what you learn about a company comes from the first 20% of the time you spend researching it. Holding 10-15 positions keeps me interested and I can always increase a position as I learn more about it over the time I hold it. You don't need to be super concentrated to do well over time. Peter Lynch was teased that he never met a stock he didn't like. In my experience concentration cuts both ways. I think diversification across geography, currencies, industries, long/short, and asset classes is more important than owning different common stocks.

 

I've seen that many have a pension for owning stocks with a high TBV which are usually O&G, banks, insurance, holding companies, shipping etcetera. These companies (just look at our investment ideas section) make us value investors 'feel' like we are getting a deal when we look at that TBV and its higher than what we paid. I think we need to be careful that we are not getting over concentrated in certain sectors. I know I am guilty, I have four insurance positions, three banking, and two O&G! Look at Buffett and Yacktman's portfolios. They have a nice mix of traditional high TBV industries mixed with consumer staples, healthcare, and IT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen that many have a pension for owning stocks with a high TBV which are usually O&G, banks, insurance, holding companies, shipping etcetera. These companies (just look at our investment ideas section) make us value investors 'feel' like we are getting a deal when we look at that TBV and its higher than what we paid. I think we need to be careful that we are not getting over concentrated in certain sectors. I know I am guilty, I have four insurance positions, three banking, and two O&G! Look at Buffett and Yacktman's portfolios. They have a nice mix of traditional high TBV industries mixed with consumer staples, healthcare, and IT.

 

I also worry about this.  Particularly my insurance and banking exposure over the long run.  I'll deal with it after a while I guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone put 50 ideas in front of me with capital to invest in all of them I would pick the best.  I can clearly see which are better, the problem is I'm not starting from a clean slate.

 

For me that would be a problem. I don't want my portfolio to represent past ideas - I want it to reflect my current thinking on each position, all the time. I used to have more of an ad hoc portfolio structure, but I was not comfortable with it.

 

Now I have a prescriptive structure that I created, with 20 long positions (ranging from 12% to 2%) and 20 short positions (each around -1.5%). It's really nice for me to not spend time thinking about portfolio sizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone put 50 ideas in front of me with capital to invest in all of them I would pick the best.  I can clearly see which are better, the problem is I'm not starting from a clean slate.

 

For me that would be a problem. I don't want my portfolio to represent past ideas - I want it to reflect my current thinking on each position, all the time. I used to have more of an ad hoc portfolio structure, but I was not comfortable with it.

 

Now I have a prescriptive structure that I created, with 20 long positions (ranging from 12% to 2%) and 20 short positions (each around -1.5%). It's really nice for me to not spend time thinking about portfolio sizing.

 

Maybe I'm confused, do you do a clean slate every few months or something?  I'm saying I have positions in all stages of value realization.  Some are newly initiated positions, others are just in a holding pattern, and some are nearing IV.  So I'm selling down the IV ones to buy new positions, but I'm not going to sell off something that's in a holding pattern just because it hasn't reached IV yet.

 

The truth is I don't have a ton of ideas to implement that either.  I might add 10 positions over the year or less, and sell off a few.  So it's not a lot of activity at all, mostly just waiting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you as I also feel very comfortable with a concentrated portfolio.  I have 3 positions which account for 47.64% of my portfolio (Philip Morris International, Fairfax and Bank of America) and my top 6 positions are 78.93%.  With a concentrated position, you need to be extremely certain  of it's prospects otherwise it can hurt!!!  :)

 

S

 

 

I have discovered that I feel very comfortable with a very concentrated portfolio. For example, I don't mind having positions that each make up 30%+ of my total portfolio. A dream scenario for me would be 3-5 asymmetric holdings and nothing else.

 

Anyone else feel this way? I know that many of us are investing in the same companies, but there seems to be a vast difference in how concentrated we are. It confounds that someone can love an idea so much, but then limit it to a 4% position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...