Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Loading...
Most Recent Stories

The Single Entity Risk Problem

One of the points I emphasize in my new paper on portfolio construction is the risk of owning individual securities relative to indexing. A lot of people don’t know this, but since 1980 the S&P 500 has seen 320 departures from the index due to distress.  This means that about 10% of the S&P 500 leaves every 5 years because of distress.  So, if you’d bought all 500 individual stocks in the S&P 500 in 1980 you would have ridden a substantial number of your holdings to $0 or returns that were substantially worse than the index due to a lack of prudent selling.

One of the beauties of an indexing approach is the rules based systematic approach in which the funds sell their holdings that don’t meet the criteria of the index. We tend to think of index funds as these boring static portfolios, but they’re really quite dynamic and the systematic process is part of what makes them perform so well. An index fund is essentially a great seller and buyer because it adheres to a strict rule and doesn’t fall victim to behavioural biases and whatnot.

This is even more interesting in a broader context because it highlights just how much single entity risk can impact a portfolio.  For instance, one of the news stories playing out today is the disaster in Valeant Pharma which is down 50% on the day and 85% since its peak. This is a company held by some of the largest and most prominent hedge funds in the world. So, what does a crash like that do to your portfolio?

Let’s assume you hold 10 stocks that all appreciate 7% per year for 5 years except one of them crashes 85% in year 5. Thankfully, you were somewhat diversified, but the portfolio still undergoes a dramatic decline relative to an index. While the index grows from $1,000 to $1,400 the individual stock portfolio grows to just $1,282.  That’s a 5.1% compound return versus a 7% compound return.  Now, imagine that you go through something like this once every 5 years as you pick stocks.  Over the course of a 30 year period the difference in your ending balance is $7,500 vs $4,300.

index

Of course, this is an extreme example, but this highlights the potential risk in the persistent pursuit of market beating returns. Most people end up taking a lot more risk than they should be as they pursue something that is mathematically impossible in the aggregate.  Along the way they end up churning up taxes, fees and risks that hurt their portfolios. It’s no wonder that 80%+ of active managers can’t beat a simple indexing approach.