Conviction can be dangerous

Conviction can be dangerous. What I mean by that specifically is that conviction can lead someone to take on more risk than is prudent. Why am I writing about this now? Well, recently I learned that some people who frequent this board have portfolios of 2 or 3 stocks. I’ve heard some justify that high concentration by saying something along the lines of “when you know, you know and when you know then you need to take action.” I’m paraphrasing but what people are really saying is that “I have very, very high conviction and I’m going to take a huge position based on that conviction”. But in actuality no one can know all of the risks that are specific to a single company. There is always firm-specific risk. There are many examples where such firm specific risk was unknown. Enron. Worldcom. Tyco. The most dangerous unknown risk is fraud because it is a risk that can reduce your investment to zero overnight. Now there may be some rare situations where have one or two stocks in a portfolio can be ok. Maybe when one is first starting out and has little wealth is one example. But I would argue that it is a very bad idea to have such a portfolio and here’s why. First, success with a concentrated portfolio (I mean less than 4-5 stocks) will likely lead to continuing this approach in order to repeat the successes. This will lead to a bad habit of maintaining high risk on one’s wealth for an extended period. Success can also lead to overconfidence which makes it likely that a person will be blind to the risks. Another important risk is that if you repeated maintain a concentrated portfolio in different companies over time (i.e. switching the concentration to different companies at times) then you only need to be “wrong” one time in order to have a catastrophic outcome in which a majority of the wealth is destroyed.

Furthermore, conviction can be enhanced by putting more effort into thought and analysis. You can research the market, the competitors and you can build models to predict future earnings. This all can increase your conviction but it can also draw you into the idea that you know more than you can actually know. If you then allocate more of your wealth to investments than is prudent then you may be taking on more risk that you realize. I have personally experienced falling into this trap. In the period from January 2015 through early August of that year my portfolio had risen by more than 70%. I was using stock options to enhance my returns and things were going very well. In the early Summer I begin building models to predict future earnings growth and and stock price ranges off of those earnings predictions. My assessment was that in spite of the gains that I had already seen, my stocks will still quite undervalued. Saul was also saying every month that due to the 1YRPEG on the stocks the portfolio was not a risky one. I very much agreed with him. In August of 2015 stocks started dropping and this was when I started adding leverage by taking out some debt against other assets (real estate); in addition, I began using bull spreads to invest more. As a result my portfolio was now leveraged…something that I had not done before in my many years of investing. As my stocks dropped, I became more and more convinced that my stocks were a better bargain and I continued to add leverage as my stocks declined. By then end of 2015 by 70% gain had turned into a loss and in January 2016 the crap hit the fan. The unconceivable happened. Most of my stocks were down 30-60% from their August highs while then overall market was down less than 20%. This is something that I could not have imagined when I was adding to my positions in the late Summer of 2015. How could ALL of my stocks drop so much since I was diversified. Well, it happened. Unfortunately, I could not ride out the decline in my stocks even though I was convinced would recover because the margin calls began. I was forced to liquidate positions in late January and February. The damage to my portfolio was severe, and I expect that I won’t fully recover to my August 2015 peak for another 3-4 years assuming that I continue to have good results going forward. I was absent from this board for most of 2016 because I took a break from investing. I learned some valuable lessons and I am now back to investing, still aggressive but without leverage so that I can ride out the future downturns. I learned some very valuable lessons, one of the most important being that conviction can be dangerous.

142 Likes

I learned some very valuable lessons, one of the most important being that conviction can be dangerous.

What are some of the other valuable lessons you learned? The only reason I’m asking is because you also said—

I expect that I won’t fully recover to my August 2015 peak for another 3-4 years assuming that I continue to have good results going forward. I was absent from this board for most of 2016 because I took a break from investing. I learned some valuable lessons and I am now back to investing, still aggressive but without leverage so that I can ride out the future downturns

Nobody knows where the market will be in 3-4 years from now. We might be in another 1929 or 2008-9. How can you put a timetable on your portfolio recovery? It’s not like turning the faucet on, and the portfolio gains start pouring out.

good luck
b&w

3 Likes

What are some of the other valuable lessons you learned?

Many lessons and each one could be a long post on its own.

Nobody knows where the market will be in 3-4 years from now. We might be in another 1929 or 2008-9. How can you put a timetable on your portfolio recovery?

I cannot put a timetable on it, and I agree that no one can know where the market will be in 3-4 years. My point was that I don’t think it’s likely that my portfolio will recover to its prior peak before 3-4 years from now…that’s how bad my losses were from August 2015 through May 2015. 3-4 years is possible IF things go very well for the investments that I’m in now.

1 Like

Wow, GauchoChris,

What an honest post! How refreshing to hear someone honestly admit their stock performance history… warts and all.

I strongly suspect that most all of us have had similar experiences, but few have the courage to tell anyone.

The most foolish investment I’ve ever made happened early in my investment life when I allowed a broker to sell me some options in El Paso Natural Gas. After a little fortuitous early success, I soon got slammed with a quick $10,000 loss. It stung for sure, but what a cheap and well learned lesson 35 years ago. I’d rather go to Vegas and at least enjoy losing my money than ever flirt with options or futures again. Leverage is tempting but ultimately will kill a portfolio… and sooner or later you will get burned.

All we need is a few good stocks, (which is what this board is all about). Saul has proven that with his amazing track record.

Now, after 40 years of personal stock investing experience, my wife and I are experiencing a retirement in which we have the freedom to travel and live a debt free life, spoil and then send home grandchildren, and just do whatever the heck we choose.

Thank you Chris, for being so openly transparent with this board.

Jim

28 Likes

Conviction can be dangerous.

Very true, and thanks for the cautionary tale.

I think it is also worth pointing out that conviction can can cause problems in exactly the opposite way too. How many of us have heard from people with the conviction that the market is about to fall, and are sitting on cash? Sitting for years in some cases? They’ve missed out big time (at least so far).

10 Likes

Hi RHinCT:

I think it is also worth pointing out that conviction can can cause problems in exactly the opposite way too. How many of us have heard from people with the conviction that the market is about to fall, and are sitting on cash? Sitting for years in some cases? They’ve missed out big time (at least so far).

I believe more money is lost by those doing nothing, waiting on the sidelines with cash, for the planets to perfectly align to make the investment 1000% safe. Some people fear losing to a point where they do nothing to better themselves and waste their lives doing nothing and end up with nothing but complaining that their was no opportunity.

To be successful you have to be willing to get up to the plate and swing the bat. Babe Ruth was paid the big bucks (For his time) to swing and hit the ball Yet he struck out almost twice as many times as he hit a home run

As Ruth went about redefining the means of success in baseball, he also redefined failure. With his reputation as the King of Home Runs came the title of the King of Strikeouts. Alongside his 714 career home runs stood a legacy of 1,330 strikeouts—a figure a purist of the time would find appalling. <<<<(Google)

The Big Bucks were paid to him, because he inflicted more damage on the opposing teams with his 714 Home runs than the damage the 1330 strike outs did to his team.

Risk is part of life—

450 people in the US die from falling out of their beds each year.<<<<(Google)

—it cannot be avoided, even while sleeping.

b&w

5 Likes

Conviction can be dangerous. What I mean by that specifically is that conviction can lead someone to take on more risk than is prudent. Why am I writing about this now? Well, recently I learned that some people who frequent this board have portfolios of 2 or 3 stocks

Most people are skilled in one craft or profession or even within their field they are just good at one thing. If you are a farmer, small business owner or most entrepreneurs have most, if not all of their net worth in one primary asset.

While I am not advocating anyone to hold a concentrated portfolio, there are benefits and risks like everything in life. I could see it may take some time and skill level to get there but not dangerous.

Say for ex, a company’s bond is due for maturity in 2 months and the company had some headline risk and their equity and bonds have sold off. You look at that situation and determine there is no risk for the redemption of the bonds as the company has cash sitting on its balance sheet for the redemption and the headline risk has nothing to do with cash on the balance sheet, and you decided the annualized return on buying the bonds are 15% and decided to go all in, is that a risk? Absolutely, many things can go wrong, for ex, an accounting fraud, is it a calculated risk? Absolutely.

In the end, it is just a choice.

1 Like

There is a time to have conviction, a time to give it up, and a time to keep the faith.

I will use Netflix again, a singular company, and like many such big winners, including companies like practical monopoly ISRG, they will swing wildly. However, volatility <> risk. Risk is chance of losing money at the time you need to cash out. Volatility is simply zig zags along the journey that mean nothing if you actually get to your destination on time.

The problem with holding lots of stocks is that your choices become less and less good. Your first 2 or 3 may be great, but your fourth choice is even less, than your fifth, etc.

At one point Warren Buffett was 30% of his port in Coca Cola. He would probably have gone higher but he had fiduciary duties and frankly, at some point, when you are big money, the reason to take even higher risks are less and less.

At this point, and I had not looked for awhile, particularly given how Yahoo has botched up its new portfolio portfolio that makes an instant glance more difficult, SHOP is over $9.2 billion in market cap. True, true though, has nearly $1 billion in cash, so make it $8.3 billion in enterprise value, which is what really matters.

But one still has to wonder, as SHOP did something extraordinary, it raised tons and tons and tons of cash, in amounts I am not familiar with for a company with the current revenues it has, while business is good. I cannot help but think, and not that management knows, but management can suspect, that they got the cash, while getting the cash was cheap and good. At such a point, is this really time to have conviction? I’ll leave that an open question.

However, back when it was at $4 billion and one of its lesser competitors was getting bought out for nearly $4 billion, then YEAH, that was time for conviction, and so I had it. Why dilute my money.

In the long run we have different methods, different situations, different goals, different time periods, etc.

Honestly, although I have not given it the necessary thought, at this point, if it were not the fact that I have a lot of short term capital gains at the moment, and these gains go straight to my income, and I am already at too dang high of a tax bracket, I would probably go cash on these investments at the moment (this is speculation, as I have not given it enough thought - but too much optimism, too little fear, too little faith, but yet, not really a bubble at this time, hmmmm, worth thinking about).

But frankly, again, when SHOP was $2 $3 $4 billion marketcap, and lesser peers were selling for nearly SHOP’s marketcap, dang right I am not going to dilute my investment dollars on lesser 3rd or 4th choices.

Tinker

7 Likes

This is an interesting post to consider. I recently got to wondering what are the oldest companies. By “oldest” it is meant that the company has been in continuous operation for a given period of time and can trace its roots back to a time and place of origin.

A visit to Wikipedia produced this answer: “According to a report published by the Bank of Korea on May 14, 2008, investigating 41 countries, there were 5,586 companies older than 200 years. Of these, 3,146 are in Japan, 837 in Germany, 222 in the Netherlands, and 196 in France.[1] Of the companies with more than 100 years of history, 89.4 percent employ fewer than 300 people.[1][2] A nationwide Japanese survey counted more than 21,000 companies older than 100 years as of September 30, 2009.” of this list, 12 companies were in operation prior to the year 1000. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_companies).

Almost all of these businesses (I did not take the time to review the entire list) are in a highly competitive, more or less commodity type of business; hotels, restaurants, food/beverage production, basic materials, pharmacy, clothing, etc. Very few are in what might be termed a “specialty” business. I don’t have any idea how many of these companies are publicly traded, but my guess is that the majority are privately held (89.4 percent employ fewer than 300 people). Separately, there’s a list of about 500 publicly traded companies over 100 years old (it’s an 18 page pdf file with no information about when it was compiled, so it is most likely out of date, but good enough for talking points).

So, as an investor, what can be gleaned from this. To be totally honest, I’m not sure that there’s any lesson at all, it might just be an interesting list (or maybe not even interesting?). But surely, a company that’s been around over 1,000 years must have encountered just about every risk imaginable, including periods of incompetent and/or unscrupulous management (in my book, this is the greatest risk any company can face), war, political upheaval, unfriendly laws, you name it. Yet, somehow they survived.

So there is safety in a commodity type business. Should preservation of capital be your most important goal, then almost every investment discussed on this board is a bad idea if your style is consistent with the TMF “buy and hold” mantra. Does anyone think SHOP will be around in 100 years? How about ANET? LGIH? SQ? Even APPL? I doubt it. So the question isn’t just about how confident you are when you make an investment, it is about your confidence every day that you hold an investment. Or as GauchoChris pointed out how much confidence you have when you’re willing to assume additional risks via loans and leverage.

What does it take to move you from being confident to losing confidence. Even though Saul states his style is “modified buy and hold” which he describes as his intention when he buys is always to hold for the long term, he has also written several times about his decision to sell a holding. I’ve not carefully reviewed all his posts about selling, but my impression is that more often than not it is due to what he sees as bad management decisions ex/ SNCR). Next would probably be a company facing a tough set of market conditions with a specialty product (ex/ INFN). The “specialness” of the product might have been the factor that provided the confidence to get into the stock, but specialness is always vulnerable. Customers always have the prerogative to settle for “not so special.” Or if they don’t settle for it, they can use it as leverage to negotiate price.

Sometimes, a company’s earnings may not be as obvious as it looks. To most folks, Amazon looks like an online retailer. Actually, Amazon is a builder of extremely low friction infrastructure which they then make available at a very reasonable cost to virtually anyone. At this point, I’m quite certain that the majority of products sold on Amazon are 3rd party FBA (fulfillment by Amazon) rather than sold from Amazon purchased inventory. AWS is a leased low cost, easy to use IT infrastructure service.

Setting space and defense products aside, most people think the 100 year old Boeing company is in the commercial aircraft business, but while the headlines come from airplane sales, in fact they have tiny margins on the sale of airframes. The profits for commercial come from spares and aftermarket support.

I’ve kind of rambled here, I’ve strayed a bit off topic. But looking at what businesses have survived a long time should provide some insights as to where your confidence might be placed if preservation of capital is the most important part of your investment goals. However, this does not necessarily provide a lot of guidance with respect to greatest investment returns. If one seeks alpha, I imagine the thing to be learned is that all your investments are probably not buy and hold long term. Whatever “long term” really means.

18 Likes

Warren Buffet said to Montreal HEC students last Winter that if he would have a $1M portfolio he would invest the entirety of the portfolio in 4-5 stocks.

Personally, I have an 8 stocks portfolio and I am perfectly comfortable with my capital allocation. 10 stocks would be the absolute maximum.

When you buy a stock I have to 1) Know the business inside out 2) Know the competition 3) Read and analyse press releases and financials 4) Read/listen earnings call.

That’s a lot of work and I would not be able to keep up with 15-20 stocks.

6 Likes

Warren Buffet said to Montreal HEC students last Winter that if he would have a $1M portfolio he would invest the entirety of the portfolio in 4-5 stocks.

Personally, I have an 8 stocks portfolio and I am perfectly comfortable with my capital allocation. 10 stocks would be the absolute maximum.

When you buy a stock I have to 1) Know the business inside out 2) Know the competition 3) Read and analyse press releases and financials 4) Read/listen earnings call.

That’s a lot of work and I would not be able to keep up with 15-20 stocks.

I’ve had about 20 stocks in the past–I found it difficult to deal with. As I cut out the worst ones and added to the best ones, the portfolio value increased more and more. I am currently at 8 stocks that I can follow closely and the portfolio is growing and throwing off more income than I need.

I have no other income than my portfolios and minimal SS so money is continuously being removed to pay for all expenses including taxes. I project that I should be able cover all my financial needs with about 25% of all income received, and reinvest about 75% of portfolio income received in 2017 Any capital appreciation is pure gravy.

b&w

1 Like

…some people who frequent this board have portfolios of 2 or 3 stocks.

Bear had a post on this, too. But just because you have 20 stocks doesn’t mean you’re not in the same situation - it’s really whether any stock is too high a percentage of your total net worth.

In my view, investing requires one to predict the future better than Mr Market. All the stuff about 1YPEG and other metrics are simply ways to assure yourself that things aren’t going to change in an adverse way for a stock. It’s easier to predict that a stock doing just fine won’t crash than it is to predict that a stock will actually grow considerably from where it’s at.

It’s hard enough to predict that a company will do well - it’s even harder to predict when. That’s why selling options can be dangerous. I have and continue to sell Puts (as well as buy Calls), but never in an amount where I’d be in real trouble if things went south.

In my 8+ years of active investing, I’ve had only a few “conviction” ideas. They have all played out well for me, and I’m in far better shape financially because of them, but in hindsight I played them too cautiously. For me, conviction opportunities are few and far between, but at least now my portfolio is of a size where I don’t have to go “all in” to make the next opportunity really mean something. Because, after all, it’s not unlikely that my next “conviction” opportunity won’t play out.

4 Likes

Chris, It sounds like conviction and adding to descending positions hurt you, but that it was the astounding leverage you look on with options that really killed you, rather than the conviction. And if you had just been in your stocks without the options, you might have not had to sell at the bottom. (You sold in Feb 2016, which actually was the bottom, as I know that you are painfully aware of.) A large part of your warning has to be to avoid leverage!!! At that bottom in February, I was down 19.5%, and I finished up on the year. For you to have lost all your 70% gain, AND lost enough of your principal to have to sell out, you must have destroyed yourself with all those options, and all that leverage. Wow!!! What a lesson. What a shame. Thanks for posting that as a warning to others!!! It is much appreciated, but must have been very painful to write.
Thanks again,
Saul

8 Likes

Saul,

Yes, leverage was what made the some of my losses “permanent” because I had to sell a portion of my positions at the bottom. However, without super high conviction there never would have been leverage. The point of my post was really to help people who are taking outsized risks because in their minds they are so convinced about 1 or 2 specific investments. No matter how much you believe in NVDA or SHOP, is it really prudent to put 50%+ of your portfolio in one stock? I too have positions in these companies but however unlikely, things can still go wrong.

For me it was a lesson. A year ago it would have been painful for me to write about it. Now, not so much for I am focused on moving forward and optimistic about my investing future.

Chris

18 Likes

Chris I have had respect for you for years. My respect has increased. What a painful experience, but your honesty is appreciated. I hope We all take in your lesson and avoid a similar problem. Thank you, thank you for writing.

Flygal

1 Like

Great story, Chris, and thanks for sharing. That had to hurt. I’d be interested in learning whether all your holdings came back (or survived) and where you would be without leverage if you had just held and taken your licks in cash.

I wouldn’t want to distract from your lessons, they’re valuable and powerful. But of course there is another side to all this talk of the right number of holdings. For one thing, most of us, I think, have had the thrill of “baggers.” Personally, I’ve never had a stock triple while I owned it in one stretch because I used to trade more often. But I’ve had lots of stocks that have tripled or better over multiple periods of being in and out. But even having a stock hit double your cost is a mini thrill.

Back when I held 20+ holdings most of the time, the thrill (and the profit) didn’t carry the weight it is now. If one owns 25 holdings and 24 of them make 10% gains each in a year (I call that a win) and the 25th one triples in price (400% gain-I call that a helluva win) our alpha is increased by 15.6% because of the “triple.” Nice.

But if one held only 10 stocks, 9 of which gained 10% each and 1 which tripled (400% gain) our alpha is increased by 49.6%. That’s quite a difference.

Depending on whose formulae one uses, I think it’s safe to say that the general consensus of diversity (defined as having more positions in different sectors, industries, and flavors) being able to bring less risk to a portfolio, breaks down after somewhere in the range of 8-12 positions. In other words, adding positions after this point (whichever is used) seldom adds downside protection in a downward market, and usually comes at the cost of less gain in the uptrends than would have been gained using one’s Best Ten (or 8 or 12) ideas.

I didn’t hear anyone recommend for anyone to have 1 or 2 holdings, but I can see the attraction, especially if said investor had considerable holdings in real estate, diamonds, gold, silver, banks, casinos, etc., and/or a Sugar Momma, and most investors here are too humble to tell us anything like that.

If you had a spare $1m and had to choose 1 stock to invest it all in for 10 years without looking at it again until 2027, or hire a smart and honest advisor to invest $50k in his top 20 equity ideas, which would you choose?

I’m probably contrarian, but I think I’d put it all in Google. No, I don’t know how they’ll be doing in 2027. I don’t even know what their products will be in 2027. But I like what they’ve done so far and I like their chances of large success better than the advisor’s “20 best ideas.”

I’ve had big losses, but nothing like what you had to experience. I’m sure it would affect my thinking too. But I still come back to my original point because I think it would be a shame if you mistook the reason for losses as lack of diversity diversity instead of over-use of leverage, if that should be the case. (Not saying it is.)

I hope your investments work hard for you, Chris, and thanks again.

Dan

9 Likes

Depending on whose formulae one uses, I think it’s safe to say that the general consensus of diversity (defined as having more positions in different sectors, industries, and flavors) being able to bring less risk to a portfolio, breaks down after somewhere in the range of 8-12 positions.

Hi Dan
I agree totally. If you take your 10 best picks, to pick 10 companies that can average up 20% or 25% gain is quite possible, and certainly not inconceivable. To pick 50 companies that can average that kind of gain just ‘ain’t gonna happen!’ But that’s just the way I think about it.

Saul

4 Likes

I agree with Saul, conviction might have been the prime mover but the proximate cause is leverage. If you don’t owe anyone money you can be as poor as a church mouse but you can’t go broke. This was the reason why I stopped selling cash secured puts and only sell covered calls. While in theory they are the same in practice they are not. With calls it does not matter if the price goes up or down, you are covered, they give you money to assign the option. When puts are assigned you are the one handing over money.

There are two words which best describe portfolios: “robustness” and “fragility.” Leverage trades fragility for extra yield.

Denny Schlesinger

5 Likes

With calls it does not matter if the price goes up or down, you are covered, they give you money to assign the option. When puts are assigned you are the one handing over money.

And there is a good reason for that - when puts are assigned you are buying a stock, on which you were bullish, at a lower overall price than buying it outright. When they don’t get assigned, yu still get to keep the premium.
When calls get assigned, you are selling a stock, on which you were bearish, but one which is going up. You have no participation on the upside. And when calls don’t get assigned, you have to keep a stock that is going down.
So the put-call parity is in theory only. Mathematically, yes, bond + call (+ dividends) = stock + put or in this case, assuming cash = bond; cash - put = stock - call. But the stock market overall goes up on an average, and unless you are Warren Buffett able to handicap things perfectly; it is better to be on the left side of that equation than the right side. Perhaps we should modify the equation to “bond + call + dividends + future capital gains = stock + put” to reflect that owning a stock in the end is better than having to give it up.

I’d be interested in learning whether all your holdings came back (or survived) and where you would be without leverage if you had just held and taken your licks in cash.

Dan,

If I had no leverage then it would have been similar to what happened to me in 2008-2009. I was down 58% in 2008 and then another 15-20% by March of 2009. I was not leveraged and I fully recovered by 2010. I was able to recover because I was able to ride out the downturn. It is important to

Had I had no leverage then I would not have been up 70% during the first 7 months of 2015. I may have been up only 30% by then. Yes, I would probably be above the August 2015 high by now had I had no leverage. But the whole point of my post was that the reason for the leverage in the first place was that I thought I had figured out how to get higher returns than I had been getting previously. It was inconceivable to me that ALL my stocks which I believe to still be undervalued would drop by 30-60%…all at the same time. I view this somewhat analogous as someone thinking they can get great returns by putting all their money in 2 stocks. It is such conviction that can lead someone to take larger risk than they should.

Yes, without leverage they won’t lose as much. However, me thinking that it is inconceivable that all my stocks could drop 30-60% in the same timeframe is a lot like thinking that NVDA and SHOP cannot go to zero. It sure sounds unlikely but stranger things have happened. Question: would you be willing to give all your money to Tobias Luetke or Jensen Huang to manage?

Regarding diversity, with each stock you add to a portfolio you get diminishing diversification. Going from a 2 stock portfolio to a 3 stock portfolio greatly reduces the risk. Adding a 4th further reduces the risk but not as much as adding the 3rd position. Note: the size of each position matters a lot too. Have 1 stock at 80% allocation and another 10 stocks at 2% each is not as safe as having 4 stocks at 25% each. Each person has their own risk tolerance, but I would say that once you get to 5-6 stocks you’ve eliminated a lot of the firm-specific risk; if one went to zero then you’d still have 80-85% of your portfolio.

4 Likes