Many investors understand the need for portfolio management.

Unfortunately, most investment professionals work very hard to make their portfolio management extremely confusing.

• They have a vested interest in creating investor confusion.
• They use jargon designed to intimidate you and make it difficult for you to understand.

But portfolio management is actually not that complicated if you stick to five key concepts for portfolio management success.

Concept One: Utilize Diversification Effectively to Reduce Risk

Most people understand the basic concept of diversification: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. However, no matter how sophisticated you are, it’s easy to get caught in a trap. Proper diversification is a major key to successful portfolio management.

Concept Two: Dissimilar Price Movement, Diversification Enhances Returns

If you have two investment portfolios with the same average or arithmetic return, the portfolio with less volatility will have a greater compound rate of return. You want to design your portfolio so that it has as little volatility as necessary to achieve your goals.

Concept Three: Employ Asset Class Investing

Many investors feel that they could have executed better than they did during the last few years.

Unfortunately, most investors are using the wrong tools and put themselves at a significant disadvantage to institutional investors. The average investor who uses actively managed mutual funds is trying to fix a sink with a screwdriver, when they really need a pipe wrench. You need the right tools.

Almost all investors would benefit by using institutional asset classes due to:

1. Lower operating expenses
2. Lower turnover resulting in lower costs
3. Lower turnover resulting in lower taxes
4. Consistently maintained market segments

Concept Four: Global Diversification Reduces Risk

We’ve all read about the concept of a “global village”—that we’re getting closer and closer together.

Technology is creating a new paradigm in which businesses around the world are tied together, just as markets are now tied together. International investments should be a part of your portfolio.

Concept Five: Design Portfolios That Are Efficient

The process of developing a strategic portfolio using Modern Portfolio Theory is mathematical in nature and can appear daunting.  This concept boils down to one simple point: for every
level of risk, there is some optimum combination of investments that will give you the highest rate of return.

Given today’s market volatility, one of the most important things you can do as an investor is to ensure that your investment plan is current. Your plan should examine where you are now and where you need to go to
realize your financial goals, and should also identify the gaps you need to overcome.

In recent years, structured products have gained favor among retail investors in Europe and the US. Investment banks promote these securities as sophisticated tools to help investors manage downside risk, enhance returns, or achieve other investment objectives.

Sales have grown briskly since 2006, and despite a decline after the 2008 market crisis, some industry sources expect a rebound in sales and a flurry of new products in the future.

With this in mind, it may be useful to understand how the products work and to evaluate the costs, benefits, and tradeoffs before considering one in your investment strategy.

Basic design

A structured product is a contract that promises to pay a future amount based on the performance of an underlying asset, such as a stock, market index, or commodity. The payoff is typically linked to a preset formula.

Most structured products are designed to either preserve capital or enhance returns, and are typically issued as notes. The notes offer a specific payout over a designated period or at maturity, and the final payout depends on the performance of the underlying asset as well as the value of the derivatives written on it.

Since the product typically is issued by an investment bank, the investor is exposed to the credit risk of that entity.

One common product, a principal-protected note, generally offers a minimum return equal to the original investment, plus a potential return tied to performance of an underlying asset, such as a stock market index. If the index drops during the term, the investor gets his money back, but if the index rises, he may receive the upside gain, but usually only a part of the underlying asset’s gain.

Structured products can be replicated by portfolios composed of an interest-bearing instrument, such as a certificate of deposit or zero-coupon bond, equity securities, and options or other derivative securities whose performance is linked to the underlying index.

A few common characteristics of structured products are:

• Complex design: Most products have a complex design, which can make analysis of pricing, risk exposure, and potential outcomes more difficult. Some investors equate this complexity with higher potential returns, when, in fact, it may only mask high fees and risk. Worse yet, investors may not understand the range of possible outcomes. During the 2008 market crisis, some investors learned a hard lesson when the issuing firm went bankrupt or when their structured product experienced losses from poor performance of the underlying asset.
• Substantial cost: These products tend to carry a significant markup and costs that in some cases are difficult to quantify, especially if an investor lacks the technical knowledge to analyze the underlying components of the strategy.
• Replication: The payoff of virtually any structured product can be replicated in a portfolio by holding the underlying securities, then buying or selling derivatives written on those securities. In many cases, the costs associated with the replication portfolio are much lower than the structured product itself.
• Tradeoffs: In return for receiving a prescribed payout, investors must accept a tradeoff in the form of a lower return and/or limited upside potential. When evaluating a structured payout, remember that there is no free lunch in the risk-return tradeoff. To pursue higher expected returns, you must accept more risk.
• Multiple Risks: First, there are the inherent risks of the underlying security (e.g., the stock or index). Investors also are exposed to credit risk of the issuing firm. The contract is an agreement with the issuer to make a pre-determined payment in the future, and thus, it is contingent on the firm being able to deliver. Liquidity risk is another issue. Although many structured products are listed and traded on exchanges, they may be difficult to sell, especially in a volatile market.
• Tax considerations: It is also important to check tax consequences. Some instruments may have certain appeal under the current tax rule. But, often, tax consequences differ according to the investment situation (e.g., whether one buys at the issuance or in the secondary market).

Who might benefit?

One example may be an individual who currently holds restricted company stock whose value may account for a significant portion of his total wealth. Although he might prefer to diversify this exposure, company rules may prohibit a sale until some future date. A structured product might provide protection against the downside risk of the company’s stock.

Perhaps most important, investors who are considering a structured product should consider why they even need a highly structured payoff in the future—and if so, whether the payoff can be structured by other means in the portfolio. In many cases, the strategy can be replicated at a lower cost, and perhaps with less risk. Many investors would prefer an alternative that is less complex and more transparent.

And as the recent credit crisis taught many investors, it is wise to avoid investing in things you do not understand.

The US stock market has taken investors on a bumpy ride in recent years.

Market volatility has tested investor discipline and prompted some people to question their commitment to equities. While no one knows the future, looking at the past may help you gain a better view of long-term market performance and put the recent market volatility in perspective.

The above chart shows the historical distribution of US market returns since 1926. The performance years are stacked in ascending order by return range. This chart illustrates that:

• Market performance over the past two years has been severe by historical standards. In 2008, US stocks experienced their second-worst calendar return in eighty-four years. Then, in 2009, stocks rebounded strongly to deliver a return in the top quartile of the historical distribution.
• Over the long term, the market’s positive return years have outnumbered the negative return years. Since 1926, the market has experienced a positive return in almost three-quarters of the calendar years.
• Not only are the positive years more numerous, the chart shows a larger concentration of performance in the higher ranges of returns.
• The sequence of calendar returns appears random, suggesting that accurately predicting future performance is a difficult task for any investor or professional manager.

Over time, the market has rewarded investors who can bear the risk of stocks and stay committed through various periods of performance. Therefore, the best strategy is to ignore the “noise” and stick to your investment plan.

Proponents of active investment management believe that skilled managers can outperform the financial markets through security selection, market timing, and other efforts based on prediction.

While the promise of above-market returns is alluring, investors must face the reality that as a group, US-based active investment managers do not consistently deliver on this promise, according to research provided by Standard & Poor’s .

S&P Indices publishes a semi-annual scorecard that compares the performance of actively managed mutual funds to S&P benchmarks.

The report analyzes the returns of US-based stock and fixed income managers investing in the US, international, and emerging markets.

Over the last five years:

• About 60% of actively managed large cap US stock funds did not beat the S&P 500
• 77% of mid cap funds did not beat the S&P 400
• two-thirds of the small cap manager universe did not outperform the S&P Small Cap 600 Index
• Underperformance of active strategies is particularly strong in the international and emerging markets, where trading costs and other market frictions tend to be higher.

Furthermore, across the thirteen fixed income fund categories, all but one manager experienced at least a 70% rate of underperformance over five years.

Proponents of active investment management will simply say buy managers who can outperform the market. Of course, a couple problems occur with this strategy:

• It is impossible to identify managers who will outperform the markets in the future.
• Most managers who have outperformed the markets cannot consistently do so in the future.

The message is clear: As a group, actively managed funds often struggle to add value relative to an appropriate benchmark—and the longer the time horizon, the greater the challenge for active managers to maintain a winning track record.

Human emotion is an important factor in successful investing.

Would it surprise you to know that the worst stocks during the bear market that ran from October 9, 2007 to March 9, 2009 turned out to be–by far–the best performing stocks over the next 12 months?

Bespoke Investment Group did an interesting study where they took the S&P 500 stocks and ranked them from 1 to 500 with 1 being the worst performer and 500 being the best performer during the October 9, 2007 to March 9, 2009 bear market. Then, they sliced this ranking into deciles, with decile 1 being the 50 worst performers, decile 2 the next 50 worst performers all the way to decile 10, which were the 50 best performers.

They discovered that decile 1 (the 50 worst performing stocks during the bear market) turned around and rose, on average, 371% during the next 12 months that ended March 9, 2010. Decile 2, the next 50 worst performers, rose 184% over the ensuing 12 months. By contrast, decile 10, the 50 best performing stocks during the bear market, only rose 30% over the following 12 months. Essentially, the worst stocks during the bear market performed the best during the bull market and vice versa.

The study also showed that the average change of all stocks in the S&P 500 was 122% over the 12 months following the March 9, 2009 low.

This study points out one reason why understanding human emotion is an important factor in successful investing.

Think of it this way: on March 9, 2009, at the bear market low, would you have been enthusiastic about buying stocks that had declined 80-90% over the previous 17 months? Probably not because your emotions would have been so rattled, yet, those were the types of stocks that turned out to be the best performers over the next 12 months, according to Bespoke Investment Group.

As the last few years have shown, successful investing sometimes requires that you gather your courage and do what seems most frightening because the point of maximum “frightening” may also be the point of maximum profit potential.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

This question has been coming up a lot lately in the media and some academic journals. Thinking Modern Portfolio Theory died last year is based on the misconception that Modern Portfolio Theory will guarantee against a loss.

That is simply not the case. What MPT believes is diversification to a portfolio, which over the long term can potentially reduce a portfolio’s volatility versus a single asset portfolio.

According to a recent article in Investment News:

• MPT does not guarantee against a loss
• Fixed income helped reduce the amount of loss in many portfolios last year
• Many advisors are finding that their clients had too much equities and not enough fixed income for their risk tolerance

Remember, when investing in a diversified portfolio, you will experience negative returns periodically.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

From the January, 2000 Smart Money Magazine:

“The Underachiever’s Club – Thanks for Nothing: Sixteen mutual funds reopened to new investors in 1999. But returns for these three make you wonder why they bothered.”

The three mutual funds highlighted in Smart Money’s “Underachiever’s Club” were:

• Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value
• Neuberger Berman Genesis
• Vanguard Windsor

The Smart Money article focused on each fund’s market underperformance since reopening – a period of only six months! Six months is hardly enough time to judge an investment or investment strategy.

Of course, it’s easy to find winners and losers using hindsight. The problem was, this article highlighted these funds as losers although they were on the verge of outperformance.

Look at the subsequent five-year (2000-2005) compound returns for each of Smart Money’s “underachievers” versus the general market.

• Lord Abbett Small-Cap Value: 17.05%
• Neuberger Berman Genesis: 17.44%
• Vanguard Windsor: 7.62%
• S&P 500: -1.13%

Investing based on tips from the financial media is dangerous to your wealth and will not help achieve your goals.

Finding an advisor you trust and developing a plan with that advisor will!

*This article does not represent a recommendation to buy or sell the mentioned funds. Past performance does not guarantee future results!

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.