Ryan Jacobs No Comments

Position Sizing: The Key to Properly Executing an Investment Strategy

Position sizing is a crucial aspect of successful investing. It involves determining the appropriate amount of capital to allocate to each investment in order to achieve sufficient risk management and maximize returns. In this article, we will explore the importance of position sizing and how it contributes to executing an investment strategy effectively.

The Role of Position Sizing

Position sizing is a key factor of investment strategy, serving as a tool for managing and mitigating various risks inherent in the market. By carefully allocating a specific percentage of your portfolio to each position, you can effectively reduce the impact of both company-specific and market-related risks. This approach not only safeguards your investments but also plays a pivotal role in maximizing returns. Oversizing a position may expose the portfolio to potential catastrophic losses, while under sizing can lead to the risk of subpar performance. Achieving the art of precision sizing entails finding the delicate balance that best suits your objectives, ultimately optimizing your portfolio’s returns.

Systemic Risk

Mitigating systemic risk, which encompasses market-wide or sector-specific vulnerabilities, involves prudent portfolio management strategies. One effective approach is to diversify your portfolio and limit each position to 20% of the total portfolio cost. This prudent allocation shields you from overexposure to any single company or industry, reducing the potential for substantial losses during market downturns or sector-wide crises while concurrently maximizing potential returns.

To further fortify your defenses against systemic risk, it is essential to consider the industries and sectors in which you invest. Given that systemic risk transcends individual companies and can affect entire sectors, it’s crucial to avoid excessive concentration in one area. For instance, an overly tech-heavy portfolio could be vulnerable to adverse events in the technology sector. Similarly, over-concentration in sectors like healthcare, energy, or financials carries its own risks. To safeguard against regional and exchange risk, diversify across different regions and industries, as well as individual businesses. This strategic diversification approach effectively manages systemic risk without the need for excessive over-diversification.

Temporal diversification, or averaging into positions, serves as a strategy to mitigate systemic risk. This patient method involves making a series of purchases over a defined period, capitalizing on the price fluctuations of shares. It’s a nuanced way of building into or out of positions, especially when dealing with less-liquid securities. For investors, mastering this approach is invaluable.

Maintaining price discipline is of utmost importance. Even when a company’s shares appear to be a bargain, they can experience significant price drops. If an investor identifies a promising opportunity yet has reservations—be it due to a lack of full conviction or limited tradable volume—it might make sense to spread out the investment. Instead of making a singular 20% purchase, the investor could opt for a series of four increments, each constituting 5% of the intended investment, spread out over time.

This phased approach allows for setting specific parameters. For instance, if the company achieves certain milestones, or if shares hit a predetermined price, it could trigger another 5% addition to the portfolio. The benefits of this strategy are twofold: an investor can average into a position that consistently meets expectations or acquire shares at progressively better prices if they continue to dip, maximizing the potential return on the same opportunity.

Company-Specific Risk

Having a portfolio with five unrelated positions can effectively mitigate company-specific risk. When your portfolio consists of multiple unrelated ideas or companies, it ensures that the negative developments in a single company, such as poor management decisions, regulatory issues, or financial instability, will have a limited impact on your overall portfolio.

With just five positions, the impact of each company on your portfolio’s performance is more significant than if you held many more positions with minimal allocations, such as 5% positions. This means that when you make correct assumptions about a specific situation within one of these five companies, it can have a substantial impact on your portfolio’s performance, potentially leading to significant gains.

A focused portfolio of five unrelated positions strikes a balance between diversification and impact. It allows you to spread your investments across different ideas, mitigating company-specific risks, while also ensuring that your correct assessments and actions have a more meaningful influence on your overall portfolio returns.

Investors occasionally grapple with a lack of conviction in their top investment choices. Additionally, the volatility of a concentrated portfolio might prove too taxing for some to endure year-to-year. One way to alleviate this is by adjusting the size of each investment within the portfolio.

For example, if we determine that 20% at-cost positions effectively influence portfolio performance while also containing the risk of severe losses, but the aim is to further dampen volatility, then cutting each at-cost investment to half of the initial percentage becomes a logical move. Holding ten positions, each at 10%, still results in a reasonably concentrated portfolio. If these positions are judiciously selected, this can help in reducing volatility.

However, one consequence of decreasing the concentration of each holding is the need to include more investments to complete the portfolio. As the number of required positions rises, the potency of each idea might diminish. Moreover, to make a significant impact on the overall portfolio’s performance, each position must appreciate considerably in value. This might tempt an investor to opt for riskier securities to counterbalance the diluted concentration.

It’s essential to understand that portfolio strategies aren’t always binary. A hybrid approach could be employed. For instance, allocating two or three 20% positions to your highest conviction ideas, while populating the remainder of the portfolio with 10% positions that hold promising potential, might offer a balanced blend of concentration and risk mitigation.

The Importance of Simplicity and Logic

An investment strategy must be simple, logical, and easy to execute. If a strategy is overly complex or lacks a clear rationale, it can be described as speculation rather than a sound investment approach. Position sizing is an integral part of a logical investment strategy, as it provides a structured framework for allocating capital.

Investment strategies that could expose an investor to a total loss on their portfolio are considered speculative. In reality, any financial instrument could become worthless suddenly due to the inherent structure of all financial markets. Rare but genuine scenarios, such as unforeseen fraud, regulatory clampdowns, or catastrophic events, could render even the most stable securities worthless. Thus, while the term “speculation” is not easily defined, it is recognizable: if a security or strategy could result in a total loss during its typical operation, it should be avoided.

Certain forms of speculation, which essentially involve making assumptions and predictions, are integral to investment analysis. They are also vital for business underwriting. Predicting various operational factors of a business based on past performance and confidence in future operations are logical exercises. Relying solely on zero-prediction analysis often leads investors to seek companies with the highest current yield or the most significant current discount to tangible value. While this might be an attractive strategy, especially for smaller investors seeking significant discounts, some of the best investments occur when assumptions are made about a currently profitable business. Confidence in these assumptions allows investors to commit for the long term. This approach mirrors business-like investment, where one remains a committed owner of shares because they recognize the shares’ current value and have confidence in their predictions based on the company’s track record.

Learning to make thoughtful predictions based on confidence in available data is a valuable skill for investors. What distinguishes investment analysis predictions from pure speculation is the potential damage speculation can inflict on a portfolio’s permanent integrity. For instance, if you’ve bought shares in a consistently performing company and made predictions about its future strategies, you might achieve above-market returns by holding onto that company for 3-5 years. If your assumptions don’t pan out, the worst-case scenario might be underperformance relative to peers and the general market index. However, you still have the opportunity to salvage value from your shares and reinvest elsewhere. By being consistent in your conservative predictions, any losses from incorrect assumptions remain recoverable.

In contrast, speculation is akin to walking a tightrope without a safety net. High-risk predictions seeking high rewards, using callable or floating leverage, buying overvalued shares dependent solely on growth, or making macroeconomic bets with disastrous potential outcomes should be avoided. Almost all financial transactions can be intelligently structured to include some form of price protection as a safety barrier. Committing to a logical and straightforward investment strategy, rather than a complex one, is the best way to minimize risk and maximize returns.

Executing an Investment Strategy

Executing an investment strategy effectively is crucial, and having a well-thought-out approach can offer protection against both company-specific risk and systemic market risk. One such strategy involves focusing on a portfolio with just five positions, which can provide a robust balance between diversification and impact.

With a portfolio of five positions, you can effectively manage company-specific risk. It’s an approach that allows you to stay agile and responsive while still minimizing exposure to any single company’s setbacks. This way, if one investment underperforms due to poor management decisions, regulatory issues, or financial instability, it won’t unduly affect your entire portfolio.

Moreover, the five-position strategy offers flexibility. You can employ a “basket” approach to create a 20% position within your portfolio. For example, if you have a collection of investment ideas that share a common theme or would all benefit from similar market conditions, you can allocate four 5% positions to collectively make up a 20% position in your portfolio. This approach allows you to retain the benefits of a concentrated portfolio while diversifying within the 20% allocation to capture potential market opportunities more effectively. This is similar to the portfolio of ten 10% positions described earlier. However, this approach groups a select number of positions under a similarly themed basket, which can be thought of as a collective position.

In essence, the five-position strategy combines the advantages of concentrated and diversified portfolios, offering a balanced and flexible way to execute your investment strategy while addressing both company-specific and systemic risks.

Conclusion

Position sizing is indeed a critical element of successful investing, and different strategies work for different investors. Let’s explore the concept of a five-position portfolio and its effectiveness in mitigating risk and potentially generating superior returns.

A five-position portfolio involves allocating a specific percentage of your investments to just five carefully chosen securities. This approach has several advantages:

  1. Risk Mitigation: Embracing a focused portfolio of five positions empowers you to closely monitor and deeply comprehend each investment, enhancing your ability to make well-informed decisions. While diversification across various asset classes is a widely used risk management strategy, a concentrated portfolio ensures that you can fully capitalize on high-conviction ideas. In such a scenario, if one position encounters a downturn, its impact remains proportionate, thereby allowing you to address and mitigate risks more directly, and potentially leading to a quicker and more strategic response to safeguard your overall portfolio.
  2. Superior Returns: By concentrating your investments in a few select positions, you have the opportunity to focus on high-conviction ideas that you believe will outperform the market. This can lead to potentially superior returns compared to a highly diversified portfolio that includes a multitude of average-performing assets.
  3. Simplicity and Ease of Execution: Managing a five-position portfolio is simpler and more manageable for most individual investors. It allows you to thoroughly research and stay up to date on each investment, making it easier to react to changing market conditions and news.

However, it’s important to note that a five-position portfolio can be more volatile than a portfolio with a larger number of positions, such as a fifty-position portfolio. This higher volatility is because a poor-performing asset has a more significant impact on the overall portfolio when there are fewer positions to offset losses. Therefore, this strategy may not be suitable for risk-averse investors who are excessively concerned about year-over-year volatility.

In such cases, a twenty-five-position portfolio might strike a balance between risk and diversification. However, it is typically more suitable for institutions with significant assets under management, like pension funds that have specific obligations coming due. For most individuals and institutions, a five-position portfolio is a practical choice.

It’s worth mentioning that famous value investors like Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, who have enjoyed outstanding long-term performance, used a conviction driven approach in their early partnerships. Their success demonstrates the potential of a concentrated portfolio strategy.

Nevertheless, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to portfolio sizing. Other renowned investors like Peter Lynch and Walter Schloss achieved exceptional records with more diversified portfolios. The key is to understand your risk tolerance, investment philosophy, and financial goals, and then align your portfolio size accordingly.

In conclusion, portfolio sizing is a highly individualized decision. Whether you choose a five-position portfolio for simplicity and potential superior returns or opt for more diversification, it should align with your investment strategy and comfort level. The experiences of famous investors show that success can be achieved through various approaches, but what matters most is understanding the psychological implications of your portfolio size and how it affects your ability to stay disciplined and benefit from long-term returns.

The information presented in this article is the opinion of Jacobs Investment Management and does not reflect the view of any other person or entity.  The information provided is believed to be from reliable sources, but no liability is accepted for any inaccuracies.  This is for information purposes and should not be construed as an investment recommendation.  Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. 

Ryan Jacobs No Comments

Global Investing through the Lens of Value Investing: Lessons from Templton and Cundill

Value investing has historically proven effective, not only in domestic markets but also internationally. Some investors have achieved outstanding success in foreign markets by following this approach. The essence of value investing, which involves seeking out undervalued assets trading below their intrinsic value, has been a key strategy for many renowned investors. The international market offers a diverse landscape for finding such investment opportunities, as evidenced by the triumphs of iconic value investors like Sir John Templeton and Peter Cundill. Their achievements in global markets serve as a testament to the potential of value investing beyond domestic boundaries, offering a blueprint for those aiming to explore and capitalize on international investment opportunities.

Sir John Templeton was a pioneering figure in the world of investment. Born on November 29, 1912, in Tennessee, USA, he displayed an early knack for economics and finance, earning a degree from Yale University and becoming a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.

Templeton’s professional career in finance began in 1937 on Wall Street. However, it was after World War II that he truly made his mark. In 1954, he founded the Templeton Growth Fund, one of the first mutual funds focusing on global investment opportunities. This move was revolutionary at the time, as most investors were primarily focused on U.S. stocks.

Templeton’s investment philosophy centered on “value investing.” He was known for buying stocks at times of maximum pessimism and selling them at times of optimism. His approach was deeply analytical, focusing on long-term trends and the intrinsic value of companies rather than short-term market fluctuations. Templeton was an early adopter of investing in emerging markets and was known for his rigorous, globally diversified approach.

One of his most famous investment moves was during the early stages of World War II, when he bought shares of every public European company trading for less than $1 per share. Many of these companies were in disarray due to the war, but Templeton’s bet paid off handsomely in the long term.

Beyond his financial success, Templeton was also known for his philanthropic efforts. He established the John Templeton Foundation in 1987, which supports research and initiatives at the intersection of science and religion. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1987 for his many philanthropic endeavors.

The impact of Sir John Templeton on global value investing is profound. He showed that a disciplined, patient, and globally aware approach could yield substantial returns. His methods influenced countless investors and set a precedent for looking beyond one’s national borders for investment opportunities. His legacy in finance is characterized by innovation, global perspective, and an unwavering commitment to finding value in overlooked places.

Peter Cundill was a highly respected figure in the world of finance, known for his disciplined approach to value investing. Born in Montreal, Canada, on July 21, 1938, Cundill developed an interest in the stock market at a young age. He graduated from McGill University and later qualified as a Chartered Accountant, which laid the foundation for his analytical approach to investing.

Cundill’s career in investment began in the early 1960s when he started working for Greenshields Incorporated, a Canadian brokerage firm. However, it was in 1974 that he truly began to shape his legacy in the world of finance. In that year, he took over the All Canadian Venture Fund, which was renamed the Cundill Value Fund. This marked the beginning of his distinct approach to value investing on a global scale.

His investment philosophy was heavily influenced by the principles of Benjamin Graham, often regarded as the father of value investing. Cundill’s approach was characterized by meticulous research and the patience to wait for the right opportunity. He focused on finding companies that were trading significantly below their intrinsic value, a strategy that often led him to invest in markets and companies that were out of favor with the majority of investors.

One of Cundill’s notable strategies was his global perspective. He did not limit his investments to North American markets, which was relatively uncommon at the time. Instead, he searched for value across various global markets, often finding opportunities in overlooked or undervalued regions. This global approach set him apart from many of his contemporaries and proved to be highly successful.

Throughout his career, Cundill’s fund consistently outperformed the market, earning him a reputation as a master of value investing. His focus on deep value, thorough research, and a global outlook had a significant influence on the field. He was known not just for his investment acumen, but also for his intellectual curiosity and humility.

Peter Cundill’s impact on global value investing was profound. He demonstrated the importance of looking beyond short-term market trends and focusing on the underlying value of assets. His global approach to value investing influenced a generation of investors and showed that opportunities could be found in the most unexpected places. His legacy continues to influence value investing strategies worldwide.

Advantages of Global Value Investing

Value investing, when applied to global markets, offers a strategic advantage, particularly when domestic markets like the U.S. are experiencing inflated valuations. By casting a wider net across various international economies, investors can tap into markets that are potentially undervalued, providing a fertile ground for discovering investment opportunities at more reasonable prices. This approach not only aligns with the core principles of diversification in value investing but also mitigates risks associated with overvalued domestic markets. It embodies the philosophy of looking for “points of maximum pessimism” globally, where undervalued assets may be hidden, offering a cost-effective diversification strategy beyond the often higher-priced U.S. market. This method not only broadens the investment horizon but also capitalizes on the price disparities between different markets, unlocking value in areas that are less recognized or understood by the majority of investors.

Developed markets, known for their robust regulatory frameworks and stable economic environments, can also be fertile hunting grounds for value investments, particularly when asset valuations are attractively low. This scenario aligns with Peter Cundill’s strategy of conducting meticulous research to uncover hidden gems. While emerging markets are often touted for their high growth potential, developed markets should not be overlooked for value investing. They can offer the dual advantage of regulatory security and undervalued assets, especially during economic downturns or market corrections. In such situations, even well-regulated and established markets can house undervalued companies with significant upside potential. For value investors, these conditions create opportunities to invest in fundamentally strong companies at lower prices, an approach that balances the pursuit of growth with the stability and predictability inherent in developed markets. This strategy requires a discerning eye to identify these undervalued assets, but for those willing to do the research, developed markets can offer compelling opportunities for value investing.

For value investors, the fluctuations in currency exchange rates present a unique opportunity, especially in the context of Sir John Templeton’s investment strategies. A key aspect of this approach involves capitalizing on situations where the U.S. dollar is strong against undervalued foreign currencies. An undervalued currency typically refers to a situation where a currency’s value is lower than its perceived intrinsic worth, often due to economic, political, or market-driven factors.

When investing in foreign assets with a strong dollar, investors are able to purchase more with less, effectively acquiring assets at a discount. This becomes particularly attractive when these foreign assets themselves are undervalued, allowing for a double benefit. First, there’s the potential gain from the asset’s price appreciation as it returns to its intrinsic value. Second, there’s the potential for additional gain if the foreign currency rebounds against the dollar. 

This dual potential for revaluation — both of the asset and the currency — can significantly enhance returns. It’s a strategy that requires careful analysis to determine the true value of a currency, considering factors like interest rates, economic growth, trade balances, and political stability. Identifying currencies that are cheap relative to their fundamentals, and pairing this with investments in undervalued assets in the same region, can be a powerful combination for value investors looking to maximize their gains in the global market.

Challenges in Global Value Investing

Investing in foreign markets, as adeptly demonstrated by Peter Cundill, involves a nuanced understanding of not just economic and political risks, but also the intricacies of different accounting practices that can significantly affect the valuation of assets. One key challenge is that accounting standards vary widely across countries. In some regions, practices may inflate asset values, presenting an overly optimistic view of a company’s financial health. In others, conservative accounting norms might understate asset values, creating hidden opportunities for value investors.

Cundill’s investment strategies were particularly noteworthy in this context. He was known for his thorough research and deep understanding of international accounting differences, enabling him to identify mispriced assets that others overlooked. For instance, in Russia, where political and business corruption can be prevalent, Cundill navigated these challenges by deeply analyzing companies beyond surface-level financials. He recognized that in markets with higher risks of corruption and less transparent business practices, asset values could be significantly distorted, either overvalued due to fraudulent activities or undervalued due to lack of investor confidence.

This approach requires a meticulous assessment of the true value of assets, factoring in the risks associated with political instability and corruption. Investors must conduct comprehensive due diligence to decipher the real financial position of companies in such markets. By doing so, they can uncover undervalued assets in challenging environments, much like Cundill did in Russia, where he capitalized on the eventual recovery of undervalued assets in a market rife with complexities and challenges.

Sir John Templeton’s investment approach, especially his focus on global markets, indeed highlights the importance of understanding diverse regulatory environments in value investing. Different countries have their own unique regulatory frameworks that can significantly impact the valuation and performance of investments. These regulations may influence everything from corporate governance and financial reporting to market operations and investor protection.

Templeton’s strategy involved not just identifying undervalued assets globally but also conducting extensive research to understand the local regulatory landscapes. This approach is crucial because regulations can greatly affect the risk and potential return of investments. For example, a country with strong investor protection laws and transparent financial reporting standards may offer a safer environment for investment, albeit potentially with lower returns. On the other hand, a market with less stringent regulations might offer higher growth potential but also comes with greater risks.

Contemporary investors looking to navigate global markets can learn from Templeton’s approach. It’s important to:

Research Local Regulations:  Understanding the specific legal and regulatory framework of each market is crucial. This includes knowledge of tax laws, restrictions on foreign investments, corporate governance standards, and financial disclosure requirements.

Assess Impact on Investments: Regulatory environments can affect the profitability and risk profile of investments. Investors should evaluate how local regulations might impact their investment strategy and potential returns.

Stay Informed on Changes: Regulatory landscapes can evolve, and staying informed about these changes is important for managing and adjusting investment strategies accordingly.

Diversify Appropriately: Given the varying degrees of regulatory environments, diversifying across different markets can help mitigate the risks associated with any single regulatory regime.

By adopting a thorough and research-driven approach similar to Templeton’s, investors can better navigate the complexities of global markets and make more informed investment decisions. Understanding and adapting to different regulatory environments is a key skill in successful global value investing.

Understanding the people and culture of a market is a vital component of value investing in foreign markets, a strategy employed by notable investors such as Sir John Templeton and Peter Cundill. Their investment approaches extended beyond mere financial analysis, often involving visits to the areas of interest and immersing themselves in local cultures.

Gaining cultural insights is crucial. By understanding local customs, consumer behavior, and business practices, investors can better assess market dynamics and potential business performance. For example, specific consumer preferences and social norms can heavily influence a company’s success in a particular country.

Having a local market understanding is another key aspect. By spending time in a market, investors obtain a clearer picture of the economic conditions, including market development, the regulatory environment, and political climate. This direct approach can uncover details not visible from a distance.

Building relationships is also an important strategy. Visiting a market not only allows for direct observation of potential investment opportunities but also enables investors to form local contacts. These relationships are invaluable for gaining deeper insights and staying updated on local developments. They can also assist in navigating local bureaucratic and regulatory processes.

Direct observation offers a significant advantage. Seeing the operations of potential investment targets and the general state of infrastructure and economic activity provides a more accurate understanding of the investment environment.

Finally, mitigating information asymmetry is essential. In foreign markets, local investors or stakeholders might have more or better information. Through on-the-ground research and immersion in local markets, investors can reduce this gap, leading to more informed decision-making.

Thus, comprehending the culture and people of a foreign market is about more than just collecting information; it involves a profound, nuanced understanding of the investment environment. This approach, as exemplified by Templeton and Cundill, combines financial analysis with a deep grasp of cultural and social contexts.

Adopting strategies to mitigate risks in foreign markets involves a mix of sophisticated techniques and thorough research. Currency hedging is a key method, particularly relevant for investors dealing with assets in different currencies. This strategy is aimed at protecting against fluctuations in exchange rates, which can significantly impact the value of foreign investments when converted back to the investor’s home currency. Methods like forward contracts and currency futures are commonly used for this purpose, allowing investors to set future exchange rates and therefore manage the risk of currency volatility.

Market puts are another important tool, serving as a form of insurance against market declines. These put options give investors the right to sell a specific amount of an underlying asset at a predetermined price within a certain time frame. If the market falls below the strike price of the put, the investor can sell the option at a profit, thus offsetting some of the losses in their portfolio. This strategy is particularly useful in volatile or unpredictable markets.

Beyond currency hedging and market puts, diversification across asset classes is a fundamental risk management technique. Investing in a mix of asset types, like stocks, bonds, and real estate, can reduce overall portfolio risk. Using derivatives such as futures contracts and swaps is another way to hedge against various risks. Additionally, dynamic asset allocation, where the composition of a portfolio is adjusted in response to market conditions, can help manage risk.

Leveraging local expertise is also crucial in foreign markets. Local experts provide insights into market trends, regulatory changes, and other regional specifics that might impact investments. They can guide on reliable local partners and help navigate legal systems and business practices.

Comprehensive due diligence is the cornerstone of foreign market investment. This involves an in-depth analysis of potential investments, taking into account not just financial metrics but also political stability, the regulatory environment, corporate governance, and macroeconomic conditions. Such a comprehensive approach enables investors to make well-informed decisions and anticipate potential risks.

Overall, navigating foreign markets successfully requires a blend of risk management techniques, leveraging local knowledge, and extensive research. By employing these strategies, investors can safeguard their portfolios from the various risks associated with international investing.

Embracing Global Value Investing with Strategic Foresight

Global investing, particularly from a value investing perspective, has been a crucial element in the success stories of Sir John Templeton and Peter Cundill, offering a pathway to robust portfolio growth for Western investors. These iconic investors demonstrated the significant benefits of expanding investment horizons beyond domestic markets. Templeton’s approach was groundbreaking; he was known for his global perspective and his willingness to invest in markets that others considered too risky. This strategy was rooted in identifying undervalued companies worldwide, not just in well-known markets. Similarly, Cundill’s investment journey was marked by his exploration of international markets, especially those experiencing temporary difficulties, leveraging these situations to capitalize on their eventual recovery.

Warren Buffett, another prominent figure in the investment world, has also recognized the value of international diversification. Though Buffett is predominantly known for his investments in American companies, his venture into Korean stocks through his personal account illustrates his adaptability and understanding of global value. He identified a period when Korean stocks were undervalued and seized the opportunity, applying his value investing principles in a market that was largely neglected by mainstream investors.

The successes of Templeton, Cundill, and Buffett in global markets underscore the importance of thorough research, deep understanding of various market environments, and patience. They committed considerable time and resources to study international markets, understanding their economic, political, and regulatory nuances. Their approach necessitated a robust commitment to due diligence and a willingness to explore unfamiliar territories.

Effective risk management was another key aspect of their investment strategies. Investing in foreign markets introduces a range of challenges, including currency fluctuations, political instability, and different accounting standards. These investors demonstrated adeptness in navigating these risks, often using diversification across regions and sectors as a strategy to hedge against potential downturns.

In conclusion, the investment journeys of Templeton, Cundill, and Buffett in global markets exemplify the effectiveness of applying value investing principles on an international scale. For American investors, this implies embracing a broader perspective of investment opportunities, characterized by rigorous research, patience, and a nuanced understanding of diverse markets, all while maintaining effective risk management. This approach not only diversifies investment portfolios but also aligns with the timeless principles of value investing, tapping into the rich potential of global markets.

The information presented in this article is the opinion of Jacobs Investment Management and does not reflect the view of any other person or entity.  The information provided is believed to be from reliable sources, but no liability is accepted for any inaccuracies.  This is for information purposes and should not be construed as an investment recommendation.  Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. 

Ryan Jacobs No Comments

The Power of Compounding: A Tale of Two Investors

Compound interest, often humorously dubbed “the eighth wonder of the world,” may not have a historical quote to back its grand title, but the principle behind the jest is no laughing matter. In this article, we explore the transformative power of compound interest through the lens of two investors with differing outcomes. This concept, though not officially recorded in the annals of history as a quote from a famed historical figure, captures the essence of its staggering potential in a way that resonates with many.

Picture compound interest as a snowball cascading down a slope: the higher its starting point, the more time it has to accumulate mass and momentum. In the realm of Investment Management, professionals strive to harness this compounding effect for their clients by overseeing asset portfolios and enacting strategies aligned with each client’s time frame and risk appetite.

‘Superinvestors’ are those exceptional investment managers who have showcased superior capital allocation skills by consistently delivering above-average returns over significant periods. Often, these investors have steered investment partnerships to impressive double-digit gains for decades—an extraordinary feat. As assets under management swell, it’s generally understood that the potential for future returns diminishes due to a shrinking pool of attractive investment opportunities. Nevertheless, a few have managed to compound their capital at remarkable rates, which is even more noteworthy considering they’ve achieved this while managing their partners’ funds.

We will engage in a hypothetical thought experiment to compare the long-term impacts of two contrasting investment trajectories. The first involves an investor who unfailingly earns an above-average 20% return throughout their entire career. The second describes an investor who has a varying rate of return.

Both scenarios offer rich insight into the mechanics of compounding and investment strategy, shedding light on how exceptional the discipline of investment management truly is when practiced at the highest levels.

Experiment One: Setting the Scene

Let’s introduce our two investors, Investor A, and Investor B. Each embarks on their investment journey with the same starting capital of $1 and a remarkable 50-year investment horizon.

Investor A follows a consistent approach, achieving a steady compounding interest rate of 20% throughout the entire 50 years. This strategy exemplifies the power of constant growth over a long period.

Investor B, in contrast, adopts a strategy with variable compounding rates: an aggressive 50% for the first decade, a solid 20% for the subsequent two decades, and a more conservative 10% for the final two decades. This approach leverages higher early gains that taper off as the investment manager matures, which can potentially lead to a larger final sum despite the reduced rates in the later years.

The growth of each investor’s portfolio can be estimated using the Future Value formula:

FV=PV×(1+r)n

where:

– FV represents the future value of the investment,

– PV is the present value or initial amount,

–  r is the annual interest rate (expressed as a decimal),

–  n is the number of years the money is invested or compounded.

  • Investor A (Steady 20% Rate)
    • First 10 Years: 20% annual growth, FV ~$6.19
    • Next 20 Years: Continues at 20%, FV ~$383.38
    • Final 20 Years: Remains at 20%, FV ~$9,100.44
  • Investor B (Variable Rates)
    • First 10 Years: High growth of 50%, FV ~$57.67
    • Next 20 Years: Slows to 20%, FV ~$2,210.93
    • Final 20 Years: Further slows to 10%, FV ~$14,874.03

Summary:

Investor A ends up with approximately $9,100.44 after 50 years with a steady compounding rate of 20%. Investor B, with a variable compounding strategy of 50% for the first 10 years, 20% for the next 20 years, and 10% for the final 20 years, ends up with approximately $14,874.03. Investor B’s strategy results in a higher final amount due to the aggressive growth in the initial years, which created a significant base that continued to grow at a decent rate.

The findings suggest that an investor who is able to implement a higher-returning strategy during the early years of compounding stands to benefit greatly from the increased initial capital. This allows for a slower compounding rate as the portfolio matures without significantly affecting the overall growth of the investment.

It is also worth noting the impact of asset growth in this scenario. While in an experimental setup where the initial investment is just $1, the effects might not be as clear, they become much more pronounced when we consider a more substantial initial sum, such as $1,000,000. With such an initial investment, the eventual outcomes for the hypothetical investors are striking approximately $9.1 billion for investor A, and around $14.9 billion for investor B. These figures are indeed remarkable, considering they originate from a starting point of one million dollars without additional contributions.

However, the experiment also illustrates that maintaining a consistent 20% return throughout the lifespan of a growing portfolio is an extremely challenging task. As the assets increase in value, the market inefficiencies that once could be exploited to generate significant returns diminish. Such inefficiencies become too small to have a meaningful impact on a large portfolio. Consequently, investors may need to assume greater risks to achieve the same rates of return that were obtainable with much less risk when the investment pool was smaller.

Therefore, it seems more practical to maximize returns by exploiting market inefficiencies while they are still impactful and transition towards a less risky strategy as the portfolio expands. This approach balances the need for growth with the realities of changing market dynamics as asset size increases.

 Experiment Two: Inversion

In our second experiment, we’ll explore the implications if Investor B’s variable return rates were reversed. Investor A will continue to generate a consistent 20% return over their 50-year investment period. On the other hand, Investor B will exhibit a 10% return for the first 20 years, a 20% return for the next 20 years, and a 50% return for the final 10-year period. Let’s examine the potential outcomes of this scenario.

  • Investor A (Steady 20% Rate)
    • First 10 Years: 20% annual growth, FV ~$6.19
    • Next 20 Years: Continues at 20%, FV ~$383.38
    • Final 20 Years: Remains at 20%, FV ~$9,100.44
  • Investor B (Variable Rates)
    • First 20 Years: Slow growth of 10%, FV ~$6.73
    • Next 20 Years: Higher growth of 20%, FV ~$258.01
    • Final 10 Years: High growth of 50%, FV ~$14,878.16

Summary:

Investor A ends with a value of approximately $9,100.44, while Investor B reaches $14,878.16. Similarly, scaling up the initial sum to one million dollars, the end values would be approximately $9.1 billion for Investor A and $14.9 billion for Investor B. This implies that periods of substantial outperformance within a portfolio allow for flexibility during periods of lower performance, regardless of the sequence of returns.

The data suggests that higher return periods significantly enhance the absolute return of an investor’s portfolio over their investment career. This can be seen as an investor adopting a conservative approach early on to mitigate the risk of poor early performance that could halt investment activities. As their career progresses and their intellectual and investment capital grow, they may increase their investment activities.

As an investor’s assets under management grow, so does their market influence. It’s plausible that as an investment manager’s assets under management increase, they also become more experienced and knowledgeable in the investment space. They gain a broader network of resources and can exert more control over their investments by acquiring significant amounts and holding substantial voting interests. In this scenario, it’s conceivable for an investment manager to improve their portfolio’s return rate while also expanding their assets under management. It is crucial to discern whether this is due to greater influence, which leads to better decision-making, or if it is the result of a high-risk strategy that could incur significant losses.

Economic conditions are another reasonable consideration. It is well-known that economic cycles can cause investment strategies to fluctuate in popularity. This leaves windows during which strategies can be effectively employed to generate increased returns. As investors recognize these opportunities or as economic conditions shift, these windows may close. There may be long intervals before these specific strategies become viable again. This understanding offers comfort to investment managers starting firms during costly markets or periods of low performance. Moderate returns at the outset can swiftly improve as time passes and economic conditions evolve, presenting more opportunities and boosting returns.

In a 50-year investment career, numerous economic scenarios can influence the ability to achieve exceptional returns at different times. If market conditions enable consistent performance over time, an investment manager can still enjoy a successful career by remaining committed and capitalizing on high-performing strategies when opportunities arise.

Results:

The results of these experiments are intriguing. They indicate that investment managers can afford periods of lower returns if they can demonstrate a higher rate of return, whether early or later in their career, and still outperform on an absolute basis. However, consistently producing above-average returns is challenging in all scenarios. This study suggests that it may be more effective to generate highly attractive returns intermittently, accompanied by periods of lower performance, rather than maintaining consistently high returns throughout one’s career. These higher-than-average returns can be achieved early in a career by exploiting market inefficiencies and seizing opportunities, then reducing the aggressive strategy as assets under management increase. Conversely, a conservative approach implemented early on can yield average returns, with the potential for performance to improve over time based on enhanced skills, influence, and favorable economic conditions.

The results highlight the practical incentives of generating higher returns early in a financial career, emphasizing that smaller assets under management can contribute significantly to achieving higher returns. As assets under management  grows, the potential for above-average returns tends to diminish exponentially. This phenomenon is evident in the career trajectories of many “super investors,” who often start with exceptionally high returns that taper off after decades of outperformance and asset growth. These investors may need to return money to partners or clients to sustain the high returns compatible with the levels of risk they are comfortable with. This aspect, not included in the experiment due to its complexity, can be thought of as a form of variable returns—not just from the portfolio that consistently performs well but also from the performance of funds reallocated or returned to investors.

The returns of the original proceeds that stay in the high-performing investment vehicle, and those of the subsequently returned proceeds invested elsewhere or held in risk-free alternatives, are difficult to quantify due to varying individual decisions. The fee structure of investment partnerships, such as carried interest, adds further complexity to these calculations. While the outcome—whether an investment manager consistently produces high returns and returns money or experiences variable returns—is partly circumstantial and mostly beyond control, understanding the limitations of assets under management growth is crucial.

An inverted variable rate scenario, where returns compound slowly initially and then accelerate, is unlikely. However, it serves to illustrate that periods of underperformance can be counterbalanced by periods of over performance. This is encouraging for investment firms that may start with challenges, such as entering overvalued markets or making miscalculated investments.

The mathematical implications of variable compounding rates are significant. For example, compounding $1,000,000 at 3% for the first 40 years and then at 50% for the last 10 years yields a final sum of $188,105,536.58. Conversely, compounding at 50% for the first 10 years and then at 3% for the remaining 40 years results in $188,105,536.69, differing by only eleven cents. These calculations demonstrate that high compounding rates significantly enhance the attractiveness of variable returns over an investment career. In comparison, compounding $1,000,000 at a constant rate of 10% over 50 years yields $117,390,852.88, less than the variable rate examples, even considering a lengthy period of underperformance.

The results suggest that periods of exponential compounding offer investors leeway for lower returns either in the past or future while still achieving a high absolute return. By generating exceptional returns when possible, an investor can afford periods of lower returns without eroding the overall portfolio performance throughout their career.

It is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of this experiment and recognize that both hypothetical investors, A and B, would be considered extreme outliers and “superinvestors” if they were able to produce such returns. This thought experiment was conducted solely to explore the dynamics of consistent versus variable rates of return.

These are, of course, theoretical amounts, not taking into account taxes, fees, investment risks, and other real-world factors that could affect investment growth. Please note that the calculations provided for the future values of investments for Investor A and Investor B were performed using mathematical approximations. The results may vary slightly due to rounding during the compounding process and the precision of the calculations. When applying these methods to actual investment scenarios, it is important to consider additional factors such as transaction fees, taxes, market volatility, and other economic factors that could affect the final outcome. The figures presented should be used as a general guide and not as exact predictions of future investment returns.

Key Takeaways:

  1. Timing of High Returns Is Flexible: The study suggests that the timing of when an investment manager realizes higher rates of return—whether early or later in their career—does not necessarily impact the end result significantly. Whether high returns are achieved through initial aggressive strategies or developed capabilities over time, both approaches can even out and result in impressive long-term wealth accumulation.
  2. The Power of Compounding Over Varied Periods: The compounding effect benefits both early and later high returns, but the approach can be adapted depending on the investment manager’s circumstances and market conditions. The advantage lies in the ability to compound at a high rate, regardless of when this occurs in the career span.
  3. Adaptability in Investment Strategy: Consistency in high performance is challenging to maintain. This experiment illustrates that adaptability in investment strategies—capitalizing on market inefficiencies early on or enhancing skills and influence to boost returns later—can be as important as the actual returns themselves. An investor’s ability to adjust their strategy in response to changing economic conditions and personal growth within their career can lead to overall outperformance.

This experiment implies that it’s not just about when you achieve your returns but also how you adapt and change your strategy throughout your investment career to maximize the periods when you can earn above-average returns.

In conclusion, the experiment’s findings challenge the conventional emphasis on consistently high returns throughout an investment manager’s career. Instead, it presents a compelling case for the strategic timing of when these returns are realized, whether early or later in one’s professional journey. The study illustrates that both approaches — capitalizing on early market opportunities or growing capabilities to achieve higher returns later — can be equally effective due to the enduring power of compounding.

The adaptability of an investment strategy in response to evolving market conditions and the manager’s own professional development is highlighted as a crucial factor in long-term investment success. The key takeaway is that while it is difficult to maintain above-average returns consistently, investment managers who can navigate the dynamic financial landscape and optimize their performance periods — regardless of their career stage — stand to accumulate significant wealth over time.

Therefore, this thought experiment underscores the importance of a flexible, adaptive investment approach over the rigidity of seeking consistent outperformance, reaffirming the notion that there are multiple paths to achieving exceptional long-term investment results.

The information presented in this article is the opinion of Jacobs Investment Management and does not reflect the view of any other person or entity.  The information provided is believed to be from reliable sources, but no liability is accepted for any inaccuracies.  This is for information purposes and should not be construed as an investment recommendation.  Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. 

Ryan Jacobs No Comments

Understanding the Importance of Beta in a Risk Parity and Value-Oriented Portfolio

When it comes to building an investment portfolio, there are several factors that investors need to consider. One of these factors is beta, which plays a crucial role in both a risk parity and value-oriented portfolio. In this article, we will delve into the concept of beta and its significance in investment strategies.

Beta is a measure of a stock’s correlation to the overall market in terms of volatility. It helps investors assess the level of risk associated with a particular stock or portfolio. A beta of 1 indicates that the stock moves in line with the market, while a beta greater than 1 suggests that the stock is more volatile than the market. On the other hand, a beta less than 1 indicates that the stock is less volatile than the market.

Volatility and correlation are two important factors assessed through beta. Volatility directly relates to the price fluctuations of assets, while correlation refers to the degree to which assets move in tandem. Understanding the relationship between a security and its market can reveal much about the shareholders of the organization. Similarly, analyzing the relationship between a portfolio of securities and their market provides insights into the potential risks and rewards of the investment. Beta, a financial metric often overlooked or misunderstood, plays a crucial role in security analysis by illuminating these relationships.

For a risk parity portfolio, the objective is to maximize returns while minimizing risk. In such a portfolio, the return can be calculated as the product of cash, beta, and alpha. Beta represents the systematic risk of the portfolio, while alpha represents the excess return generated by the portfolio manager’s skill or strategy.

Investing in a group of various betas underpins the ethos of a diversified strategy. Acquiring these betas is relatively easy in modern finance, thanks to low-cost index funds and ETFs designed to match specific markets or mimic certain asset classes. By organizing a group of asset classes with different betas and structuring them within a portfolio based on risk parity principles, it’s possible to create a low-risk base portfolio. It’s important to note that this base portfolio is not intended to be the most attractive investment in terms of potential returns. In fact, it is typically a rather unattractive investment if judged solely on possible returns. This strategy of grouping different betas and structuring them in a basket is meant to be a practical form of opportunity cost management, serving as a middle ground between holding cash and pursuing alpha.

A risk-free rate is essentially an “effortless” return, available to all investors. In modern investing, treasury bills are often associated with a risk-free return due to their wide availability and the backing they receive from the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, which has a very low probability of default. Understanding the balance between interest rates, historical asset returns, and betas is crucial when analyzing opportunity costs. Yields and their certainties are essential for properly analyzing investment opportunities.

If treasury bills or other short-term cash alternatives offer attractive rates and the general stock market appears expensive, it might be logical to hold cash until the market declines. This offers more opportunities to implement thoughtful active strategies. The stock market, viewed as a long-duration asset, should outperform short-duration assets like cash over the long term. For patient active investors, this poses no problem. They can simply wait in cash until general market levels are more favorable, creating a greater volume of active investment opportunities.

This balance between the safest risk-free return and the most attractive actively selected returns is key to producing outsized gains over the long term. It requires patience and diligence but is achievable. This is the essence of generating alpha, or an excess return in relation to a relative benchmark. However, it is important to understand that true investors seek alpha on an absolute basis, not just relative to a benchmark. Benchmarks or groups of assets inherently have faults, including the lack of individual selection, which can lead to irregularities in performance due to unforeseen economic events, speculative bubbles, and benchmark structuring.

Although there are downsides to assets grouped together to mimic a certain benchmark or follow the price action of a specific asset type, they can still fit into a thoughtful investment program. In an risk parity portfolio – more a theoretical construct than an actual one, but useful for capturing the essence of an investor’s opportunity pool based on their specific time horizon and risk tolerance – there are options. These include investing in cash (like depository accounts, CDs, treasury bills, money markets), beta (a diversified portfolio), or alpha (individually selected investments or hiring an investment manager). Cash is the most conservative option but not viable long-term. Alpha is the most attractive but time-consuming when self-implemented and expensive with a money manager. Beta is easy to obtain and cost-effective to manage but has limitations.

Constructing a diversified portfolio is often seen as a passive form of investment due to its approach of mirroring assets, as opposed to actively managed investments that focus on individualized outcomes. However, this perspective can lead to confusion and potentially fatal errors among aspiring successful investors. Price sensitivity and conservative valuation techniques are crucial in constructing a diversified portfolio. In fact, there are significant choices that must be made either by the individual investor or the portfolio manager, which determine the portfolio’s configuration. Learning which assets to group properly and how to structure them within a portfolio to create equilibrium and provide decent returns in various economic scenarios is no simple task.

Creating this type of portfolio requires knowledge of historical returns within various asset classes and benchmarks, understanding the betas of each individual asset group to determine volatility and correlation, measuring the standard deviation to assess the variability of returns, and knowing the current asset prices, which for non-earning assets like commodities are based on supply and demand dynamics, and for income-generating investments like fixed income or stock indexes, are based on yield metrics.

It’s important to note that this strategy never advocates investing in any index regardless of its price. Such an approach is highly dangerous and can lead to prolonged periods of underperformance if executed incorrectly. Understanding how to price assets based on supply and demand, and yield, can help structure a diversified portfolio appropriately. By learning about the historical performance of various asset classes in relation to their current prices, one can discern which assets should be included in the portfolio. The structure of the portfolio is not static and should be adjusted based on the price levels of the given securities. In times when assets are overvalued on a historical basis they can either be reduced in size or eliminated from the portfolio completely until prices become reasonable again. This is especially true for equities which tend to fluctuate between overvalued and undervalued. There is no justification for a long-term capital preservation portfolio to include overvalued assets. Moreover, equities in an index differ significantly from those in bond indices or commodity baskets. Each stock certificate represents a distinct issuer, making group purchases more challenging. By steering clear of overvalued assets, the portfolio can better safeguard against fluctuations and prolonged periods of underperformance.

One way to enhance the returns of a diversified portfolio is through the use of leverage. By leveraging the safest assets within a portfolio, you can hypothetically match the risk associated with riskier assets, thereby enhancing potential returns while maintaining the overall balance of the portfolio. However, utilizing leverage is risky, even with supposedly safe assets. Excessive leverage on even a very stable asset can lead to significant issues if volatility deviates from the norm. While it may seem possible to use leverage consistently to boost returns, the risk of adverse effects increases as the leverage increases, thus diminishing the original intent of this type of portfolio.

A diversified portfolio of this nature is meant to be an attractive medium-term opportunity cost for an investor balancing between cash and actively chosen investments. Alternatively, this portfolio can serve as a form of terminal return for investors seeking relative stability and low risk returns above cash over the long-term horizon. For those seeking to maximize returns while still using this form of investment, implementing a strategy of value infusion appears logical. Value infusion involves incorporating a value-oriented active strategy in conjunction with a diversified strategy. By slowly allocating more capital to the value-oriented strategy when market conditions are favorable, or when attractive opportunities arise, it creates a lower-risk avenue for outperformance without the need for leverage. Understanding the implications of beta in a value-oriented strategy, and how it differs from a diversified portfolio of assets, is integral in effectively executing both strategies.

In a value-oriented strategy, beta takes on a different meaning. While volatility itself is not considered inherent risk for a value investor, the correlation of a stock to the market can pose a significant risk to outsized returns. This is because value investors seek to identify undervalued stocks that have the potential to outperform the market. By choosing stocks with low beta, value investors can achieve uncorrelated and possibly outperforming returns.

Low beta stocks tend to be less affected by market fluctuations and can provide a level of stability to a value-oriented portfolio. These stocks often possess qualities that signify they are overlooked by the general public. These qualities might include factors such as low share turnover, reduced share liquidity, and the lack of analyst coverage. By investing in low beta stocks, value investors can reduce the overall risk of their portfolio while maintaining the potential for attractive returns.

Whether a beta is higher or lower than one has much more to do with those who own the shares of the company than what the company itself does. Companies in the same industry with similar operations can have completely different betas based on how the shares trade, even if their internal returns are similar. An overlooked stock, one with a low beta, means it is unlikely to have a similar shareholder base as stocks with high betas. The lower the beta of a stock means the lower probability it has to move in line with peers, this is a positive attribution for value investors seeking gains based more on individualized outcomes compared to systemic scenarios.

It’s important to understand the implications of low beta on the financial ratios and valuation metrics of securities. A low beta stock is often seen as more stable than its more volatile counterparts, not just in terms of shares traded but also in the dispersion of historical operational returns. Since the nature of a low beta stock implies it is less volatile, it can be inferred that low beta stocks might be valued more like private businesses, in contrast to being assessed mainly on relative technical indicators.

The performance of low beta stocks relies more heavily on the operational performance of the business over the long term compared to industry returns or overall market performance. This is why it can be rewarding to analyze earnings, cash flows, and the potential for unrecognized growth prospects in overlooked stocks. Low beta stocks provide a good opportunity to exercise thoughtful fundamental analysis and benefit from underlying business performance, instead of falling victim to herd mentality or getting caught in the downward trend of volatility often associated with high beta stocks.

High beta stocks, in contrast to low beta stocks, offer a different appeal to value investors. Value investors do not necessarily view volatility itself as a form of risk, and when they consider investing in high beta stocks, they can leverage market fluctuations to their advantage. These stocks allow value investors to capitalize on the market’s ups and downs, often deviating from the intrinsic value, enabling them to build positions at lower costs as prices drop. This approach aligns with the fundamental principles of value investing, where the focus is on buying undervalued assets. Just as with low beta stocks, value investors can actively seek high beta stocks that present opportunities to uncover hidden value and generate attractive returns in the long run.

Unlike in low beta stocks where the analysis revolves around avoiding herd mentality, high beta stocks can be exploited based on their correlation to the market. Retail and institutional investors are often not enterprising investors. They may sell shares of companies for reasons unrelated to the inherent worth or underlying value of a security. For example, if a company is removed from an index or faces other temporary setbacks, institutional investors might be compelled to sell their shares due to portfolio guidelines and fear of relative underperformance. Similarly, retail investors can be lured into securities based on upward momentum, increasing public awareness, only to rush to sell as the momentum begins to fade. Both these scenarios can cause drastic swings that may deviate substantially from any relation to the business’s performance or worth.

In these high beta scenarios, a potential opportunity for investment arises when downward volatility causes the shares of a company, which were previously fairly valued, to trade at a discount. This discount might be either to the net asset value on the balance sheet or to its normalized earnings per share figures and other financial metrics. If careful analysis reveals a proper barrier of protection, and volatility has caused these shares to trade at bargain levels, an attractive way to benefit from the high beta associated with the trading of the stock may become evident.

If initial selloffs were over pronounced or if business performance returns to normal, an investor can benefit from the rebound back to economic reality. Taking advantage of volatility while remaining focused on proper fundamental analysis can create opportunities to generate attractive returns in high beta stocks.

When a value investor takes advantage of a low beta stock, they are seeking “overlooked” opportunities. Conversely, when they target a high beta stock, they are looking for “oversold” opportunities. Both low and high beta stocks have the potential to outperform or underperform the general market. Regardless of the variable a value investor incorporates into their strategy, it’s crucial to understand the implications of a security’s beta within the analysis.

It is important to note that beta is just one factor to consider when constructing a portfolio. Other factors such as valuation, financial health, and growth prospects of the underlying securities should also be taken into account.

In summary, beta, which represents the correlation of a stock’s volatility with the overall market, plays a pivotal role in shaping investment strategies, particularly in diversified and value-oriented portfolios. For diversified portfolios, understanding beta is key to achieving equilibrium and managing risk across various asset classes. It assists in determining asset allocation, helping to balance between conservative and more aggressive investments, and adjusting the portfolio in response to market shifts.

For value investors, the role of beta is nuanced yet significant. Low beta stocks, characterized by qualities like low share turnover and reduced public awareness, offer avenues for uncovering stable, overlooked opportunities. These stocks, often detached from market hysteria, allow for a more fundamental analysis, focusing on intrinsic qualities like consistent profitability and strong balance sheets. This approach can unearth stable, potentially outperforming investments.

On the other hand, high beta stocks present a different kind of opportunity for value investors. These stocks, prone to larger swings due to their strong market correlation, can be leveraged to take advantage of market overreactions. Value investors can capitalize on these fluctuations to acquire undervalued assets, particularly when stocks are unfairly punished by market dynamics unrelated to their fundamental worth.

Yet, regardless of the beta category, incorporating this measure into an investment strategy requires a balanced view. While beta provides insights into stock volatility in relation to the market, it should be considered alongside other financial metrics and market conditions. For a value investor, understanding both low and high beta stocks enables a more dynamic approach, exploiting market inefficiencies while staying rooted in fundamental analysis.

Therefore, beta becomes a critical tool for navigating the complexities of the market. It guides investors in building a diversified portfolio that balances risk and return, and in executing a value-oriented strategy that capitalizes on market anomalies. This understanding of beta, in the context of broader market dynamics and individual stock characteristics, forms the cornerstone of effective and strategic investing.

The information presented in this article is the opinion of Jacobs Investment Management and does not reflect the view of any other person or entity.  The information provided is believed to be from reliable sources, but no liability is accepted for any inaccuracies.  This is for information purposes and should not be construed as an investment recommendation.  Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. 

Ryan Jacobs No Comments

Coffee Cans and Cigar Butts: The Ins and Outs of Long and Short Duration Investments

There are various strategies and approaches that investors can adopt to achieve their financial goals. Two such strategies are the “coffee can” portfolio and the concept of “cigar butts.” Understanding these terms and their characteristics can help investors make informed decisions when it comes to long and short duration equity investments.

In this article, we will discuss the differences between a coffee can portfolio and a cigar butt portfolio. We will also explore the similarities in the analysis process for each of these distinct investment styles. Understanding the nuances of each strategy enables investors to benefit from pattern recognition, helping them identify whether a potential investment aligns with a short-duration or long-duration strategy.

The Coffee Can Portfolio

The term “coffee can portfolio” was coined by Robert Kirby, a renowned investment advisor. It refers to a long-term investment strategy where investors buy shares of high-quality companies and hold onto them for an extended period, often decades. The name originates from the idea that once the shares are purchased, they can be metaphorically put into a coffee can and forgotten about.

Investments suitable for a coffee can portfolio are distinctively characterized by their constant growth, significant free cash flow generation, and longevity.

Constant growth is a vital attribute, as the strategy favors companies showing a consistent upward trajectory in their performance. These firms typically have a robust competitive edge and a resilient business model, enabling them to deliver continuous growth and maintain their market position over time.

The importance of free cash flow generation cannot be overstated in this context. Companies that generate substantial free cash flows are particularly attractive for long-term investment, as this indicates their ability to sustain operations, invest in growth opportunities, and weather economic fluctuations without relying heavily on external financing.

Additionally, longevity is crucial; the ideal candidates for a coffee can portfolio are those that have proven their capacity to adapt effectively to changing market conditions and have a strategic, long-term vision for expansion. This combination of attributes ensures that the investments remain strong and potentially profitable over a long horizon, in line with the long-term holding principle of the coffee can investment approach.

Furthermore, companies fitting the coffee can portfolio criteria must demonstrate strong corporate governance. The core concept of a coffee can portfolio is to “set it and forget it,” making it crucial to evaluate management’s past decisions, compensation, and their vision for the company’s future.

Analyzing the board members is also vital. Insider ownership plays a key role in assessing the ownership mindset of the company’s leadership. When management and board members own significant portions of the company, it aligns the interests of shareholders with those responsible for the company’s operations. This alignment ensures that both groups are incentivized to benefit from the long-term appreciation of the stock.

When assessing the potential attractiveness of long-duration stock investments, industry and market analysis play crucial roles. These analyses help in understanding the broader context in which a company operates and its position relative to industry trends and economic cycles.

Innovation and the ability to adapt in various economic conditions are key factors in selecting long-duration investments suitable for a coffee can portfolio. Companies that consistently innovate and pivot according to market demands are more likely to sustain growth over long periods.

However, it’s also important to recognize that industries undergoing rapid change, such as the information technology sector, require extra caution in evaluating the attractiveness of their stocks. The dynamism of these sectors can often lead to significant uncertainties and volatility.

When analyzing a company within a highly competitive and transformative industry, it’s vital to avoid being overly influenced by potential growth narratives. Such narratives may be easily eroded by fierce competition, or they may rely so heavily on future technology that the potential implications become too uncertain to accurately assess. Therefore, a balanced and thorough analysis is essential to discern genuine long-term potential from mere speculative opportunities.

Durability might be the most important factor when analyzing a stock that could fit into the coffee can portfolio. The Lindy Effect, a concept often used in the context of technology and ideas, can also be applied to the stock analysis process. It refers to the idea that the future life expectancy of certain non-perishable things is proportional to their current age. This translates to the notion that companies with a longer past are more likely to have a longer future. Although this isn’t always the case, as numerous instances show new technology displacing incumbent participants who have held substantial market share in a specific industry for a long time, it remains an important exercise when analyzing a company’s ability to survive over the long term.

One approach to assess the potential of the Lindy Effect is to examine companies that are decades old, sometimes even over a hundred years. This process allows you to study the various industries that have risen and fallen throughout history, understand how companies have adapted and survived during hardships, and observe how management has made changes or implemented new forms of technology to stay relevant in the evolving business landscape.

Incorporating the Lindy Effect into stock analysis is crucial because it forces the analyst to focus on companies that have proven their ability to remain in business for extended periods. This historical perspective is invaluable in evaluating a company’s durability and its potential to be a successful long-term investment.

One-way companies experience extended lifecycles is by exercising dominance in the niche they operate in. A key form of this dominance can be a local competitive advantage. This relates to a company’s strong foothold in a specific geographic region, often due to a deep understanding of local consumer preferences, regulatory environments, or logistical advantages. Industries that typically exhibit strong local competitive advantages include agriculture in regions with unique climates, tourism in areas with distinct natural or cultural attractions, resource extraction in resource-rich locations, financial services in global financial hubs, tech and innovation in specialized clusters, specialized manufacturing in areas with historic expertise, creative industries in cultural capitals, and renewable energy in regions with abundant natural resources.

Another form of niche dominance is supply chain control. This can be related to importers and exporters of important raw materials used in manufacturing, as well as the ability to transport goods from the supplier to the manufacturer. By being an essential actor in the manufacturing and raw materials industries, these companies have the ability to maintain consistent pricing power and can exercise control over the supply and demand of the products or services in which they operate.

Industries that have competitive advantages through supply chain control include oil and gas, with their hold on reserves and refining; mining and metals, controlling key resources; automotive manufacturers, managing everything from raw materials to parts production; electronics and semiconductor firms, dominating essential component production; pharmaceuticals, leveraging drug manufacturing processes; agricultural companies, influencing the seed and fertilizer markets; chemical producers, who are pivotal in basic materials; textile and apparel businesses, overseeing the journey from material to garment creation; aerospace and defense firms, controlling critical technology production; and consumer goods and retail giants, managing end-to-end product supply chains.

Additionally, brand recognition and customer loyalty can be the strongest niche factors that keep a customer engaged with a business for extended periods of time. While brand recognition and customer loyalty are intangible in nature, if properly realized, they should lead to tangible value generation. Being a recognized brand allows a company to benefit greatly from meaningful advertisement, fostering an emotional response in customers who are satisfied with the operations.

Similarly, continuously providing a good value proposition for the customer fosters customer loyalty, either through membership programs or high switching costs associated with changing providers. High switching costs tend to be a powerful form of niche dominance due to locking in customers for recurring revenue. However, an even more powerful form of niche dominance is when customers voluntarily return for services or products because of their previous satisfactory experiences, creating a combination of customer loyalty and brand recognition.

Industries that typically benefit from competitive advantages like brand recognition, customer loyalty, and high switching costs include luxury goods where brand prestige drives sales; technology and software firms where customer familiarity and ecosystem integration create loyalty; financial services where trust and complexity discourage switching; telecommunications with long-term contracts and network reliance; the automotive industry where brand loyalty influences repeat purchases; consumer electronics where brand ecosystems create high switching costs; pharmaceuticals where trusted brands dominate; retail and fast food chains with strong brand identities; and airlines where frequent flyer programs foster loyalty. These sectors leverage their established reputations and customer habits to maintain market dominance and deter switching to competitors.

By analyzing companies with a long-term time horizon, analysts can disregard temporary price fluctuations and focus on the underlying economics of the company. Evaluating the management, understanding the operational aspects of the business, and having reasonable expectations about the future enable shareholders to benefit from the success of the business operations over a complete business cycle. Additionally, the tax efficiency of this low turnover strategy, along with the implications of meaningful dividend increases or other sound capital allocation decisions, compound benefits for the shareholders. This approach becomes logical when one recognizes the benefits of investing in businesses that conduct their operations with ease. The discipline becomes evident once an analyst realizes the challenge in discerning what constitutes a good business and determining the right price for that business.

The coffee can portfolio strategy is based on the belief that by holding onto high-quality stocks for an extended period, investors can benefit from the compounding effect of long-term returns. This approach requires patience and discipline, as it involves resisting the temptation to constantly buy and sell stocks based on short-term market fluctuations.

Cigar Butts

On the other end of the spectrum, the concept of “cigar butts” refers to a short-term investment strategy where investors seek out undervalued stocks that have the potential to provide quick profits. The term was popularized by Warren Buffett, who described these investments as companies that are “so cheap that they are selling for less than the value of their assets minus their liabilities.”

Cigar butt investments are characterized by their undervaluation in the market, offering investors the chance to buy these stocks at a bargain price. The primary objective of this investment strategy is to capitalize on short-term price movements, with investors aiming for a ‘value realization event’—the point at which the stock reaches its fair value and is then sold to secure the gains. Unlike the coffee can portfolio strategy, cigar butt investments entail a more significant level of risk. This risk, however, is often mitigated by a quantifiable margin of safety. The undervaluation of these stocks may stem from temporary market conditions, and there’s always the risk that the market may not fully recognize the stock’s true value.

A quantifiable margin of safety is often paramount in cigar butt investing, as the companies fitting this strategy are usually considered inferior. Their business performance can be mundane or even negative, often leaving previous shareholders dissatisfied and further diminishing the appeal of the shares. It’s crucial to understand the psychological differences between this strategy and the coffee can approach.

In the coffee can strategy, considerable time is spent comprehending the future of the business. Confidence in this analysis often stems from examining the long-term profit history, analyzing various earnings metrics from EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes) and EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) to net income and free cash flow, and making predictions about future earnings based on current capital allocation decisions. However, this approach is not suitable for analyzing cigar butts. Deep analysis to make predictions based on earnings is a mistake for these companies.

The cigar butt strategy focuses on asset analysis, whereas the coffee can strategy is more earnings-based. The goal in cigar butt investing is to purchase a company at a discount to its worth, hypothetically in a liquidation scenario where assets are liquidated, and liabilities paid off. The remaining value is what is due to the shareholder, serving as the analyst’s margin of safety. The desired outcome is to buy these shares at a price significantly lower than this calculated value.

Once becoming a shareholder, the objective is to either have the market recognize the value of the shares, have the company purchased by a larger entity at a fairer price, or see the excess capital returned to shareholders through dividends or full liquidations.

Another distinction between the cigar butt and coffee can strategies lies in the active involvement required in cigar butt investing. Shareholders of companies trading at a discount often have more concerns about operations than those invested in fairly valued companies. In such cases, it can be beneficial for shareholders to voice these concerns to management and board members, particularly if they possess unique insights or expertise on the relevant issues.

Frequently, the accounting procedures of certain companies can be problematic, whether due to ignorance or intent. Unprofitable business lines may continue to operate, draining value from the organization, or there might be insufficient capital allocation for future operations. These issues can prompt shareholders to express their concerns to management, with the hope that the management will listen and take necessary actions. The ultimate goal of these interventions is to aid in achieving the fabled value realization event, where the true worth of the company is recognized in the market.

Reality often deviates from the simplistic notion of a letter to management causing a significant change in the organization’s top executives. In most cases, management is already aware of operational problems, either having unsuccessfully attempted to resolve them or lacking the necessary incentive alignment to make the required changes. An astute investor must either persistently assert to management that changes are needed or exhibit patience, holding shares of the discounted firm until an unforeseen event leads to a fairer value assessment or a liquidation that returns excess capital.

Patience is crucial in this strategy as these situations take time to unfold. However, it can also be risky; the longer an investor holds a discounted asset, the less impactful the realization event becomes. Worse still, if the company’s capital allocation decisions are poor, they might erode the firm’s value, further diminishing the impact of a value realization event.

Active management is vital in the cigar butt strategy. It’s essential to assess the capabilities and intentions of management, the value within the company, and the potential for realization in the market. If the situation doesn’t seem favorable, it’s logical to cut losses and move on to a more attractive opportunity. Staying locked into an unsuccessful investment increases opportunity costs. Therefore, an investor using the cigar butt strategy must be diligent in searching for opportunities, always weighing options, and ready to sell one position to invest in another. This active approach does result in higher share turnover, incurring more taxes and requiring more time spent on idea generation.

The question then arises: why would anyone choose the cigar butt strategy over the coffee can strategy? The answer lies in the potential returns. Properly implemented, the cigar butt strategy offers compelling returns, making it an excellent way to generate outsized returns early in one’s career. Moving from one successful value realization event to another has a compounding effect, similar to that seen in the coffee can strategy, but with the investor actively directing capital flow to the most attractive opportunities. In contrast, the coffee can portfolio relies entirely on the continuing operations of selected firms. Both strategies can yield outsized returns if properly executed, but generally, the successful cigar butt investor is compensated for the strategy’s active nature.

While the coffee can portfolio focuses on long-term wealth accumulation, cigar butt investing aims to generate quick profits. It requires a keen eye for undervalued opportunities and the ability to make timely investment decisions.

Benefiting from Both Strategies

Investors can benefit from incorporating elements of both the coffee can portfolio and cigar butt strategies into their investment approach. By diversifying their portfolio with a mix of long and short duration investments, investors can potentially achieve a balance between steady long-term growth and short-term gains.

By assessing each opportunity individually, an investor can benefit from both the coffee can and cigar butt strategies. Understanding that both approaches have their benefits and faults is crucial for long-term investment success. Recognizing patterns indicative of a situation likely to succeed under either the coffee can, or cigar butt strategy allows an investor to tailor their analysis accordingly. This helps in determining whether an opportunity is attractive.

Both strategies can produce winners and losers based on similar analyses. It’s the investor’s responsibility to identify which opportunities are most likely to succeed within each strategy and to weigh the most attractive options at any given time. This discerning approach is key to navigating the complex landscape of investment strategies effectively.

It’s interesting to note that some characteristics are universally important in both the coffee can and cigar butt strategies. For example, share dilution is viewed negatively in both approaches. Conversely, share buybacks are favorable as they help increase the earnings per share value for consistent earners and also enhance the value per share of discounted assets.

Furthermore, returns on capital are positive indicators in both strategies. While the coffee can approach favors consistent returns on capital with a potential for growth, even modestly positive returns can significantly enhance the appeal of discounted assets in the cigar butt strategy.

Price discipline is a cornerstone of proper execution in both strategies, as is consistent idea generation and successful position sizing. These factors are essential regardless of the strategy being employed when assessing potential opportunities available.

It is important to note that the success of any investment strategy depends on thorough research, analysis, and understanding of the individual investor’s risk tolerance and financial goals. It’s worth mentioning that psychological aversions can sometimes hinder investors from effectively implementing one of the strategies due to various reasons.

In conclusion, the coffee can portfolio and cigar butt strategies offer investors different approaches to long and short duration investments. While the coffee can portfolio emphasizes stability, longevity, and long-term wealth accumulation, cigar butt investing focuses on undervalued opportunities and short-term profits. By incorporating elements of both strategies, investors can tailor their investment approach to suit their individual goals and risk appetite.

Information presented in this article is the opinion of Jacobs Investment Management and does not reflect the view of any other person or entity.  The information provided is believed to be from reliable sources, but no liability is accepted for any inaccuracies.  This is for information purposes and should not be construed as an investment recommendation.  Past performance is no guarantee of future performance. 

Ryan Jacobs No Comments

Jacobs Investment Management: An Introduction to our Trinity Offering

Traditionally, many investment firms have adhered to a more rigid approach, often emphasizing specific investment styles like a deep value investing approach, a high-quality investing approach, or an indexing approach. These firms tend to maintain a steadfast commitment to their chosen approach, believing that their strategy provides the best chance for success over the long term.

However, Jacobs Investment Management takes a more level-headed approach to address market inefficiencies. Rather than rigidly adhering to a single investment philosophy, we recognize that the financial markets are complex and constantly evolving. We understand that the concept of “efficient markets” is not solely dependent on the inherent properties of the market but is also greatly influenced by the psychology and behavior of investors.

Jacobs Investment Management acknowledges that different investors have varying levels of sophistication, risk tolerance, and financial goals. As a result, we have developed our Trinity Offering, a multifaceted approach that caters to the diverse needs and preferences of our clients. By segregating our strategies into Preservation, Accumulation, and a Private Partnership, we aim to provide clients with a more tailored and flexible investment experience.

Our recognition of the psychological aspects of investing is particularly noteworthy. We understand that market inefficiencies can arise from the behavior of investors themselves, as emotions, biases, and herd mentality can lead to irrational decision-making. Jacobs Investment Management believes in leveraging these insights to help clients navigate and capitalize on market dynamics effectively.

In essence, Jacobs Investment Management’s approach acknowledges that while market efficiency is a crucial consideration, it is not the only determinant of investment success. By offering a Trinity Offering that adapts to clients’ varying needs and by understanding the role of investor psychology in market dynamics, we aim to provide a more comprehensive and adaptable solution for our clients.

Preservation Strategy

The Preservation Strategy offered by Jacobs Investment Management is designed for clients who place a paramount emphasis on capital protection and the preservation of their wealth. This strategy goes beyond the conventional investment approaches by incorporating a highly diversified methodology that prioritizes risk parity.

In crafting this strategy, we consider both historical returns of various asset classes and the standard deviation of those returns to develop a portfolio composition that aims to effectively offset risks. By doing so, we intend to construct a resilient investment portfolio that can withstand the test of time.

One distinctive aspect of our Preservation Strategy is our approach to structuring the portfolio within the context of economic quadrants, taking into account variations in inflation and economic growth. This forward-thinking framework allows us to adapt to changing market conditions with agility and precision. Whether faced with rising inflation, falling inflation, rising economic growth, or falling economic growth, our diversified approach is designed to navigate these scenarios with resilience.

One of the key advantages of this approach is its ability to alleviate the psychological pressure often associated with deviating from market trends and the herd mentality. By emphasizing a diversified, risk-adjusted approach, we provide our clients with a sense of security and confidence in their investment decisions. This not only helps safeguard their wealth but also promotes a more rational and disciplined investment mindset.

Furthermore, our Preservation Strategy offers an attractive opportunity cost. In an environment where actively chosen investments may come with higher costs and risks, our highly diversified approach stands out as a cost-efficient alternative. It provides clients with a practical and low-cost means of preserving and growing their wealth, especially when actively chosen investments fail to convincingly outperform the risk-adjusted returns delivered by our Preservation Strategy.

While Jacobs Investment Management’s Preservation Strategy offers a robust approach to capital protection and risk mitigation, it is important to acknowledge that this strategy is designed with a specific trade-off in mind. The primary downside to this strategy is its expected lower returns when compared to our other strategies.

Our Preservation Strategy’s emphasis on low-risk assets and risk parity is geared towards safeguarding capital and minimizing the risk of erosion. As a result, it may not yield the same level of return potential as our more actively selective investment approaches, such as our Accumulation strategy or our Private Partnership.

However, it’s essential to view the Preservation Strategy within the context of a broader investment portfolio. One of its key strengths is its role as a solid foundation for an investment portfolio. By serving as a core holding, clients have the ability to gain exposure to our other strategies through what we call “value infusion.”

Value infusion refers to the concept of gradually allocating portions of a portfolio to more actively selected strategies when market conditions and individual client objectives align. This approach helps clients strike a balance between preserving capital and seeking long-term growth opportunities. While the Preservation Strategy may not deliver the highest returns on its own, it plays a vital role in supporting a well-rounded and diversified investment portfolio.

In summary, Jacobs Investment Management’s Preservation Strategy is a diversified and psychologically sound approach designed to serve as a dependable base investment. While it delivers lower expected returns, it prioritizes capital protection and stability. This strategy allows clients to gradually infuse their portfolio with higher-returning strategies when market conditions and individual client objectives align, thus striking a balance between client goals and risk tolerance. Overall, it provides a solid foundation for long-term financial success, considering risk parity, economic quadrants, and offering an attractive opportunity cost for clients’ unique needs and goals.

Accumulation Strategy

The Accumulation Strategy by Jacobs Investment Management is designed to meet the objectives of clients seeking long-term wealth growth. This strategy takes an active approach, emphasizing capital appreciation and the pursuit of growth opportunities. It centers on the idea of investing in high-quality businesses at reasonable prices, prioritizing “wonderful businesses for a decent price” over “decent businesses for a wonderful price.” This psychological understanding is vital, as clients are more likely to withstand market volatility when they comprehend the companies they invest in. The strategy seeks out companies that demonstrate both qualitative and quantitative attributes of a “wonderful business” while assessing valuations for potential returns and future growth prospects. By carefully timing purchases of these quality companies, the strategy aims to hold them for the long term, leading to a low turnover rate and a tax-efficient approach. In essence, Jacobs Investment Management’s Accumulation Strategy provides clients with the confidence that comes from investing in high-quality, growth-oriented companies, aligning with their long-term wealth accumulation goals.

Despite its merits, Jacobs Investment Management’s Accumulation Strategy does come with certain challenges. One significant challenge is the scarcity of opportunities where “wonderful businesses” are available at attractive prices. These high-quality companies are often priced at a premium due to their strong fundamentals and growth potential, making it challenging to consistently find investments that offer an attractive return.

Another consideration is the competition within the market. Many investors and asset managers adhere to a similar strategy of seeking quality businesses at reasonable valuations. This competition for the same pool of quality stocks can lead to reduced opportunities and lower expected returns. It’s a crowded space and identifying hidden gems can be a daunting task.

However, the strategy’s attractiveness persists due to market dynamics. Periods of market volatility and overreactions from investors can occasionally cause high-quality businesses to slip into more reasonable valuation territory. Jacobs Investment Management focuses on these opportune moments, concentrating on businesses that exhibit quality characteristics while also being available at a reasonable purchase price.

In summary, while the Accumulation Strategy offers the potential for long-term growth through quality investments, challenges include the rarity of attractive opportunities and heightened competition within the market. Nevertheless, the strategy remains appealing as it leverages market volatility and overreactions to identify high-quality businesses with reasonable valuations, aiming to deliver consistent returns over time.

Private Partnership

Jacobs Investment Management introduces its Private Partnership strategy, tailored to harness market inefficiencies, and seize opportunistic investments. This strategic offering is finely tuned to capitalize on opportunities within the market, focusing on companies that are undervalued in comparison to their intrinsic worth. These undervalued assets may exhibit a discount concerning liquidation value, going concern value, or even when compared to the valuations of similar companies.

The foundation of this strategy lies in identifying companies with a barrier of protection, guarding against the risk of permanent capital loss. Simultaneously, it aims to unearth latent value within these companies, with the potential for value realization that can translate into attractive returns for investors. In addition to targeting undervalued assets, the Private Partnership strategy casts a keen eye on highly opportunistic investments.

By “opportunistic,” we refer to the pursuit of smaller, often overlooked companies in the market, brimming with growth potential or possessing the capability to deliver returns to shareholders. The strategy recognizes that these smaller firms frequently escape the radar of institutional investors or remain inaccessible to entities with larger assets under management. Leveraging the partnership structure allows for a more aggressive position, enabling a concentration on the most attractively priced assets within the market.

At Jacobs Investment Management, we firmly believe that this strategic framework, uniquely structured as a private partnership, serves as the ideal platform to generate the highest possible returns. By targeting market inefficiencies and embracing opportunistic investments, this strategy aligns with our commitment to value creation and risk management, providing our clients with exclusive access to a dynamic investment approach designed to outperform traditional investment methodologies.

The Private Partnership strategy offered by Jacobs Investment Management is not suited for everyone, and it comes with its set of psychological challenges. Firstly, this strategy is structured to cater exclusively to qualified investors, limiting the pool of clients who can participate in this type of investment. It’s important to note that not all investors qualify for this opportunity.

One of the most significant psychological challenges associated with the Private Partnership strategy is the nature of the investments it targets. Market inefficiencies and opportunistic investments are often structured in this manner due to the distressed or undiscovered nature of the businesses involved. These companies tend to exhibit rapid fluctuations, creating a more volatile experience throughout the portfolio management journey. This inherent volatility can be psychologically unsettling for some investors.

Investors may also be deterred by the fact that many of the companies targeted in this strategy are discounted on a liquidation basis or may not be considered high-quality businesses. Consequently, there’s a potential risk of significant business deterioration while holding these assets. Similarly, opportunistic investments often involve smaller companies with growth potential but without established dominance in their respective markets. Investing in such companies requires psychological resilience to withstand market volatility while maintaining trust in the investment manager’s expertise.

However, it’s important to highlight that if implemented successfully, this strategy has the potential to significantly outperform over the long term. The Private Partnership structure is well-suited for this type of opportunity as it places more control in the hands of the investment manager, allowing investors to avoid continuously monitoring their holdings and becoming overly obsessed with market fluctuations. This strategy is particularly attractive for qualified investors seeking impressive returns over the long haul, but it does come with significant psychological barriers that may challenge some investors’ ability to stay the course during periods of market turbulence.

Summary

Jacobs Investment Management’s Trinity Offering presents a diverse set of investment strategies, each with its own merits and tailored to meet specific client needs.

The Preservation Strategy stands as a dependable base investment, emphasizing capital protection and stability. It provides clients with peace of mind, particularly during market volatility, and serves as an attractive opportunity cost.

The Accumulation Strategy, on the other hand, seeks to grow wealth over the long term. Focused on identifying high-quality businesses at reasonable prices, it emphasizes consistency and aims to balance clients’ understanding of investments with market opportunities.

The Private Partnership strategy is structured to seize market inefficiencies and opportunistic investments, providing exclusive opportunities for qualified investors.

Crucially, the Value Infusion process allows for a customized approach, recognizing that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. By blending value-oriented strategies with the Preservation Strategy as a base holding, Jacobs Investment Management creates optimal allocations that align with individual client objectives.

While acknowledging that markets can be efficient, Jacobs Investment Management remains attuned to inefficiencies that can be exploited through diligent analysis and strategy alignment. These strategies are designed to accommodate clients’ risk tolerance and time horizon, offering a comprehensive and adaptable approach to investment management.

Past performance may not be indicative of future results.  Therefore, no current or prospective client should assume that the future performance of any specific investment or investment strategy (including the investments and/or investment strategies recommended by the advisor), will be profitable or equal to past performance levels. All investment strategies have the potential to profit or loss.  Changes in investment strategies, contributions or withdrawals may materially alter the performance and results of your portfolio. Different types of investments involve varying degrees of risk, and there can be no assurance that any specific investment will either be suitable or profitable for a client’s investment portfolio.