Tweaks

I've continued my consideration of why I own certain investments. But I've also been thinking through my approach to investing. I've given some thought to each of my investments, making sure I'm clear on why I own each investment, putting them into rough categories of steady compounders, income and growth. Some additional thoughts:

I need to keep things simple. I have a job and a family, and limited time to research investments - despite finding it really enjoyable, I need to find a way to focus my attention on a smaller number of key investments. 

Once invested, I also have limited time to keep track of the portfolio. Some of them are well behaved and can be watched from a distance - others need careful attention.

I also need a lower limit on returns, below which an investment should be jettisoned from the portfolio.

I enjoy dividends, it has been pointed out that I have some runway before I need income from the portfolio, and that I'm probably inhibiting my total returns by focussing on them. Seeing those dividends come in gives me some comfort. They also help to dampen downward volatility as the cash ticks in. And of course they provide funds to redeploy. So whilst total return should be more of a factor than income, there are emotional and psychological reasons for me including decent dividend payers in the portfolio.

Ultimately absolute returns are what matter but performance against a benchmark is interesting. It can also provide a useful yardstick against which to measure risk vs. returns. If I can get the same returns from an index fund as I get for holding a handful of individual companies, then I'm getting a diversified investment, and lower risk for the same return. My benchmark is a comparison with the 600 companies listed on the UK All Shares index - the shorthand version of this is using the Vanguard FTSE UK All Share tracker. 

There's no reason for me to limit my horizon for investing to the UK, I can pick up cheap globally diversified ETFs from Vanguard or Blackrock. These would certainly simplify the portfolio - one fund to rule them all...But...should an investment have the potential to outperform the global tracker, then it should be in the portfolio.

So what would an investment need to do to outperform a global tracker?

A simple set of comparisons taken from Vanguard and Blackrock follows, I want to strip out noise of too many considerations. I've taken pre-pandemic data, which might seem arbitrary, but I'm going to assume that in a year or two, COVID-19 will be just another bug that we live with. And that as a result, life gets back to what we were used to before it turned up. Some things will be different - the change brought about by the virus and our response to it, but most of our lives will revert to something close to before the pandemic. So most businesses will also return to a similar pattern of pre-pandemic behaviours. I've looked at historical data, with the cut off point being January 2020.

2 global trackers show pretty much the same results:

Vanguard: VWRL

Blackrock: IWRD

Vanguard have data for VWRL since 2012, and up until Jan 2020 grew at an annualised rate of around 12%. When I add in dividends it is around 14% (if dividends had been reinvested straight away the magic of compounding would have pushed the numbers up a little more - but it was getting complicated enough...)

IWRD over the same period gave an almost identical result. I guess it should - although it does have higher fees...

IWRD has data back to 2010. If this is used as the starting point then for the 10 year period until 2020 it grew at around 8% growth, and with dividends, around 9% 

The reason for the lower returns is a period when the market went sideways between 2010 and 2012:

So how does this fit in to my investing. Well dividends remain important, there will be a group of investments focussed on income. There will also be a group of investments that are steady compounders. Both of these I intend to keep under minimal supervision, so they need to be well behaved.

If the compounders are going to hold their own against a global ETF, it looks like they need to be generating at least as much return. And this is where the lower bound fits in. I'm going to aim for something in the middle of the two timeframes I looked at above for the two global funds, a convenient 10% as a lower limit. In other words if an investment doesn't look like generating at least a 10% return over the period that it is in the portfolio - it will be asked politely to leave.

That leaves me with compounders and income, as needing minimal time, which means I can concentrate on keeping an eye on the investments that are likely to be more volatile - the smaller companies with more room to grow. But also potentially a larger fall if they upset the market.

I will also be putting some money into a global ETF to provide a completely hands off investment. And this should enable me to have 75% of my investments either passive, or requiring minimal time.

I'm not about to throw out everything in the portfolio. It will be a matter of gradual pruning, rather than lopping off chunks, there are a few businesses in the portfolio that have been clobbered by the pandemic and should be given more time to resurrect themselves. Others have great looking operating numbers, but I question their ability to grow.

New long term investments will need to be both high quality, as distinguished by considerable competitive advantages - so only the moatiest will end up as long terms holds.

Other purchases may become shorter lived holdings...