----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:54
AM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] Portfolio
Theory
I think smasha hits the nail on the head when it
comes to investing (against trading). One has to develop a portfolio
based on some sort of logical concept. He has a portfolio based on
income, core and growth shares as set out in his e-mail and
what appear to be some reasonable choices in those
areas.
Another suggestion is an
economy concept which succeeds is as
follows:
(a) Look at the core aspects of the modern economy operating
in, say, New Zealand and Australia;
(b) Break those aspects down into your own headings - as
many as you may choose - banking, telecommunications, transport. farming,
export, gambling, retail, chemicals, property, etc
etc;
(c) Analyse which aspects appear to be essential -
ie: they are not going to go away;
(d) Disregard those areas which you may feel are not
performing at all well - forestry, airlines, etc;
(e) Finally, select the company which you think best
represents the sectors/s in which you choose to invest and which from
investigation appears to be actually performing well both in its
business and for the shareholders;
(f) Do not buy into a company with the cheapest
available shares necessarily. (The cost of the shares will only determine
the number of shares that you can afford, not the quality of the
investment.)
The main point of such investing is to do the
research and make an informed decision. I accept that
some, like the chartists, (I find Phaedrus most
interesting) have their arguments, but that is only part of the
story. I think charting is perhaps more appropriate for those
who chose to trade the market. Nothing beats doing your homework
first. Read widely! Use the Internet! It may be
stating the obvious, but there is no real science to it, just time and careful
attention to detail. That is how Ron Brierley has always operated even
if really looking for opportunities and not necessarily good
long term investments .
A well run company in an essential sector will normally produce reasonable levels of both income and
capital growth in the medium to long term and out-perform the market in
general . I consider this economy concept as rather pragmatic
approach and perhaps it is along the Warren Buffet school of
investing.
I would think a portfolio in ten to twelve essential sectors
based on this economy concept can do well and may lead to an early retirement
if built up steadily. Look back five years and
consider the following as examples:
Banking - Westpac, Bendigo Bank (Aus- a winner !!
)
Transport/Property - Auckland Airport
Farming - Wrightson
Export - Port of Tauranga, Ports of Auckland
Gambling - Sky City, Tabcorp (Aus)
Chemicals - Orica (Aus)
General - GPG, Infratil.
There will always be some disappointments and mistakes can
be made. In telecommunications, Telecom has disappointed, but
Telecom will not go away. The dividends are regular and perhaps
there will be better times to come. Forestry has been a Cinderella
industry for shareholders to date, but read Terry Hall's comments in
yesterday's Sunday Star Times if you seek a little
optimism. Airlines in general - perhaps to be avoided, but then
look ar Ryan Air in the UK. Can Air New Zealand foot
it successfully as a budget airline? Virgin/Pacific Blue
sounds great but read the article in this mornings Dominion
Post as a bit of an eye opener on that
operation.
You won't always win, but if you can get, say, two-thirds of
your choices rightl in the long term, you should be well ahead of the
pack, and you can always adjust your portfolio to cash up and/or
replace the non-performers as may become desirable. All this goes with
riding out the highs and lows, not punting on rumours
and all those numerous other factors, predictable or otherwise, which
affect the market.
Sound boring? Not really, and I believe it
works!
Skelessi.
(Discl: Hold some of the above companies)