67% Of The FTSE With Just 5 Shares

Published in Investing on 17 August 2012

How much diversification is enough?

A couple of articles that I've written recently have prompted a debate among some readers -- even among those holding only FTSE 100 (UKX) stalwarts. In short, to what extent should you diversify?

At first glance, the question seems odd. Again and again, investing beginners are told, diversification is good.

But is it? As I wrote the other day, under-the-radar investment legend Seth Klarman currently has 40% of his $2.9 billion portfolio in just three shares.

Nor is Warren Buffett a fan. "Do not put your eggs in many baskets," he's on record as saying. "Put all your eggs in one basket -- and proceed to watch that basket very carefully."

Growth investing

The trouble is, I reckon that the question itself is flawed. For asking the question 'how much diversification is enough?' omits any consideration of the investors' objectives.

A gung-ho capital growth investor, for instance, will almost inevitably want to minimise diversification, so as to maximise investment gains.

If a share doubles in value, and it's simply one of 20 that you hold, then the overall impact on your portfolio is a gain of 5%. If your portfolio is 10 shares, the same doubling is a 10% gain overall.

Go the whole hog, and put all your eggs in one basket, then the doubling of that single share represents a portfolio growth of 100%.

Dividend investing

Income investors approach things from a different perspective, though.

With a one-share portfolio, a 50% dividend cut in a single share reduces annual income by 50%. With a five-share portfolio, a 50% dividend cut in a single share reduces annual income by 10%.

But with a 20-share portfolio, a 50% dividend cut in a single share reduces annual income by 2.5%.

I know which I prefer. My own income portfolio, for what it's worth, stands at 15 shares -- about halfway to the eventual number that I want.

Sectoral safety

That said, investors pursuing a cautious, in-between strategy -- dividends are good, but so are capital gains -- can more safely concentrate their portfolios by avoiding sector duplication.

Hold one bank, not two, in other words -- no matter how appealing the financial sector. Ditto oil companies, supermarkets, pharmaceutical firms and so on.

67% of the FTSE

What might such a portfolio look like in practice? Take a look at this selection of five picks, each one chosen for reasonable fundamentals, reasonable prospects, and limited overlap with the other sectors.

CompanyCurrent priceMarket capForecast P/EForecast yield
Royal Dutch Shell (LSE: RDSB)2347p£144.7bn8.24.9%
BAE Systems (LSE: BA)332p£10.5bn7.86.4%
Unilever (LSE: ULVR)2267p£64.1bn16.23.6%
GlaxoSmithKline (LSE: GSK)1474p£72.2bn11.75.3%
HSBC (LSE: HSBA)568p£103.4bn8.85.3%

Now, five sectors won't cover the full range of the FTSE (UKX), by any means. Even so, the sectors I've selected, in fact, amount to a fairly impressive 67% of the FTSE All-Share index. And viewed as five individual shares, they collectively make up 19% of the FTSE 100.

How diversified are they? Granted, 'limited overlap' has, well, limitations. A recession, for instance, bites hard into consumer purchasing power, affecting every sector that is dependent on consumer discretionary spending. Even so, the products that these businesses sell for the most part fall firmly into the 'non-discretionary' category.

  • Royal Dutch Shell operates in 80 countries around the world, operating over 30 refineries and chemical plants, and produces 3.2 million barrels of gas and crude oil each day. Global revenues amounted to $470 billion during 2011 -- some of which came from the company's 43,000 retail filling stations around the world, of course, but also from industrial customers of its chemicals and gas businesses.

  • BAE Systems has expanded far beyond its aerospace roots to become something of a defence‑related 'one stop' shop, with military aircraft, surface ships and submarines, tanks and other combat vehicles, ordnance, electronic warfare and missile systems all on offer. The bulk of the company's sales go to the governments and defence ministries of its five 'home markets' -- Australia, India, Saudi Arabia, the UK and the United States.

  • Two billion consumers use a Unilever product every single day, with Unilever products being sold in over 190 countries worldwide. And those products are themselves almost prefect diversified, both by geography and type. Foodstuffs, cleaning products, oral care, personal hygiene: sales of Unilever's clutch of global brands come 33% from the Americas, 29% from Europe and 38% from Africa and Asia.

  • GlaxoSmithKline isn't just the world's second largest pharmaceutical company, employing around 99,000 people and manufacturing almost four billion packs of medicines and healthcare products every year. It's also a consumer business with a robust collection of strong brands: Ribena, Horlicks, Lucozade, Aquafresh, Sensodyne, Panadol, Tums, Zovirax -- and of course, the Macleans range of toothpaste, mouthwash and toothbrushes.

  • HSBC serves around 60 million customers worldwide, through 6,900 branches and offices in 84 countries. With a strategy of being "the world's leading international bank", HSBC has the distinction of having paid out more in dividends than any bank in the world over the past five years.

Further reading

Want to know more? Two of these shares, as it happens, are profiled in a special free report from The Motley Fool -- "Top Sectors Of 2012" -- which pinpoints 17 shares across three sectors tipped for outperformance. Reading it could throw a few more diversification ideas into the mix.

As I've said before, I made two purchases after reading the report -- one of which is listed above. The report is free, so why not download a copy? It can be in your inbox in seconds.

Want to learn more about shares, but not sure where to start? Download our latest guide -- "What Every New Investor Needs To Know" -- it's free. The Motley Fool is helping Britain invest. Better.

More investing ideas from Malcolm Wheatley:

> Malcolm owns Unilever, BAE Systems, and GlaxoSmithKline. He does not have a beneficial interest in any other share mentioned.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

lotontech 17 Aug 2012 , 6:21pm

I was thinking about what you've said about diversification, Malcolm, and here is my alternative (or maybe complementary) view: http://goo.gl/9kknp

MDW1954 17 Aug 2012 , 7:02pm

Thanks, Tony.

Duly read.

Malcolm (author)

goodlifer 17 Aug 2012 , 10:14pm

Thanks, Malcolm, for a helpful and interesting article.

I don't think I'll be the only one to pick a few nits.
Here's one for starters.

I think your Warren Buffett quote really belongs to Andrew Carnegie.

Here's one from Uncle Warren:
"If you are a know-something investor, able to understand business economics and to find five to ten sensibly priced companies that possess important long-term competitive advantages, CONVENTIONAL portfolio diversification (broadly based active portfolios) makes no sense for you."

Five to ten sensibly priced companies?
If that's not diversification, what is?

Anyway. I'm inclined to give more weight to what the great man actually practises than to what he's alleged to preach
We're told his portfolio normally holds between thirty and thirty five stocks.
The fellow's more diversified than poor little ignorant me!

That's all for now.

MDW1954 17 Aug 2012 , 10:38pm

Hello goodlifer,

Several Buffett quotes reveal the chap's reading list, and this one is no exception. Carnegie indeed said something similar, as did Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens). But Buffett's quote is the one best aimed at investors, so I used it.

Your other Buffett quote is spot on. Going for growth? Five-to-ten.

Income? I'm aiming for 25-30.

Malcolm (author)

goodlifer 17 Aug 2012 , 11:17pm

Thanks Malcolm,

And what about Seth Klarman?
If three shares make up just 40% of his portfolio the odds are he's got eight or more altogether.

To misquote Sam Clemens, if that's not diversification, it'll do until diversification comes along.

I'm a sort of wishy washy cross between value and income - I try to combine them - and currently hold twenty stocks.
When I reinvest my dividend payments, I just look for the best bargain that suits my portfolio, but I'm always pleased if it happens to be a fresh face.
I don't think there's any upper limit, in practice anyway - the more the merrier.

mrburns2050 18 Aug 2012 , 12:13am

goodlifer

"I just look for the best bargain that suits my portfolio"

"I don't think there's any upper limit"

This is very much my opinion. If some-things good value and i hold it, i add. If i dont hold it, i buy.

Capping your self seems silly to me.

JohnnyCyclops 18 Aug 2012 , 7:54am

Goodlifer.

WB's comment about "know-something investors" could mean to know one sector very well and buy five or ten well placed stocks within a narrow range of business/sector.

goodlifer 18 Aug 2012 , 9:38am

JohnnyCyclops

It could indeed.

Gengulphus 18 Aug 2012 , 7:09pm

A bit of a nitpick, but your market cap figure for Royal Dutch Shell is much too small! You've only counted the RDSB shares; the company's full market cap (both RDSA and RDSB shares) is somewhere in the rough region of £140b...

Gengulphus

MDW1954 18 Aug 2012 , 9:59pm

Thanks, Gengulphus.

I'll get that corrected first thing Monday. I know exactly what's happened.

Malcolm (author)

Cisk999 20 Aug 2012 , 12:28pm

Malcolm, I'm afraid Warren doesn't practice what he preaches - Berkshire (in addition to the dozens of business that it owns outright) has equity stakes in 48 listed companies in the US, UK and Europe.

Quite different from 5-10 he advocates for private investors....

goodlifer 20 Aug 2012 , 7:04pm

Sneer at diversification how you like, there are no known cases of a successful investor putting all his eggs in one basket.


Or are there?

goodlifer 20 Aug 2012 , 8:35pm

Diversification is not enough for some people.
They want you "allocate your assets."

This seems to mean systematically spreading your money around over cash, deposit accounts, bonds, property, commodities, foreign currencies, fine wines, postage stamps, collectibles etc etc

I think this may be what Uncle Warren means by "conventional diversification."

Asset allocation's probably the brain-child of some bright spark looking for something new to write about in his PhD thesis.

It's also the phonus bolonus, high-falutin' metaphysical rubbish?

If I've got it all wrong, perhaps some kind Fool will straighten me out, and explain exactly why it's worth bothering about.

Meanwhile I'm sticking to a cushion of cash to live off, property - our home - and our portfolio.

jackdaww 21 Aug 2012 , 7:57am

when buffet was making his fortune he had most of his money in 4 stocks.

jackdaww 21 Aug 2012 , 8:00am

goodlifer

im with you on this - i havnt so far grasped this asset allocation idea.

i - and suspect many others have just the same 3 areas.

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.