Betting The Farm

Published in Investing Strategy on 18 November 2009

Should you go 'all in' on an investment?

When people talk about "betting the farm" on an investment, I take this to be a very sizeable investment, as opposed to betting absolutely everything you can lay your hands on. Whether or not this is an advisable strategy or not will depend on a whole host of factors which are unique to each individual and a bit too boring to go into here (you know, stuff like stage of life, risk profile, job security, blah, blah...). 

But what is interesting to consider for investors is whether such a strategy has merit. When should you consider a farm bet, why would you do so, and what are the risks of so doing?

Personally, I've only come close to what could be termed "farm bets" a couple of times. These were back in the heady days of the latter-stage tech meltdown in 2002-03 when various former tech-stars fell to ludicrously low valuations as the market overshot in the other direction, as it is wont to do, valuing perfectly viable companies at less than their cash holdings; much less in some cases. 

Fortunately, these investments were successful as the companies were gobbled up by bigger fish in fairly short order, who got the assets and cash on the cheap -- but still a lot higher than I and many other Fools had been able to buy at.

Asset-based farm bets

It's worth looking at these situations to see whether they merited a bet the farm approach, though. The value was fairly obvious -- the cash. And there are other situations where companies are valued far below their net tangible assets (including cash which is nearly always the best asset, though property which hasn't been re-valued for a long time can also represent conspicuous value). 

These can still go very wrong though. Losses can spiral; management can blow the cash on big salaries, emoluments, unwise acquisitions and the like. And the smaller the company is, the more likely you are to experience a nasty surprise in general. This doesn't mean that the big guns are safe by any means. Many Fools remember Marconi's experience of unwise "reshaping" of the business etc all too clearly.

Perhaps the safer farm bet approach is the one expounded by Stephen Bland; the "PYAD" one of identifying companies with a price-to-earnings ratio, yield, assets and debts, all well out of kilter with their contemporaries -- in a good way of course. But even Stephen is a little more cautious these days, recently saying: "...I very much doubt that I would raise all-in on just one share any more, probably an age related, more risk averse kind of thing".

Never say never

"Hear, hear" I would say. On the whole, a bet the farm approach is a risky one. There are simply too many unforeseens and we don't all have the insight of a George Soros

For most of us, making a decent profit -- or even a living -- out of investing necessitates two steps forward, one step back. In other words, we all get a few wrong. But you only need to be right most of the time in percentage terms to make a decent return. One ten bagger, for example, as many Fools have experienced with UNIQ (LSE: UNIQ) this year, accounts for nine total wipe-outs; the latter being a highly unlikely scenario.

That isn't to say you shouldn't follow up initial capital losses by averaging down. Many investors shy away from buying more shares at a lower price, preferring the opposite of a stop-loss approach. Each has merit, but if you're digging down for value a share price fall could present more of an opportunity than a threat. I'd still shy away from betting the farm though.

Learning from mistakes

I think it's very important to learn from your own mistakes and those of others -- but to learn the right messages. This is tougher than it may appear. Buying shares which subsequently go down due to completely unforeseen circumstances isn't a "wrong" decision; it just didn't turn out the way you expected it to. For most of us, though, it shows that diversification of investments is generally the wiser course.

But if I was 21, with a good career ahead of me, no debts and a few quid in the bank -- maybe I'd bet my smallholding if the right one came along!

More from David Holding:

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 18 Nov 2009 , 3:12pm

David,

As I've written elsewhere in various books and articles, there is an important interplay between Position Sizing (which you're talking about in this article) and Stop Orders (which you mention in passing).

If you stake £10,000 (the farm) with no stop order, then you gain £10,000 if you cash in when the price doubles, and lose your entire stake if the company goes bankrupt. You have effectively risked £10,000 to make £10,000.

If you stake £10,000 with a stop order placed at minus 20% (for example), then you gain £10,000 if you cash in when the price doubles, and you lose only £2,000 if the company goes bankrupt. You have effectively risked £2,000 to make £10,000.

This is second nature to "traders" (not necessarily short term) as opposed to "investors".

The only way for a non-user of stop orders to limit the risk to £2,000 is to use a smaller position size; i.e. to stake only £2,000 in the first place. But he or she will only make £2,000 -- rather than £10,000 -- when the price doubles.

Of course there are pitfalls, but I hope this helps to complement your article.

Tony Loton.

UncleEbenezer 18 Nov 2009 , 5:29pm

I suspect a great many people "bet the farm" on a single investment: namely property. The tax system encourages it, as does the poor situation of renters in this country (meaning even those who can't really afford it are in the market to drive up house prices).

Hence a bubble that is the most damaging in our history. No previous bubble has affected such an essential as the roof over your head, nor attracted so much taxpayers money in to stoking it further.

BarrenFluffit 19 Nov 2009 , 11:19am

"One ten bagger, ...accounts for nine total wipe-outs; "
But if the wipe-out happens before the ten bagger you don't have any money left to invest in it!

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.