A stock portfolio.25 сентября, 2021 от fake Выкл
«A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush».
(C) folk wisdom
At first glance, there is nothing to say. «And what could be the dispute?» — Exclaim far from the world finance reader? — «After all and the hedgehog is clear that the more profitability, the better!»
However, the question made in the title is not as simple as it seems at first glance.
And the reader, more immersed in financial realities, will understand what is the catch.
The catch is that the risk and profitability in finances go hand in hand: the ratio «Risk-profitability» is the basic ratio of any investment instrument.
There are no absolutely guaranteed profitability in the world of finance. Always profitability is combined with risk. Even the OFZ — conditionally considered by a completely safe tool — are considered precious and precisely. After all, even the state that has released OFZ, theoretically may admit default in its bonds (although it is obvious that the probability of this event is extremely small). What about talking about the stock? It is always a wide variety of risks:
Risk of decline in shares
Risk of cancellation of dividends
Risk of bankruptcy company
As we see, risks in stocks abound. In any promotions.
No wonder the situation when large funds are shifted from instruments with a fixed return in stocks in the market are characterized as «an increase in risk appetite.»
With this in mind, taking into account the fact that increased yield carries and increased risks, the answer to the question in the title of the article does not seem so unequivocal.
Here, instead of an answer «The more, the better,» rather, the answer is «taste». I would have added something else not only taste (and appetite for risk), and also the question of your investment goals, investment horizons, and even your nervous system.
Although, with regard to the nervous system, Buffett claims that a person who is not ready for drawdown in 50%, should not invest in stock))
In order not to argue abstractly, I just show you on my example, as I reasoned, selecting certain papers into the portfolio, or make a decision not to take the paper. These are not some general recommendations, these decisions reflect only my character, my thoughts and my life situation — you will have completely different, based on your character and your circumstances.
Chopped up from adrenaline before each start and be in the pre-infrack state after each fall (then the aircraft, the stock, then and the other)? No, thanks — no.
In similar logic, other companies that are in stage, more reminiscent of the start-up, are unacceptable for me. This does not mean that such companies «bad» — no, if you healthy appreciated them (as well as expenses, they appreciated their nerves and their willingness to lose money with an unfavorable course of events), then this is quite normal investment — there is a chance to double or may even have a plan ( Who knows ???) his capital, but there is a chance to lose it. Everything is true.
As the opposite example, I would have led the investment in a stable, profitable, sustainable business with decent dividend payments — the prefab prefers, for example, this is a paper that will not do «Xers» in the portfolio this year (and in the following too), but also There will be no nerves on me.
So, the prefabs fall into my portfolio, and «Virgin Galaktik» — does not fall there, although the potential yield of «Gali» is higher.
Speaking about «appetite for risk» or about the personal «risk profile», we must still not forget how important it is correct to determine this risk. Not always the presence or absence of high risk is so obviously, as when comparing prefers of the Sberling and shares of Virgin Galaxies. For example, shares of ferrous metallurgists are now carrying significant risks of serious drawdown, since the prices for metal and iron ore have long been at very high levels. There is no feeling that investors fascinated by high dividends are aware of the scale of the potential decline of the campaign.
I, although often shifting a portfolio (rebalancing him, culturally speaking), but I still try to follow the Council «Oracle from Omaha» and buy only something in principle is ready to own ten years.
From this point of view, it is quite terrible to own oil workers (although in this regard, most likely, what is called «running ahead of the locomotive») and it is very scary to invest in coal mining. Raspadskaya — was and remains one of the most interesting cases in our market. Ahead, in many ways, the decaying a significant increase in profits and dividends, but it was scary to invest in it, and it remains — not visible for ten years ahead of the prospects for coal energy, against which not only Europe fear, but also China.
Here is the gas — it does not cause Europeans, nor among Asians are no doubt — this is fuel at least the next decades (and then — most likely the hydrogen will produce from it). So the prospects for gas manufacturers look cloudless, and the perspectives of the coal mines are ambiguous on a long temporary segment.
Thus, Gazprom takes its place in the portfolio, and the rideway, despite the very interesting closest perspectives — no.
At the moment, the portfolio can feed me, creating passive income from dividends. At the same time, I earn legal practice for life, and the portfolio is my pension and insurance fund, which very much pleases me with its presence (in case of emergency expenses, the loss of ability to work, the care of the clients’ part, etc.).
Accordingly, my main task is to maintain capital. And only in the second turn — its increase. Of this hierarchy, the goals also follows the logic of buying issuers: mature companies paying dividends, preferably stocks of growth and startups.
By the way, why are the companies paying dividends preferable? For many reasons I described in other articles, I also wanted to mention quite a personal cause — it is not known when you need a portfolio to start working as a pension fund. If these are shares bringing dividends, then the portfolio like a pioneer is «always ready» to start working as your pension fund. And if you are sitting in growth promotions — you will have to either rebalacent the portfolio, or to live, like American Fire (Financial Independence Early Pension) Pensioners — to dine a part of the shares.
In the Americans, by the way, the topic of the «dividend» pension is not relevant, as low dividends (on average, about 2%) few people make it possible to live on them. Therefore, the Americans rely (or forced to rely) on the growth of the market and believe that it is safe to live annually 4% of their capital invested in the index.
Turning to the conclusions.
Since the risk and profitability in the stock market are hand in hand, to the question «what kind of yield prefer» there is no definitely right answer — he has his own.
Personally, I preferred the yield moderate, giving a small increase in capital, but guaranteeing more calm of the nervous system.
No set of shares will save us from the potential risk of sidets — stocks, this is the initially risky financial instrument. No wonder Buffett warned that a person not ready for drawdown by 50% should not be inserted into stocks. And yet, no matter how cool, there is no better tool for shares in order to become