Monday, 26 August 2013

Is diversification a risk reduction fallacy?


It's been awhile since I posted well this has been basically because of the heavy workload that has been there and I recently went back to school to do my CFA and my work load hasn't been any lighter. Nevertheless there has been so much to talk about ranging from the JKIA fire to the announcement of the 5 billion dollars in investments that the president was able to bag in China. Today though I thought of discussing something completely different and that is the concept of diversification.

The concept of diversification is basically a method where investors instead of focusing on a single asset spread their risk on a number of assets the logic here being that by reducing their exposure to a single asset investors have reduced the risk that they are taking on, it is basically not to put all your eggs in a proverbial single basket. So it is this concept I want to challenge today.

Warren Buffett has long held that it is better to hold on to five good assets than holding 50 and personally I agree with this, a quick look at the Forbes 500 billionaires almost 70% of them are entrepreneurs that have turned their businesses into corporate mammoths. With this in mind you can ask yourself that as an investor when analyzing where to put your money, where to keep it and the likes in which scenario would you have a better understanding of what your investment really entails, as an investor in five companies or 50 if we confine ourselves to listed companies?

And even in your own private businesses the concept of diversification has often led to many businesses collapsing because of lack of enough concentration by their over-stretched owners an example would be of two very well off entrepreneurs that I personally know one of them let’s call him George is a large force in the real estate sector with properties valued in the billions and he also owns a three star hotel in his bid to diversify from what he termed his over-reliance on the property for his income decided to venture into selling motor-cycles, he even started an alcohol manufacturing company among many other businesses  with all of them being shut down having accrued tons of debt that he painstakingly cleared by selling some of his real estate holdings, Investor B let us call him Sam had a business that supplied items but when he decided to diversify of the only divestments that he did only the real estate venture was able to hold. His supply business suffering from his lack of concentration and the constant capital withdrawals so that he can be able to finance the other ventures suffered and is no longer the booming business it once was.

In the world of finance where it is very risky to hold one financial asset it would be extremely imprudent to hold one asset unless of course these are government bonds but it would also be extremely imprudent to be holding shares in 20 companies when will you do an analysis on these items when do you know if your asset is collapsing? When can you do very detailed analysis?

 Investment firms have research departments that do careful analysis on their held assets and for the prospective assets they want to invest in full time as an individual you have neither the  freedom to do this nor the financial resources to hire one to be doing this for you. My advice to you is when you invest one thing concentrate on it fully if you are in real estate and want to get into shares put your money with an asset manager who has the time and a research department to get into the nitty gritty, build your real estate and concentrate on it.

In conclusion it is my belief that by diversifying you don't reduce the risk you are taking on but are actually increasing by not allowing yourself to do a proper analysis on your investments and hence increasing the chances of making a bad one.

No comments:

Post a Comment