security selection

Making Money the Old-Fashioned Way

© Can Stock Photo / stokkete

Years ago, the Wall Street firm of E.F. Hutton advertised “We make money the old-fashioned way. We earn it.” This tag line evoked a world of indepth research into securities and markets, and investment analysis by experienced professionals.

E.F. Hutton disappeared into a series of mergers, and making money the old-fashioned way is increasingly scarce. One popular theory now is that security selection does not matter, only the allocation of money across the different sectors of the market.

Combined with the idea that past patterns of volatility and past returns by sector should dictate what one should own for the future, many modern ‘investment advisors’ pay no attention to individual company stocks or bonds.

It seems to us that owning stock in a failing chain of department stores is a lot different than owning the world’s largest online retailer. A few automakers survived, hundreds did not. Buying a corporate bond for 50 cents on the dollar is a totally different proposition than selling it for 50 cents on the dollar. Owning some of everything is different than being selective.

Our experience says security selection DOES matter.

One of our strategies is to try to find ownership in great companies at decent prices, to buy and hold. Looking for cyclical companies at low points in the cycle is another strategy. And simply seeking bargains anywhere in the investment universe is a third.

This is not easy. Conditions are always uncertain. There are no guarantees. It takes a lot of effort and energy. There is no assurance that the old-fashioned way will make money, as E.F. Hutton claimed.

But we are trying.

Clients, if you would like to talk about this or anything else, please email us or call.


Content in this material is for general information only and not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

All investing involves risk including loss of principal. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

We Eat Our Own Cooking

© Can Stock Photo / lisafx

Last week I was describing an investment opportunity, or ‘table-pounding bargain’ as I prefer to think of it, to a client. The client was not exactly skeptical, but she had a question. “Do you own it?”

This is a brilliant question. ‘Skin in the game’ is an extremely vital indicator. When someone is personally invested in an idea or concept, they are more likely to be focused on the potential for success or possibility of failure. Alleged leaders who do not share in the consequences of their actions are notoriously inept. (Congress and health care, for example?)

Modern philosopher Nassim Taleb (author of The Black Swan) takes it a step further and talks about soul in the game. Perhaps my level of compulsion, commitment to work to age 92, and obsession with your outcomes is evidence of ‘soul in the game.’ I’m not sure how I could possibly be more involved with my work.

Do I own it? Lady, I am loaded down with the stuff. I cannot in good conscience inflict the kinds of concentrations on you that I am willing to face. After all, few of you want to work to age 92 as I do, and between you and me, I am in the best position to knowingly run larger risks. So the most volatile accounts in the shop, upside and downside, are my own.

Let me clarify: we offer no guarantees. The fact that I own the ideas we talk about does NOT provide any tangible value to you. When your account grows, our revenues rise—it is win-win—and that provides an economic incentive to act in good faith. But whether or not I own something is no guarantee of anything.

My purpose in writing this is simply to say we may be right or wrong on any recommendation—but we are always sincere. I want you to know, that idea I’m talking most about, YES I own it!


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual.

The opinions expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of LPL Financial.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

There is no assurance that the techniques and strategies discussed are suitable for all investors or will yield positive outcomes.

Security Selection Doesn’t Matter—or Does It?

© Can Stock Photo / alexh

One of the staples of conventional investing wisdom is asset allocation—the choosing of broad market sectors, determines investment outcomes. Supposedly, the selection of individual securities within each sector barely matters.

We will explain where the flaw is after a little history. The theory dates back to 1986 when the Financial Analysts Journal published a paper, ‘Determinants of Portfolio Performance.’ The authors concluded that asset allocation explained 93.6% of the variation in portfolio quarterly returns.

Since then, others have concluded that as much as 100% of returns are explained by asset allocation, that security selection doesn’t matter at all.

This version of reality is convenient for some financial planners, who are thereby relieved of the work of actually researching securities and managing portfolios based on that research. If it doesn’t matter what you own, only the category, you simply need to choose your pie chart of sectors and buy stuff to fill it up!

Here is the flaw: all securities are owned all the time, by someone. If you look at the aggregate of all investors (or many investors), security selection appears not to matter. But the individual does not own all securities – and the specific selection of what he or she does own has a huge impact on outcomes.

Investor A buys a security for $100, sells it later for $25 to Investor B. Investor B holds it while it recovers to $100. One has a 75% loss, the other a 300% gain. Security selection matters. In the aggregate, the security started at $100 and ended at $100. But that leaves out the loss for one and the gain for another.

One of Warren Buffett’s earliest investors put $15,000 in, back in the 1950s. Today his name is on the home of the symphony orchestra in Omaha, a beautiful performing arts facility he donated to the community. Security selection matters.

We offer no guarantees about the outcome of our work. But we believe the selection of individual securities is the biggest factor in those outcomes. If you would like to discuss this topic or anything else at greater length, email us or call.


The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. All performance referenced is historical and is no guarantee of future results.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal.

Asset allocation does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss.

Because of their narrow focus, sector investing will be subject to greater volatility than investing more broadly across many sectors and companies.