Challenges to achieving true diversification
- Flint Stephens February 3rd, 2012The importance of diversifying one’s assets is not a new idea. Most people are familiar with the phrase “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” I keep about two dozen chickens in my yard, so I understand clearly the origins of that expression.
If a person is out gathering eggs and the eggs are all together, a single misstep or drop can destroy all of the eggs at once. Long ago someone figured out that if the eggs were divided and the person carrying the eggs fell or dropped the basket, at least some eggs would remain for that day’s needs. Six eggs might not be as good as a dozen, but it is better than no eggs.
Unfortunately, diversifying investment assets can be more difficult than just separating eggs into different baskets. A few weeks ago I touched on this subject and pointed out that even assets than seem dissimilar sometimes are highly correlated in their movements.
http://www.marketowl.com/2012/01/13/the-importance-of-diversification-and-correlation/
This concept can be difficult to explain and to understand, so I’m going to use the illustration of a star to help. Each point of a star is separate and distinct from the other points. To achieve true investment diversification, we want asset categories that have a low correlation—that are separate and distinct from each other like the points on a star.
The image below shows five asset categories that generally have low correlation rates: U.S. equities (S&P 500), U.S. bonds/dollar, energy, precious metals, and emerging markets.
The flaw with most attempts to manage risk by diversifying assets is that investors choose assets that are highly correlated. For example, if we added small cap stocks, value stocks, large cap stocks, international stocks and high-yield bond funds to our star, they would all gravitate near the same point as the S&P 500 because they all behave about the same.
Below is a chart that shows how ETFs representing the five asset classes on our star have performed over the past six months. As you can see from the price movements, there have been periods when one or more of these asset categories have moved in concert. But over the six months spanned by this chart, there have also been separate, distinct movement from each.
An investor holding a portfolio of equal positions of each of these investments would have achieved a return of about 14% over the period represented. That is less than the 20% return that an investor could have earned by being invested solely in the S&P 500. But the investor would not have endured the 10% decline the S&P experienced from its peak in October to its November low.
Imagine that each of the performance lines on the chart above was a road. There are hills and valleys and lots of potholes. There are really only two choices when it comes to dealing with the bumps and obstacles in each road. An investor can try to avoid the bumps, but that is difficult simply because there are so many and some might be difficult to see in the road ahead. The other way to deal with the bumps is to try to mitigate their impact.
The purpose of diversification is to act like a shock absorber for a portfolio. The goal is to smooth out the ride so one can attain performance that is something like the green line shown on the chart.
Some market experts argue that this type of diversification dilutes returns in a rising market. That is true, but for conservative investors who cannot afford big drawdowns or who cannot endure volatility this type of diversification offers an option for reliable risk protection.
Flint Stephens






