Tag Archives: #AveragingUp

A Tale of Two Worlds

Posted on by
Reply

Like the plus…

…to the minus…

…and day to night, …

…like forwards to backwards, …

…like North to South, …

…so is…

…investing to trading…

…or trading to investing…

…spin it any way around, like you’d like to.

These two worlds have their own tales, and, you guessed it, each is…

…diametrically opposite to the other.

In the one, you average down. In the other, you pyramid.

In the one, you buy low. Ideally, you don’t sell for a long time, and when you do, you sell high.

In the other, you buy high and sell higher, or sell low and buy back lower, ideally sooner than later.

In the one, you welcome notional losses in high conviction bets, so you can put in more at lower cost.

In the other, you abhor the sight of notional losses, and cut these beyond small thresholds.

In the one you are not glued to the screen, and can even choose to operate completely from after hours.

In the other, especially while taking big positions, significant screen-time is important.

In the one, you have time for other things in life, many other things.

In the other, perhaps not as many.

In the one, emotional and nervous overhang can be reasonably manageable with lifestyle and mental training.

In the other, management and mental training required is tougher.

One could go on.

That’s not the point though.

What do we take from this?

We want something concrete.

There’s a potent and vital point where the two worlds meet.

Let’s say you engage in the one world.

You then need the other – one way or another.

How?

Let’s say you are a trader.

You need to divert some profits to long-term holds, to build wealth, to secure yourself and your family.

Let’s say, on the other hand, you are a long-term investor.

Where does the world of trading fit in, for you?

To control your gambler’s instinct.

To not allow passage to your repeated inclination towards opening up your long-term portfolio, again and again.

Trading gets your trigger-happiness out of the way.

You tire mentally.

Perhaps take a few small losses. Wins are a small bonus.

Bottomline is, you don’t open your long-term portfolio to fiddle with it, unnecessarily. That action is grounded by a rule imposed by you yourself. Once a week. Once a month. Half-yearly. Annually. Whatever suits. At that time, open, fiddle, rearrange, do what you wish, but then close till next window. In the meantime, satisfy your need for action with some mild trading.

Even better if your small trading operation only shorts the market.

With that, you’d automatically be hedging your long-term portfolio.

Elegant.

Symmetrical.

Purposeful.

For a long-term portfolio in a growth market, …

…very…

…winning.

Lumpsum vs Piecemeal

Posted on by
Reply

What’s a…

…better…

…market entry?

Lumpsum, or piecemeal?

Since I function in a growth market, …

…which can be seen as a microcap vis à vis the world, …

(you guessed it, India, currently exhibiting value, …

…but for our discussion please treat it as a growth market,) …

…and, because this discussion makes the most sense for a growth market exactly, …

…please, therefore, treat this comparison as a tool to help you decide…

…your growth market entry strategy.

You come into a lumpsum, let’s say.

What are your options? For the investible portion that is.

Pump in – one shot?

Average down, bit by bit, as and when opportunities arise?

Two ends of the spectrum. Where do you stand? Let’s break it down.

What’s your capacity for drawdowns?

Can you take a 50% notional drawdown, and not have a sleepless night?

Yes? Sure? Ok, pump it into the long-term growth market in one shot, provided you know your stocks well enough. In ten years time you’ll look like a star. In three months, a fool. One year, bigger fool. Perhaps. Slowly, growth will show, …

…and compound.

In two decades, you’ll rule.

Not able to take the big drawdown? Don’t like looking like a short-term fool?

That’s ok.

Very few people can handle big drawdowns.

Even lesser individuals like looking like fools, even if for a short time.

Then you can go in bit by bit.

Two strategies.

If you know your stocks well, you can average down.

If you want the market to throw you winners, you can average up.

Disadvantages?

Sure. You aren’t subjected to big drawdown pangs, and aren’t chastised by the masses for investing on interim highs. In lieu of that, not all of your money is in, and thus, not all of it is exposed to growth, or for that matter compounding. Also, your money hangs around to be…

…spent.

Don’t like the downsides of either extreme?

There’s a way out for you. You can take the middle path. You can also decide for yourself how ‘middle’ it is.

Decide for yourself a time-period that you want to be in by. 3 months? 6 months, 9 months, 12 months? Longer will take you towards full-on piecemeal.

Decide also, for yourself, about averaging down, up, or down till a level, and from that point onwards, only up. You can say that you are for example going in to a stock with margin of safety, up to a level, but then you would like the stock to prove itself, and from that point onwards, you now start averaging up as the growth story unfolds. You can then couple your averaging down and up combo to your total time-frame selected for going in.

Bottom-line : in X months your funds start getting full growth and compounding effects, as per the cost-averaging mix Y you have chosen.

Both X & Y should be a function of your risk profile.

Isn’t that the reason why you chose the middle path, because you didn’t want to be exposed to lumpsum drawdowns?

So, three choices, break it down, follow what suits.

On a personal front, if money needs to go into a growth market, for me its better sooner than later.

Took a long time to realize this though.

My pursuit for financial independence was impeding this understanding.

The moment financial independence was achieved, along with it came the realization…

…that we don’t wait on a long-term growth market.

Sheer Moat Investing is not Antifragile 

Posted on by
Reply

There we go again. 

That word. 

It’s not going to leave us. 

Nicholas Nassim Taleb has coined together what is possibly the market-word of the century. 

Antifragile. 

We’re equity-people. 

We want to remain so. 

We don’t wish to desert equity just because it is a fragile asset-class by itself. 

No. 

We wish to make our equity-foray as antifragile as possible. 

First-up, we need to understand, that when panic sets in, everything falls. 

The fearful weak hand doesn’t differentiate between a gem and a donkey-stock. He or she just sells and sells alike. 

Second-up, we need to comprehend that this is the age of shocks. There will be shocks. Shock after shock after shock. Such are the times. Please acknowledge this, and digest it. 

To make our equity-play antifragile, we’ll need to incorporate solid strategies to account for above two facts. 

We love moats, right? 

No problem. 

We’ll keep our moats. 

Just wait for moat-stocks to show value. Then, we’ll pick them up. 

We go in during the aftermath of a shock. Otherwise, we don’t. 

We go in with small quanta. Time after time after time. 

Voila. 

We’re  already sufficiently antifragile. 

No magic. 

Just sheer common sense. 

We’re still buying quality stocks. 

We’re buying them when they’re not fragile, or lesser fragile. 

We’re going in each time with minute quanta such that the absence of these quanta (after they’ve gone in) doesn’t alter our financial lives. We’re saving the rest of our pickled corpus for the next shock, after which the gem-stock will be yet lesser fragile. 

Yes, we’re averaging down, only because we’re dealing with gems. We’ll never average down with donkey-stocks. We might trade these, averaging up. We won’t be investing in them. 

Thus, we asymptotically approach antifragility in a gem-stock. 

Over time, after many cycles, the antifragile bottom-level of the gem-stock should be moving significantly upwards. 

Gem-stock upon gem-stock upon gem-stock. 

We’re done already.