Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 166

Investing conservatively vs conventionally: is there a difference?

In the 2015/2016 financial year, the average investor performed poorly, despite typically being invested conventionally. The All Ordinaries Accumulation Index masked the significantly worse performance of the top 20 stocks in the market – the S&P/ASX20 Accumulation Index returned negative 7.0% for the year (including dividends). This is noteworthy because of the market capitalisation dominance of those top 20 companies, which at the time of writing constituted over 51% of the All Ordinaries Index. The names are very familiar and dominate most retail investors’ portfolios, but many of the individual stocks did significantly worse than the index.

2015/2016 performance of largest 20 companies on ASX

Investing in large, familiar companies

These companies constitute the most conventional of stock holdings and it begs the question, just because someone is invested conventionally, does that mean that they are being conservative? Most investors who hold large positions in these companies believe that because they are household names they must also be the least risky stocks to hold. But the connection between company size or familiarity and risk is a tenuous one.

The most important determinant of investment risk is the price paid for the asset. A poor asset purchased well under liquidation value can still be a great investment, just as a great asset bought at too high a price can prove a lousy one.

In his book Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, first published in 1958, famed investor Philip Fisher, said:

“Unfortunately, often there is so much confusion between acting conservatively and acting conventionally that for those truly determined to conserve their assets, this whole subject needs considerable untangling.”

He highlighted what he thought were the four important characteristics of conservative assets:

  • Superior operating performance, defined as being a ‘very low cost producer or operator in its field, [with] outstanding marketing and financial ability and a demonstrated above-average skill on the complex managerial problem of attaining worthwhile results from its research or technological organisation’.
  • Outstanding, high quality people, employees who are responsive to change and enjoy their workplace, and management who are disciplined in building long-range profits (and not solely focused on short-term results).
  • Inherent characteristics that demonstrate above-average profitability – ‘what can the company do that others would not be able to do about as well?’ – typically demonstrated by a superior return on invested assets and/or profit margin on sales.
  • The price paid for the investment.

Focus on the price paid

The fourth characteristic is often the most significant factor when determining the expected return on an investment. We focus on finding investments that are priced in a way where we expect an attractive total return with a sufficient margin of safety should business conditions or company circumstances prove to be worse than our initial expectation.

Most of the businesses we are attracted to have the following characteristics that are commonly sought after (as highlighted by the similarity between this list and Philip Fisher’s four dimensions):

  • a simple business model selling products and/or services we are familiar with
  • a sustainable competitive advantage
  • an attractive return on invested capital
  • significant cash flow generation
  • a strong balance sheet, and
  • competent, disciplined management.

Many of the large Australian businesses listed in the table above we would characterise as good businesses. But a good business bought at too high a price will still generally make a poor investment, especially from a risk-adjusted return perspective. Our view a year ago was that many of these businesses were priced well above our estimate of fair value. They may have appeared to be conservative investments, but in reality they were more conventional investments, and somewhat expensive conventional investments at that.

We are reminded of the Warren Buffett adage, “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” Investors should ensure they receive more value than they pay for when purchasing securities. If they do so over time, investors should earn an adequate return on their capital.

 

Tim Carleton is Principal and Portfolio Manager at Auscap Asset Management, a boutique Australian equities-focussed long/short investment manager. This article is general information and does not consider the circumstances of any individual. A person should obtain the Product Disclosure Statement before deciding whether to acquire, or to continue to hold, units in any Auscap fund.

 

  •   28 July 2016
  • 2
  •      
  •   
banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Why spending more in early retirement can improve lifetime income

Conventional wisdom encourages retirees to preserve superannuation. But if those likely to qualify for the Age Pension later in life spend a little more today, it may deliver higher lifetime income and a more stable retirement.

Is it time to bail on Australian stocks?

For generations, Australian investors have backed banks, miners and dividends. But has that loyalty come at a cost? A look at the numbers raises an uncomfortable question about where future returns will come from.

Meg on SMSFs: What do we think about reversionary pensions these days?

Reversionary pensions have long been a staple of SMSF estate planning, but are they still the best option? Meg Heffron revisits a once-clear favourite and asks whether changing super rules have shifted the balance.

Testamentary trusts survived the trust tax. The drafting battle has just begun.

The fight over testamentary trusts looked settled. Then the draft legislation arrived. Hidden in a technical detail is a question that could force many families to rethink wills they thought were already future-proof.

How does the 4% rule stack up?

The 4% rule has long been retirement's gold standard. But after a difficult period for investors, fresh analysis suggests a more conservative approach may significantly improve the chances of making savings last.

The new capital gains tax trap for your portfolio

Investors have long accepted one portfolio rule without much question. A major tax shift could change that calculation entirely, forcing difficult trade-offs between risk, discipline and an overlooked cost lurking beneath.

Latest Updates

Exchange traded products

It’s time for LICs to die

A high-profile dividend cut and a prominent fund manager’s apology have reignited a long-running debate. If investors can access similar exposures more cheaply and efficiently elsewhere, what exactly is keeping LICs alive?

Taxation

Will investors be better or worse off under new housing tax changes?

Housing tax reforms have sparked warnings of market turmoil and promises of greater fairness. But after modelling nearly two decades of property data, the results suggest winners and losers may not be who many investors expect.

Retirement

Three considerations before reshaping your legacy plan

Many retirees hope to leave a legacy. Proposed trust tax reforms could force families to rethink. The question is not how much to leave behind, but whether today's inheritance plans will still make sense as circumstances change.

Investment strategies

Why experienced investors still get markets wrong

Retirement is approaching. Markets are noisy. And every headline seems to demand action. The biggest investment risk isn't fear, greed or market volatility, it often arrives disguised as research and sensible risk management.

Shares

Why pay more for less?

Conditions were stacked in favour of professional investors in 2026. Most still fell short, raising questions about where investors should look for value. Meanwhile, an alternative strategy continued to make its case.

Investment strategies

Bleeding air out of the bubble

Equity valuations have fallen sharply over the past year, yet investors have largely been spared the volatility and losses that typically accompany a de-rating. What explains this unusually orderly reset? Here are five key drivers.

Strategy

Has AI gone rogue?

We worry about AI becoming conscious. But what if consciousness isn't the issue? The more unsettling possibility is a machine capable of pursuing objectives relentlessly, without motives, emotions, or awareness of any kind.

Sponsors

Alliances

  • ASA-Logo-RGB-ActiveGreen-web.png

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.