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

Are you making these SMSF mistakes?

After four decades advising investors, there are a few common mistakes I've seen SMSF investors make. From holding too much cash and chasing yield to overtrading and trusting tips. Are these errors costing you?

Why have Australian living standards 'fallen' and how do we fix it?

For the last few years there has been much talk of a 'cost-of-living' crisis in Australia and of 'falling living standards'. Lately this has flared up again with the pickup in inflation resulting in a renewed fall in real wages.

Will you run out of money in retirement?

Fear of running out has become a defining retirement anxiety. Why do some retirees die with substantial wealth while others deplete their nest egg? Evidence suggests the answer is more complicated than we think. 

Retirement spending is not one-size-fits-all

New data challenges the idea that Australians are underspending their super. The bigger issue may be helping retirees navigate complexity, make confident decisions and use their savings to support security, wellbeing and choice.

Four options for an income investor’s next dollar

What if Australia’s golden age of dividends is ending? Rather than overhaul your portfolio, it may be worth considering where new capital can work harder. I discuss four income strategies and the trade-offs behind each.

The missing link in the CGT debate

A little-noticed consequence of Labor’s tax changes could have implications well beyond investors’ tax bills. The issue raises bigger questions about incentives, capital allocation and the drivers of long-term economic growth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

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.

The ageing ‘crisis’ has not and will not happen

Rising age dependency is frequently treated as a warning sign for economies. But when actual workforce participation is examined, a strikingly different picture emerges about ageing, productivity and economic sustainability.

Retirement

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.

Shares

Four charts that expose market concentration risk

Investors have recently been rewarded for backing market leaders, but history suggests this eventually comes at a cost. Now may be the time to review whether your portfolio is carrying unintended risks beneath the surface.

Investment strategies

The case for gearing beyond property

Most Australians gear into property but ignore shares. That may be a mistake. Used carefully, geared equity strategies can enhance long-term returns, reduce cash tied up in growth assets and support retirement income goals.

Economy

Australia's $1 trillion debt pile

The headlines exclaiming that Australian government debt has hit A$1 trillion and US government debt has hit $40 trillion has turned heads, but how serious are they really? Will Australia's mix of debt create challenges?

Economy

Has 100 years of growth made us any happier?

For decades, GDP has been the benchmark for economic success, but has it made us materially happier? If happiness does not rise in lockstep with prosperity, are we overlooking what constitutes a successful society?

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.