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.

 

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Retirement is a risky business for most people

While encouraging people to draw down on their accumulated wealth in retirement might be good public policy, several million retirees disagree because they are purposefully conserving that capital. It’s time for a different approach.

The perfect portfolio for the next decade

This examines the performance of key asset classes and sub-sectors in 2024 and over longer timeframes, and the lessons that can be drawn for constructing an investment portfolio for the next decade.

UniSuper’s boss flags a potential correction ahead

The CIO of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, John Pearce, suggests the odds favour a flat year for markets, with the possibility of a correction of 10% or more. However, he’ll use any dip as a buying opportunity.

The challenges with building a dividend portfolio

Getting regular, growing income from stocks is tougher with the dividend yield on the ASX nearing 25-year lows. Here are some conventional and not-so-conventional ideas for investors wanting to build a dividend portfolio.

How much do you need to retire?

Australians are used to hearing dire warnings that they don't have enough saved for a comfortable retirement. Yet most people need to save a lot less than you might think — as long as they meet an important condition.

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 594 with weekend update

It’s well documented that many retirees draw down the minimum amount required and die with much of their super balances untouched. This explores the reasons why and some potential solutions to address the issue.

  • 16 January 2025

Latest Updates

Investment strategies

UniSuper’s boss flags a potential correction ahead

The CIO of Australia’s fourth largest super fund by assets, John Pearce, suggests the odds favour a flat year for markets, with the possibility of a correction of 10% or more. However, he’ll use any dip as a buying opportunity.

9 ways to fix Australia's housing crisis

Decades of policy failure have induced a fall in housing affordability. Unless painful changes are made, an underclass will emerge in a society that is supposed to boast the one of the world's highest standards of living.

Shares

Australia: why the chase for even higher dividend yields?

Australia boasts one of the world's highest dividend yielding sharemarkets, providing substantial benefits to investors and retirees. Despite this, individuals often stretch for even more yield, to their detriment.

Shares

MIGA – Make Income Great Again

The Australian sharemarket seems to be rewarding a number of unprofitable companies on the promise of future riches. Yet profits and cashflows still matter, as a recent case study of Domino's Pizza shows.

Shares

Mapping future US market returns

Exceptional returns from the US sharemarket over the past decade have driven by sales growth, margin expansion, rising valuations, and dividends. Predicting future returns requires careful consideration of these factors.

Shares

Read this before you go all in on US equities

US equities rule global markets, but history is littered with examples of markets that seemed invincible — until they weren’t. Diversification will be key for investor portfolios going forwards.

Property

What impact would scrapping stamp duty have on housing?

Increasing house prices pose challenges for housing affordability. This investigates the impact of stamp duty on the property market, and how removing the tax could help address several key issues.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 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.