親愛的投資者，我們都知道需要多樣化。這是投資智者們經常讨論的一個話題。事實上，這可能是一個難題。因為我們總是習以為常而沒有真正考慮一下為什麼需要那麼做。投資者通過課本、金融課程可以學到關於波動性、標準偏差、協方差、相關性等概念，它們引導讀者相信他們可以通過B資產的升值來彌補A資產的貶值，或者在A資產升值的情況下彌補B資產的貶值。
以課本為例。這種聯系時常發生。現實生活中則更常見，隨著A資產收益下降，B資產也下降。但是我們希望B資產的降幅不會比A資產大（但願不會超過A資產）。這不像你通過客觀數據了解的那樣。貨幣對之間的相關性是十分不穩定的，所以，律師以及監管機構關於“貨幣對過去的表現不能代表未來的表現”的說法是正確的。事實上，現實情況比數據統計出來的結果要糟糕。由於全球化以及多年的貨幣寬松政策，相關性正在上升並且有可能持續（比如我們唯一擁有的相關性數據歷史，它在降低投資組合風險方面的效果也在下降）。所以，不要輕信你聽到、看到的或者那些聲稱可以帶來很好結果的股票和基金組合。這是一個較以前有更大相關性的領域。
但是如果我們沒有以說教的態度看待多樣化，並且沒有炫耀自己的多樣化統計數據，我們可以看到這一話題的另外一個方面：這是一個非常偉大的方式來管理風險。你可以通過觀察猜測低價股來完成這一任務。我認為，你需要了解它們的風險性。我能感覺到風險的存在，相信你們也能感覺到。
然而，40只股票總清單以及15只組合模型的總交易記錄，盡管投資組合不是所有月份都有良好表現，但大體上的表現很好。那麼，那些數據能代表你個人的交易結果嗎？你可以從這裡或那裡隨便選擇幾只股票，如果幸運的話，你可能有很好的交易結果；反之，則會很糟糕。
不論你購買還是定期地更新整個組合模型，還是你隨機選取的較大數量的、全球性的股票，你投資組合中所包含的股票越多，收益就越依賴於股票總體情況，而不是你的幸運。羅素2000或者別的小型股（不限於我在2013年10月15號根據時訊所列舉投資組合的16%）的持續性增長力，迄今為止總體表現良好。這是由於，隨著頭寸的增加，你個人選擇的低價股的基本面就越可能代表整個組合的基本面。投資組合首先應該考慮的就是低價股的基本面。並且由於購買單一的公司股票的風險性大，重要交易組合的具有較小的總風險性很關鍵。
讓我們非正式地思考一下關於投資組合的平均基本面這個問題。這不是一個精確的研究；一些公司的報告中沒有包含某些樣品。但是它應該為此做出一些粗略的回應。我們首先開始估值。當前股票組合的價值與銷售額比（價格/銷售額的強化說法）、股價與賬面價值比以及接下來12個月的價格與現金流比值分別是1.5、1.7和9.7.對於40只股票總清單，平均比值是2.8、2.2和11.3。而標普500，平均則是3.6、5.5和16。所以，基於上述投資組合的一個具有充分多樣性的組合可以讓你成為一個更有價值的投資者，而不是一個狂熱的投機者、賭徒。
現在，讓我們考慮一下銷售額增長率。投資組合模型的上一個季度以及過去12個月的同比增長率分別是17.8% 和14.0%、總清單股票的增長率則分別為23.7% 和 20.1% 、標準普爾500為1.7% 和 5.8%。所以，關於小公司增長速度較快的說法似乎是成立的。但如果你擁有一個代表性的投資組合而不是隨便選取一個組合，你作為一個投資者從中收益的機會將會增加。那麼收益如何？我不需要去考慮那些煩人的數字。我們一個重要的投資理念就是隨著股票的升值，它可以彌補甚至藐視固定交易成本。我們希望看到的是股票盈利的增加。我們看到標準投資組合模型以及總清單股票的五年以及過去一年的平均淨盈利是31.1% 、38.8% 和39.6%、46.1%。但就固定成本以及操作手續費（體現在日常管理費）方面，五年以及過去12個月的標準投資組合是-0.7% 和 10.7%，總清單則是7.8% 和16.1%。這就是我們所尋求的股票特點。
形成鮮明對比的是成熟的藍籌股標普500指數，它五年及過去12個月的平均毛利率為42.0% 和42.4%，營業毛利分別為19.3% 和 18.4%。所以，與我們所關註的發展中公司相比，標普500表現很好。但是市場超額回報是基於公司未來基本面的好轉，而不是保持不變。我們也看到了標普500股利回報率的增長，五年期及一年期增幅分別為17.7% 和 18.2%。總清單上股票總體表現好轉，五年和一年期的平均回報率分別為-2.0% 和9.6%。但是，15只表現最好的股票是不足以代表整個清單的。它們相應的股利回報率分別為12.2%和8.8%。
同時，投資組合代表顯示了一些與標普500一致的基本面風險特徵。投資組合模型的長期負債資本比率是43%，總清單為47%，標普500是44%。會計收益，作為收益的一部分，它是一個很好的收益衡量指標。三組的會計收益平均水平都表現良好。就數字而言，數值越低，表現越好，負數的情況更好。投資組合模型、總清單和標普500的會計收益分別為-7%，-1%和-6%。
你可以通過投資低價股大賺一筆，如果你擁有一個真正多元化具有代表性的投資組合，你將有很大的可能性從這組股票的平均表現中盈利，並且不需要承擔不必要的風險。這也就是我鼓勵你在佣金允許的情況下盡可能多地尋找那些可以讓你更加經濟地投資的公司。（就我而言，我通常擁有40只總清單股票）。在具有所有基本面指標、技術指標、評估公司幫助我們識別公司和股票的情況下，我們所考慮最重要的一點應該是經紀公司的費用列表。
Getting Serious And Getting Real About Diversification
By Marc H. Gerstein, Portfolio123, Director of Research of Portfolio 123
Saturday, June 6, 2015 3:26 PM EDT
Dear Investor, We all know we need to diversify. It may be the single most frequently repeated item of investment wisdom. Actually, though, that may be a problem. It’s been repeated so often, it’s easy to wind up allowing the advice to go in one ear and out the other without really thinking about what implementation is really all about and why we need to do it; aside from avoiding accusations of being a bad person. Those who check the textbooks, whether on their own or as part of a finance class, will read of such concepts as volatility, standard deviation, covariance and correlation. Readers are led to expect that they’ll be able to protect against declines in Asset A by also owning Asset B, which goes up whenever Asset B goes down.
In textbook examples, such relationships occur all the time. In real life, more often than not, as Asset A declines, Asset B also declines but we hope it won’t fall as much (or, heaven forbid, more than) Asset A. But even that often winds up little more than a wing and a prayer. It’s not like you can learn anything by looking at objective data. Correlation among pairs of assets is remarkably unstable over time, so the lawyers and regulators are spot on when they tell us about past performance not determining future outcomes. And actually, the situation is worse than mere statistical crunching suggests. Due to globalization and years of easy money, correlations have been rising and are likely to continue to do so (making historical correlation data, the only kind we have, even less effective in pointing us toward the sort of diversification that can mitigate risk). So please do not give credence to anything you may see or hear that purports to demonstrate how effective well-diversified stock and-bond portfolios have fared. That’s really an area where we should expect much higher correlations in the future.
But if we can look at diversification without getting preachy and without flexing our statistical muscles, we can see a different aspect of the topic and how it really is a great way to manage risk. We’ll do so by looking at, you guessed it, low-priced stocks. Individually, you have to know how risky these are. I’ve felt it. I have to assume you have too.
Nevertheless, the overall track record of the 40-stock) Master List and the (15-stock) Model Portfolio, despite not all months being wonderful, have been pretty good overall, as you can see from the accompanying table. Are those figures representative of your personal results? If you choose a few stocks here and there and are lucky, you might be doing considerably better. If you’re not so lucky, you might be doing considerably worse.
The more stocks you choose, however, whether you buy and regularly update the entire Model Portfolio, the entire Master List, or a decent-sized group you put together however you wish from among the universe of stocks discussed here, your performance is less likely to depend on luck or hard-to-predict events and more likely to depend on the overall characteristics of the group as a whole. And considering our prolonged strength against the Russell 2000, and even the larger low-priced group that is not limited to those that pass the model I use (up only 16% since the 10/15/13 inception of this format for the newsletter), performing in line with the group as a whole has so far been a pretty good outcome. This stems from the fact that as you add positions, the overall fundamental profile of your personal low-priced portfolio is more likely to resemble the fundamental profile of the group as a whole, the fundamental profile that motivated me, and presumably, you, to get interested in low-priced stocks in the first place. And while individual companies may be very risky, the aggregate of a substantial portfolio is likely to have a less intimidating risk profile.
Let’s take an informal glance at this. Let’s consider some group-average fundamentals. This is not a precise study; some companies that didn’t report certain items fell out of the samples. But it should make for a useful back-of-the-envelope type view. We’ll start with valuation. The average Enterprise Value-to-Sales (a souped-up version of price/sales), Price-To-Book, and Price-to-Cash Flow (trailing 12 month) ratios for the current Model Portfolio are 1.5, 1.7 and 9.7. For the 40-stock Master List, the average ratios are 2.8, 2.2 and 11.3. For the S&P 500, the averages are 3.6, 5.5 and 16.0. So there’s a good chance that a well-diversified representative portfolio drawn from the stocks discussed in this and prior issues makes you a more a value investor than a wild-eyed crazy speculator/gambler.
Now let’s consider sales growth rates. For the last quarter (year-to-year) and the past 12 months respectively, these were 17.8% and 14.0% for the Model Portfolio, 23.7% and 20.1% for the Master List stocks, and 1.7% and 5.8% for the S&P 500. So the stereotype of little companies being able to grow faster seems to be playing out. But your chances of benefitting from it as an investor improve if you own a representative portfolio, rather than a stock here or there. What about earnings? I don’t need to look at the numbers to know they likely stink. An important investment theme for us is the potential for these companies to better cover, and eventually dwarf burdensome fixed costs as they grow. What we’d like to see is progress in terms of margin. We see that a bit in Gross Margin, where the average five-year and trailing 12 month figures for the Model Portfolio and Master List are 31.1% and 38.8%, and 39.6% and 46.1%. But in terms of fixed-cost coverage, operating margin (which reflects more in the way of overhead) is where the rubber meets the road. The five-year and trailing-12-moth figures for the Model Portfolio are -0.7% and 10.7%; for the Top 40, the figures are 7.8% and 16.1% This is exactly the sort of characteristic we seek in these stocks.
And it stands in stark contrast to the mature blue-chip S&P 500 companies, for which five-year and trailing-12-month average gross margins are 42.0% and 42.4%; the five-year and 12-month average blue-chip operating margins are 19.3% and 18.4%. So in contrast to the evolving companies in which we focus, the S&P 500 firms, on average, are what they are. What they are is good. But excess returns in the market come from change for the better, not staying in place; even if it’s a good place. We see this in return on equity (ROE) as well. For the S&P 500, the five-year and 12-month averages are 17.7% and 18.2%. Positive change from a weaker position is evident in the Master List, where these averages are -2.0% and 9.6%. But the Top 15 is not a big enough group to represent the Master List, at least not this month: The corresponding ROEs here are 12.2% and 8.8%.
Meanwhile, representative portfolios show some fundamental risk characteristics in line with the S&P 500. Long-term debt-to-capital ratios are 43% for the Model Portfolio, 47% for the Master List and 44% for the S&P 500. Accounting accruals as a percent of revenue, a big earnings-quality measure, are good on average for all three groups. As to the numbers, the lower the better and negative is even better. For the Model Portfolio, the Master List, and the S&P 500, these figures are -7%, -1% and -6%.
So while you can make a killing investing in individual low-priced stocks, if you can get a truly diversified and representative portfolio, there’s a higher probability you can benefit from the overall investment appeal of this group without taking on undue risk. That’s why I encourage you to spread your low-priced investments among as many names as is feasible given your your brokerage-fee arrangements, and/or to look for firms that can let you trade more economically. (Speaking for myself, I regularly own the 40 Master List stocks through an account at FolioInvesting.com.) With all the fundamental and technical indicators and metrics available to help us evaluate companies and stocks, the most important one of all may be our respective broker fee schedules.
本文翻譯由兄弟財經提供
文章來源：http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/stocks--equities/getting-serious-and-getting-real-about-diversification?post=66358&page=4