Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 322

My 10 biggest investment management lessons

Editor’s introduction. There are valuable lessons to learn from Chris Cuffe’s experience with the Third Link Growth Fund. The Fund’s managers are selected by Chris in a ‘fund of funds’ structure, and all fees paid by investors go to charities. In addition, he sits on the boards of several Listed Investment Companies and is an adviser to family offices.

This is a selected Classic Article first published in 2015, with some changes to bring it up-to-date.

---------------------------------------------

After decades of managing investments and selecting funds, here are my 10 biggest lessons.

1. Most financial services are sold not bought

In commerce generally, the consumer finds the best products in the market, especially with such an open system as the internet. But financial services is an industry where products are sold not bought. There are a lot of middle men and women doing the selling. People struggle to find the best products in the world of investing.

If a fund does not have active sellers and marketers, it doesn’t get much support. Listed Investment Companies (LICs) have broker networks that work their clients intensely in the offer period, while dealer groups have advisers who tell their clients where to invest.

We’re not really long into the post-FOFA environment where financial advisers are no longer paid commissions by product manufacturers, but I don’t think advisers scour the earth looking for the best products. They have to do the right thing by their clients, but that does not mean finding the very best. It’s more what’s on their radar screens.

2. Joe Average doesn’t have a clue where to invest

In financial services, with most aspects of investing, Joe Average does not have a clue where to start to find the best products. To DIY in financial services is tough for the average person. I can DIY in my back yard by going to the hardware store, working out how to pave a path or tile a wall, but you can’t do that easily in financial services.

3. Don't pay active fees for index management

It’s astounding in Australia the number of managers who won’t risk being too different from the index. If they underperform for a short period due to departure from the index, they worry they will lose funds (and maybe their job will go as well). If resources and banks are not doing well, a fund with managers that are index unaware should do well.

I listened to an active Australian equity manager tell me how proud he was of being index-unaware, yet his exposure to financials was 27%, not the 30% per the index. This is not an active position at all and he is surely being driven by the index. I would think that a position of half or double or nil is more like an active view.

The best investors I deal with are totally benchmark unaware, even as to what markets they invest into, local or overseas or cash or whatever.

4. Blending styles is a waste of effort

In my view, professionals blend managers in multi manager funds in exactly the way that gives a mediocre result. Typically, they will blend value managers, growth managers, large managers, small managers, etc and then wonder why they achieve the index less their fee. The results of these blended funds have never been great.

I am not the slightest bit interested in blending styles and so some people are put off Third Link because there is no formal scientific process. My process is called experience – one of finding competent, proven managers who will swing the bat and have a go. I do watch for concentration risk but I’m mainly interested in the willingness of managers to pick stocks ignoring the index. In fact, I like to see a high tracking error which is the opposite of most professionals.

5. Past performance is the best guide to future success

Every offer document in the country says something like ‘Past performance is no guide to future performance’ or similar. That is exactly the opposite of how I think. It’s the best guide to knowing what a manager is really like over a long period. Past performance is extremely important and a great guide to the future.


Register here to receive the Firstlinks weekly newsletter for free

Only long-term results are relevant. The managers I use are selected for the long term. I have no interest in their short-term results. If it looks like a manager is struggling (which I would only conclude after rolling three-year periods), I would only exit after say a poor rolling five-year result.

6. Never buy a bad stock because the price is low

I don’t like ‘deep value’ investing where a manager is willing to buy a poor quality stock because the price is so cheap. I don’t like people saying a bad stock priced cheap is low risk. I would hate to see any of the stocks held by my managers fall over.

Managers need to buy quality stocks. Adding that to a good track record and a high tracking error should mean my fund will do well in falling markets (which it does) which is a sign of a good portfolio.

7. Watch the level of funds under management

I do look at total funds under management in a manager and the types of stocks the manager buys. A small cap manager in Australia with more than $1 billion concerns me. And I am cautious about investing with a larger cap manager in Australian equities with more than say $6 billion under management. At that level, I need more convincing. It's less of a problem for a global large cap manager operating in a massive universe of stocks.

Size can get in the way of performance. It’s no coincidence that most of my managers have performance fees, which enable them to remain smaller while making it economically viable to run their business.

Most managers talk about staying below capacity and refusing to take in more money but my experience is most don’t do that, especially when there’s an institutional owner. It’s compelling to take more money. Boutiques are best at watching capacity as they can make a lot of money from performance fees if they are good.

8. Don’t be afraid of performance fees

I believe managers deserve their high fees based on their performance. In my own personal investment portfolio, I don’t care about paying a 20% performance fee (as long as the right hurdle exists) if I’m getting 80%.

It’s a great part of the Third Link structure that the managers kindly refund all the performance fees, as well as the management fees. It’s the sizzle in the Fund. For most professionals who provide a fund-of-fund product, the underlying fee of each manager is so crucial for their own economics that they cannot pay performance fees. But I’m agnostic to fees so I just look for the best managers.

I have not selected any of the managers based on their willingness to forgo their fees. I select on merit then ask if they will waive their fees.

9. Active versus passive depends on the asset class

The active versus passive debate is not a one-size-fits-all. It should be considered in the context of the asset class. In Australian equities, I’d never invest in a passive fund. You have to look at the index before you go passive. Why would you buy an index which is 30% in banks (mainly four stocks) and 15% in resources (mainly two companies)? Talk about a risky portfolio! It amazes me people would start with that. But internationally, say the MSCI World Index, index investing has merit. In Aussie small caps, you could invest in an index fund but I think there is no upside in having small resources because of their boom and bust track record. And I think the active managers of small cap industrials generally do better than the industrials index because they can find small under-researched stocks. But there’s nothing wrong with indexing in parts of the fixed interest asset class.

I hope some of the roboadvice models use active management, especially in Australian equities, but I suspect they are unlikely to do so due to the cost.

10. Business risk guides a lot of investing

The lack of willingness to be different from a benchmark has a lot to answer for in encouraging mediocre investing across the world. The dominance of these behaviours is far greater than anyone will admit. It drives many professionals to bizarre investing.

I don’t have any business risk or career risk in selecting my managers. Third Link is not a business and I’m running only one fund.

 

Chris Cuffe has a wide portfolio of interests across commercial, social and charitable sectors. More details on the Third Link Growth Fund are on www.thirdlink.com.au. How can we have a disclaimer after such firm opinions? Let’s just say anyone should seek professional advice on how these lessons apply to them, as the circumstances for each investor are unique.

 

3 Comments
Henry
November 02, 2019

Yes I like the "past performance IS AN INDICATOR of future performance" point. I think the same. When I am deciding on an investment such as a super option I sometimes subtract 10 years as a scenario. So in 2020 I look at this funds performance in 2010 as a what-if and ask myself - would I be happy with that annual performance, or the last 10 years average performance? Its overly simplistic and completely out-there and doesn't allow for market crashes but it helps me analyse options. As a point it would pay to look at a funds performance during the last crash and weigh the damage to an investment as an indicator of the next crash. The best way to assess a future crash on a portfolio is a past one which is inline with your comment as well.

Michael W
September 05, 2019

I wonder if the first point on 'financial services are sold not bought' is as relevant as it used to be. far more investors are now self-directed and do not rely on a financial adviser. They can find ETFs and LICs and A-REITs easily on the ASX and put together a diversified portfolio without much help.

SMSF Trustee
September 05, 2019

Nah, you might think that if, like me, you have your own SMSF or similar, but the great majority of Australians do not wake up in the morning wondering 'what will I invest in today'. To move people from the default super option or to get them to think about investing money outside of super in an intelligent manner requires 'selling' in one form or another.

Anyone reading this website has already been 'sold' on financial products. Don't think that we're normal human beings though!

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Video: How Chris Cuffe finds fund managers who 'swing the bat'

Five timeless lessons from a life in investing

Video: Noel Whittaker on investing until you’re 100

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Unexpected results in our retirement income survey

Who knew? With some surprise results, the Government is on unexpected firm ground in asking people to draw on all their assets in retirement, although the comments show what feisty and informed readers we have.

Three all-time best tables for every adviser and investor

It's a remarkable statistic. In any year since 1875, if you had invested in the Australian stock index, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods.

The looming excess of housing and why prices will fall

Never stand between Australian households and an uncapped government programme with $3 billion in ‘free money’ to build or renovate their homes. But excess supply is coming with an absence of net migration.

Five stocks that have worked well in our portfolios

Picking macro trends is difficult. What may seem logical and compelling one minute may completely change a few months later. There are better rewards from focussing on identifying the best companies at good prices.

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Six COVID opportunist stocks prospering in adversity

Some high-quality companies have emerged even stronger since the onset of COVID and are well placed for outperformance. We call these the ‘COVID Opportunists’ as they are now dominating their specific sectors.

Latest Updates

Retirement

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

Interviews

Sean Fenton on marching to your own investment tune

Is it more difficult to find stocks to short in a rising market? What impact has central bank dominance had over stock selection? How do you combine income and growth in a portfolio? Where are the opportunities?

Compliance

D’oh! DDO rules turn some funds into a punching bag

The Design and Distribution Obligations (DDO) come into effect in two weeks. They will change the way banks promote products, force some small funds to close to new members and push issues into the listed space.

Shares

Dividends, disruption and star performers in FY21 wrap

Company results in FY21 were generally good with some standout results from those thriving in tough conditions. We highlight the companies that delivered some of the best results and our future  expectations.

Fixed interest

Coles no longer happy with the status quo

It used to be Down, Down for prices but the new status quo is Down Down for emissions. Until now, the realm of ESG has been mainly fund managers as 'responsible investors', but companies are now pushing credentials.

Investment strategies

Seven factors driving growth in Managed Accounts

As Managed Accounts surge through $100 billion for the first time, the line between retail, wholesale and institutional capabilities and portfolios continues to blur. Lower costs help with best interest duties.

Retirement

Reader Survey: home values in age pension asset test

Read our article on the family home in the age pension test, with the RBA Governor putting the onus on social security to address house prices and the OECD calling out wealthy pensioners. What is your view?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 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. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). 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.

Website Development by Master Publisher.