Chowder

No sé si es el lugar correcto, pero creo que podría tener un hilo propio de estrategia. Me parece que varios de por aquí lo siguen; para mí es una referencia en el DGI. Creo que es interesante fijarse en lo que dice y los porcentajes que asigna a cada apartado:


https://seekingalpha.com/article/3961068-portfolio-construction-valuations

Estoy en el proceso de acabar cómo quiero crear una de las carteras que ayudo a gestionar. Todo lo que me falta en la lista de seguimiento son 3 utilities, pero no compraré las 3. Quizás 1 o 2, veremos. La lista de seguimiento se compone de NEE … SRE … XEL.

Esta es la cartera (para alguien de unos 60 años):

Consumer Defensive

  • CL
  • DG
  • DEO
  • GIS
  • KHC
  • KMB
  • KO
  • HRL
  • HSY
  • MKC
  • MO
  • PEP
  • PG
  • PM
  • SJM
  • TAP
  • TGT
  • UL
  • WMT
  • YUM
  • YUMC

Utilities

  • D
  • DUK
  • ED
  • SO
  • WEC
  • T
  • VZ

Healthcare

  • ABT
  • AMGN
  • BDX
  • CAH
  • CVS
  • JNJ
  • MCK
  • MDT
  • PDCO
  • PFE
  • SYK
  • GILD
  • WBA

Discretionary

  • CBRL
  • DIS
  • GPC
  • HD
  • LOW
  • MCD
  • SBUX
  • VFC
  • NKE

Financials

  • AXP
  • CINF
  • EV
  • TROW
  • BMO
  • TD
  • MA

REIT’s

  • HCN
  • WPC
  • O
  • OHI
  • VTR
  • PSA
  • SPG

Industrial’s

  • APD
  • DOV
  • EMR
  • GD
  • GE
  • ITW
  • MMM
  • PH
  • UTX
  • SWK
  • GWW
  • UNP
  • ADP
  • VSM

Energy

  • CVX
  • PSX
  • SEP
  • XOM

Technology

  • AAPL
  • CSCO
  • IBM
  • INTC
  • MSFT
  • QCOM

Lo que intento conseguir es que el 50% del valor de la cartera esté en los sectores Consumer Defensive, Utility y Healthcare.

Luego el 25% en Discretionary, Financial’s y REIT’s.

El 25% restante en Industrial’s, Energy y Technology.

No hay número mágico en el número de valores de la cartera, solo un tope en la cantidad que quiero invertir en las 3 categorías descritas anteriormente. No busco un equilibrio perfecto entre Industrial’s, Technology y Energy por ejemplo, solo invertir hasta un 25% de la cartera en estos sectores.

4 Likes

Se podría debatir largo y tendido cuantos valores deberían componer la cartera (personalmente no pasaría de 40), cual debería ser la distribución entre sectores (50% en valores defensivos me parece muy inteligente) y si falta diversificación internacional (esto a los americanos no parece preocuparles lo más mínimo). Con ese listado de acciones como hoja de ruta no hay duda sobre el resultado final: una cartera bien diversificada y repleta de excelentes compañías que en realidad es apta para una persona de cualquier edad.

Lo que si hay que tener muy claro es que construir esta cartera es una labor casi arqueológica que puede llevar más de una década mediante un flujo constante de compras a “fair prices” (nada de estar esperando la siguiente gran recesión o permanecer agazapado a la caza de “hero prices”).

Por si no se ha notado todavía, Chowder también es una de mis debilidades :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Sí, de acuerdo con todo. Cuando sea mayor espero tener las cosas con un 20% de la claridad que tiene.

¿Dónde se puede leer a Chowder?

Una duda investings.

Entiendo que las recomendaciones del tal Chowder van dirigidas al público americano. No digo que podamos optar por incorporar muchas de esas acciones (yo llevo unas cuantas) pero no se nos olvide que nosotros vivimos con Euros y centrar una cartera en otra divisa aunque sea el Dólar mismo puede ser contraproducente no?

PD: justo te preguntaba por Chowder en otro hilo.

Copio lo que he puesto en el otro hilo :):

Yo leo sus comentarios accediendo a

Lo miro cada 2/3 días porque aparte de ir desgranando su filosofía, comenta las empresas que va comprando en las diferentes carteras que lleva y por qué lo hace.

Salen primero los más recientes. Si quieres ver el contexto en el que se realizaron, abajo de cada comentario está el enlace al comentario dentro del artículo en el que se hicieron.

Y sí, hay que tener en cuenta que su perspectiva es la de allá y que nosotros deberíamos tener un porcentaje importante (cada uno con el que se sienta más cómodo) en euros. Pero para la parte en dólares, sus recomendaciones son perfectamente válidas. Ojo, que tampoco me parecía descabellado tener la mayoría en dólares; al fin y al cabo en USA hay mucho mejores empresas que aquí. Pero yo por ejemplo no me sentiría del todo cómodo así, contemplo mínimo un 40% en euros. Porque de otra forma, el día que se necesite vivir del dividendo si se vive en país que usa euros, te obliga a estar cambiando y a depender de cómo esté el cambio en cada momento (aunque si es un periodo largo, seguramente el efecto se diluya y no importe demasiado, así que según cómo evolucione nuestro continente igual el porcentaje es euros es menor a ese 40%).

Para mi de lo mejorcito que se puede leer en seeking alpha, junto con David Van Knapp y Chuck Carnevale.

JordiRP, de acuerdo contigo en que vivimos con Euros. Un par de apuntes al respecto. Vivimos con euros a día de hoy, pero ¿estamos seguros de que seguiremos teniendo euros en España dentro de 20 o 30 años? Si el euro fracasara y volviéramos a una hipotética peseta, estoy seguro de que estaríamos encantados con nuestros dividendos en dólares (ya sabemos de la tendencia en España q devaluar la moneda cuando vienen mal dadas). El segundo apunte es que, dado que vivimos en España con euros, estoy muy expuesto a esa divisa. Mi salario es en euros, mi futura pensión, si la tengo, en euros, mis depósitos bancarios en euros, mi fondo de emergencia en euros, mis deudas en euros…obtener una parte de tus rentas pasivas en otra divisa lo considero imprescindible.

Un saludo

Chowder - Feb 19, 2017. 08:08 PM
The following companies are all owned in various portfolios under management. These are the companies still considered undervalued and selling at a discount. I will list the company and then the discount to fair value.

Consumer Staples
DG … <1.6%>
TGT … <12.4%>
WMT … Fair Value

Utilities
VZ … <1.5%>

Healthacare
AMGN … <1.8%>
CAH … <6.7%>
CVS … <20.2%>
GILD … <33.2%>
MCK … <20.9%>
PDCO … <3.7%>
PFE … Fair Value

Consumer Discretionary
CBRL … <1.1%>
DIS … <2.2%>
VFC … <15.0%>

Financial’s
Only have 7 companies under management, none selling at a discount. Best case is AXP at a 2.7% premium.

REIT’s
WPC … <4.8%> … Valuation has been updated since my last comment.
OHI … <25.2%>
SPG … <10.0%>
VTR … Fair Value
HCN is selling at a 0.9% premium, as close to fair value as possible.

Industrial’s
Holding 14 companies, none are selling at a discount to fair value. Best case scenario is UTX selling at a 3.1% premium.

Energy
Only have 4 companies.
SEP … <13.0%>
XOM … Fair Value

Technology
INTC … <2.3%>
QCOM … <19.5%>

That’s it for now, as you were.

Si no recuerdo mal para el cálculo de su fair value hace la media aritmética de los fair values que obtiene de cuatro fuentes (Morning Star, Value Line, S&P Capital IQ y otro más que no me viene a la memoria)

Las que está suscrito (la que se quitaría si tuviera que hacerlo es Morningstar): I do subscribe to F.A.S.T. Graphs, M* and Valuentum.

Otras opciones:

“Value Line, S&P Capital IQ, Jefferson Research, McLean Capital Management”. Value Line is free at the library. Many libraries allow you to access VL online.

-Su proceso:

"I look to Morningstar, S&P, F.A.S.T. Graphs and Value Line for their valuations and then look for consensus.
I’m not smart enough to determine my own valuation, so I look for consensus for those who do it for a living.
For example, when I look at JNJ, a company I added to recently;

M* had JNJ selling at a 2.4% premium to fair value.
S&P said they were selling at fair value.
Value Line had them at a relative PE of .90 and 1.00 is fair value. So, they had JNJ selling at a discount to fair value but that report was in November when the price was at $101.45. Today’s price would have JNJ about at fair value.
When I look at a 10 year chart on F.A.S.T. Graphs, they show a normal PE of 19.6 and I belive the PE is around 18.8 currently, so they think JNJ is selling at a slight discount.
I consider JNJ a core holding and I don’t plan on selling shares in core holdings, so capital appreciation doesn’t carry the weight for me that it does for others. If I’m not going to realize the capital gains, and I stay focused on the income, then I am willing to pay up to a 5% premium to own a core position. Therefore, JNJ was a buy for me and I took it to a double sized position.
The point is, all 4 sources of valuation agreed that JNJ was selling less than a 5% premium, my ceiling. They all could be wrong of course, and price may fall with the market, but I am comfortable with the valuations at this time.
If a company isn’t a core position, then I usually wait until I get consensus that a company is selling at a double digit discount to fair value. This is important at that time because I will realize cap gains from non-core positions and hope to harvest profits from them to build my core."

-Más ejemplos, cuando las valoraciones difieren bastante:

" I’m not so sure using just one source for fair value is the prudent thing to do. I often see where M* and S&P Capital IQ, which is the data that is supplied to F.A.S.T. Graphs, are not in agreement.
For example, M* says KO is selling at an 8.6% discount to fair value and S&P says KO is selling at a 17.6% premium to fair value. One is undervalued, the other overvalued. Which number do you go with?
In looking at CL, M* says it is selling at a 14.0% discount to fair value, S&P says it’s a premium of 8.0%. No consistency.
(These were the numbers after the close on 8/31 when I was doing my preliminary work for a mid-September purchase.)
I usually wait until both firms agree that the discount is double digits. They don’t have to agree on the number, just that both agree the company is undervalued.
For example, M* says BDX is selling at a 14.5% discount to fair value and S&P says the discount is 10.6%. That’s good enough for me.
MA is a little different though. M* says the discount is 12.9% and S&P says MA is selling at a discount of 27.1%. That’s a rather steep discount, but that isn’t what I focus on. They both agree the discount is double digits and that’s all I care about.
Once that is complete, I then usually go to Value Line for confirmation. So I try to include 3 various sources for valuations."

-Cómo las usa otro que participa en los hilos de Chowder:

“Each company providing analysis on companies use different algorithms to supply a rating. Some of the rating weightings is subjective and not objective. How pretty someone is -subjective. How overweight someone is-objective–finite number.
Chowder and I both look at multiple company ratings for the same company. They seldom agree on a specific number, but fall in a range. I like Morningstar, Capital I.Q. and Jefferson for comparison, and Value line for any tie-breakers. I look at Jefferson and Morningstar for risk analysis.
I have four brokerage supplying this data plus a free subscription to Value Line from one of the largest county Libraries.”

-Otros aspectos:

I came across a formula I dubbed “The Success Formula That Never Fails.”
High Quality + High Yield + High Growth of Yield = High Total Return.
High Quality is basically superior financial strength, reasonable debt, strong cash flow and credit worthiness. Financial strength is the key requirement in the stock selection process. Since we are buying ownership in a business, I want to be sure that business has the financial strength to continue sharing the profits with me and grow those profits annually.
I look for a safety rating of 1 or 2 by Value Line, or a BBB+ or better rating by Morningstar, or a BBB+ or better rating by S&P. These are investment grade ratings. If a company doesn’t pass this criteria, I go no further with my due diligence. Anything that doesn’t meet the financial strength criteria would be pure speculation for me, and I do very little speculating. Quality is job number one.
High Yield, for my purposes, is anything that yields at least 50% above what the S&P 500 yields. If the S&P 500 yield is 2%, then I require a minimum yield of 3%. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.
High growth in terms of yield, is an annualized rate of 5% or more for my purposes. This 5% growth in a stock’s yield actually has an impact on the stock selection process. I look for companies whose expected earnings growth is 5% or more. I’m assuming a 5% dividend growth rate will be supported by a 5% earnings growth rate as long as the company meets the financial strength criteria.

-Cómo leer un informe de Value Line:

Sobre fase 2 de movimiento en el precio y comprar en máximos de 52 semanas (cómo me cuesta esto)…

Speaking of the beer summit, if people were paying attention, the most valuable information I shared other than the Patriots are the greatest football team in history, was an exercise on supply vs demand and how to play it for a Stage 2 price move.
Now listen up! This is important.
If you want an example of a Stage 2 price move, one of my favorite examples is LMT and that’s because some of the folks here were there at the time when we discussed this move.
Between December 2008 through December 2012 price traded within a range of $53 and $68. That 4 year period formed what technicians call a base. The longer the time frame where price trades within a price range, the more solid the breakout when it develops. This base is called a Stage 1 price move. The $68 top of that range is supposed to provide what is called a support level in the event price breaks out and corrects. Price did indeed break out.
When price broke out in January 2013, over the next 5-6 months the price moved up to $78, a respectable 14% plus move, but then price corrected over the next month down to $68.56 at the low … and what was the support level? … $68 the top of that Stage 1 baseline.
That $78 peak that occurred before the price corrected to $68 and change is critical to what happened in real time. I knew that if price broke out at $82 or $83, that is the price point that traders jump all over it. Price did indeed break out at $82 and I did indeed … git some. At the time, others wanted that dip back to $78 and it never came. Stage 2 was underway, and Stage 2 is where the big money is made. Price is up over 200% from that breakout point.
A Stage 2 price move always comes on a 52 week breakout, and what is significant here, and what I attempted to pound the table on, is that almost always, companies trading at 52 week highs are considered overvalued and what the rookie mentality folks regarding valuations don’t seem to consider is that valuations are supposed to be trying to value the future, and when a company does better than expected, those valuations are irrelevant and must be adjusted upward.
One of my most favorite buying opportunities is buying 52 week high companies and they come out with an earnings and revenue beat.
I saw HD this past week, selling at a 13% premium to fair value, most considered it too expensive to buy, I did too until HD blew out the numbers. So, you know who jumped all over that puppy! If a company is doing better than expected, the valuations were wrong. It doesn’t matter what price did a year ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago, your historical information is idle rhetoric when it comes to a company performing better than expected.
The big money is made in Stage 2 price moves and you can’t take advantage of that if you fear buying companies at 52 week highs. My guideline is to buy those situations only when a company has a beat and raise.
We all know one person that stopped buying in March 2012. The entire Stage 2 price move has taken place without his participation. Why? He wasn’t able to adjust his view of valuations when the market clearly indicated he should. He looked at historical information as opposed to understanding the condition of the market.

I say initiate on a company specific basis. Each company is analyzed on its own merits.

If the industry or group is down, I may focus on buying several individual companies within that industry at the same time as I did with healthcare, but I don’t need an industry to be down to buy individual companies, and I certainly don’t require that the market needs to be down. I’m not buying the market, the index people are.

I go where the valuations can be found. I buy where the earnings expectations are being surpassed. That has nothing to do with sectors, it’s individual based.

Like most people, I will buy when companies are down in price and present an undervalued scenario. I just don’t require a certain percentage of discount to buy. If it’s undervalued 4% or 12% it doesn’t matter to me, I’ll buy.

Where I differ from most is that if a company is overvalued by 12% and comes out and beats earnings while raising guidance, I won’t hesitate to add in spite of the valuation. The valuation was wrong! It was based on earnings expectations and the company did better than that. I take advantage of those situations.

Esas estrategias son para capitales considerables, se me quedan grandes, yo me muevo en el rango 12-20 valores.

No recuerdo ninguna mención a Kellogg en sus comentarios. Dentro de ese mismo sector (Consumer Staples) éstas son las compañías que forman parte de alguna de las carteras que maneja

CL … DG … DEO … GIS … KHC … KMB … KO … HRL … HSY … MKC … MO … PEP … PG … PM … SJM … TAP … TGT … UL … WMT … YUM … YUMC

A mí tampoco me suena. De las que ha puesto ruindog hay algunas que lleva solo en determinadas carteras. No todas tienen el mismo objetivo ni están en la misma fase. No es lo mismo alguien que es muy joven que uno cerca de la retirada. Ni una cartera con el core creado que una acaba de comenzar.

Por otro lado, la estrategia de Chowder es para empezar casi de cero si se quiere. El usa muchos valores porque es lo que da seguridad y garantiza que los ingresos por dividendo van a seguir creciendo conforme pase el tiempo haga lo que haga el precio, pero su estrategia de buenas empresas y compra de la que mejor perspectivas tenga se puede hacer con 10 valores también.

Como podéis leer a continuación Chowder está adaptando su estrategia a las condiciones del mercado. Ahora mismo su prioridad son los ingresos por dividendos (income) y para ello se centra en compañías con un yield por encima del 3%

This is getting serious folks the higher valuations go. Those of you focusing on total return, it may take years before valuations come back in line if the economy continues to improve, I would think.
The higher valuations go the lower the odds you are going to see growth. Those of you chasing growth, looking for growth, may be looking for it at a time when it’s going to be very difficult to achieve it.
This is why I have pounded the table on making a decision between growth and income. Up until about a year ago, growth and income were on the same page for about 5 or 6 years. The time is coming when they won’t be and the culprit will be valuations.
For me there’s no question, I choose income over growth in a low to no growth environment. This is why I have been saying recently that I am back to focusing on companies yielding 3% or more. It’s why most of the companies I have purchased over the past month have been those with a yield of 3% or more. Those dividends are going to be a driver of the total return formula as we move forward under a historically highly valued market.
Think about it folks, it may be time to make a decision … income or growth … you can’t continue to have both.

Sí, yo llevo haciendo eso mismo ya un tiempo. Es el debate que hubo en el foro. Prefiero también empresas más seguras y con un yield decente que perseguir crecimiento. Además que no creo que sea capaz de detectarlo…

Sus 20 posiciones core:

CL … GIS … KHC … KMB … KO … MKC … MO … PEP … PM … SO … D … VZ … T … JNJ … BDX … VFC … ADP … MMM … O … XOM

I consider a Core holding to be a long-term investment that forms the foundation of your portfolio, and is one that you have no problem adding to in the event prices declined significantly. To take it a step further, when I can’t find something of value to invest in, rather than sit on cash, I will add to a “Core” position regardless of valuation.
I may take best value available when I have several overvalued companies, but a “Core” position is something I plan on building over decades regardless of valuation just as the example above on CL showed, and I have no desire to trim or sell. I want SIZE and the only way to get SIZE is to keep adding to it. That’s why it’s important that you consider it part of your foundation. … It’s your “coming home to Momma” stock when times are tough.
I may manage portfolios with 60 - 100 positions, but I don’t want more than around 20 Core positions. Those are the ones that will eventually become way overweight once you’ve been investing in equities for a while, and you’ll feel comfortable doing so.

Sobre buenas empresas que están “caras”:

Young people, please listen up! Those of you who have more than 20 years until retirement might learn something here.
Stop listening to people who are saying a company is too expensive. Stop looking for the perfect entry point. It won’t matter over the long run because over a 20 or 30 year period you are not going to get every entry point correct no matter how hard you try, and over a 20 or 30 year period, there are going to be many entry points.
What makes today’s so much more important than the one 5 years from now? Ten years from now? Twenty years from now? … Who goes back and looks at an entry point 20 years ago and questions whether they overpaid or not? … It’s crazy thinking.
Why do so many successful money managers talk about valuations and how important they are? It’s because they have to answer to people. If people aren’t satisfied with the return, and most people are short term thinkers, they take their money and go elsewhere. So, they have to try and build a margin of safety by looking for hero price entry points, and if they don’t get them, they lower the quality of the investment to find one, like a CTL or FTR for example. They have to try something that can potentially rise in price enough to wow you, to get you off their back.
I help people manage money, I’ve heard their concerns and have had to try and explain they were focused on the wrong aspects. I had to answer to clients about fund performance and I’ve talked with those who manage funds. They evolved to the point where they weren’t trying to beat the market, they were simply trying to match each others results so they could tell their clients the competition didn’t do any better. I’ve sat in those meetings, I’ve heard those conversations.
The only person you have to answer to is you! And my recommendation to you is too pick high quality companies you think will still be in business 30 years from now and start buying and adding to them as you go along. Forget about how important today’s prices are, you need to be looking out 20 years, 30 years, maybe more.
CL is a company that is almost always overvalued. Think about that a minute. Always overvalued. The only time it comes close to fair value is during a recession but you never get a discount to fair value.
If you bought CL every two years, on the same date, at the high price of the day, here’s what your 30 year holding would have looked like via pricing.
April 8 or next business day. (Split adjusted prices)
1987 - $2.92
1989 - $3.01
1991 - $5.00
1993 - $7.59
1995 - $8.52
Somewhere along the line, there would have been people suggesting price isn’t going up fast enough, CL is way overvalued, they would have sold and moved along. They would have been short term thinkers.
1997 - $12.88
1999 - $23.91
Now we’re seeing price advancement. If you had been smart and held, and while holding kept reinvesting those dividends, you would have now been seeing the power of compounding going to work and what I have been referring to as a “return accelerator” those reinvested dividends going to work. Your investment is showing exponential upside babee.
2001 - $26.71
And we just completed the tech crash years when the market suffered one of its largest price declines. (2000 - 2001) Look it up.
2003 - $27.75
2005 - $26.92
2007 - $33.38
2009 - $30.46
Oops! We had another market crash, the worst since the Great Depression. Price was all over the map, panic selling everywhere. Oh my! Look how price declined from 2007 to 2009, head for the hills … SELL.
As a long term investor, and having held all these years, enjoying the splits along the way, reinvesting the dividends as you go, and your position is so profitable you can afford to ignore something as serious as the Great Recession. … Think about it.
2011 - $40.92
2013 - $53.86
2015 - $70.25
2017 - $73.49
So tell me, why was it so important to worry that CL might be overvalued way back in 1999? Every purchase made over 30 years was overvalued. Do you think that matters now? With your investment being as successful as it has been, are you going to be upset because it didn’t do better? … You’re going to be delighted that you have a successful investment and that investment has SIZE.
And all you had to do was simply buy the company every two years, on the same date, regardless of price. And, you can do that with your other companies as well.
As to holding out for price declines, your dividends were buying more shares on every price decline, and because at some point you were beginning to have a position of size, the shares were adding up quickly, you had splits along the way.
All you have to do is simply pick high quality, blue chip companies and stick with the plan. Don’t try to outguess the market. Don’t listen to all of the short term fears you hear about here and in other comment streams, ignore the talking heads who don’t look more than 6 months ahead. You have decades of investing ahead of you, and if you pick solid companies, any other mistakes you make as to value will be overcome. Time will bail you out. Us old folks don’t have time so we’re persnickety to the point that our comments are detrimental to you.
Your 401K contributions have you investing every pay period regardless of valuations or market conditions, why should your personal portfolio require anything different? Those same companies you invest in are in those same funds in your 401K.
Stop worrying about short term stuff, the Fed, the bull or bear market, political changes, or any of that other noise. All of it will pass, you won’t recall any of it 30 years from now. You’ll either have a well established portfolio of companies of size or you won’t. Choice is yours.

1 Like

Y otro más explicando que no es necesario analizar los resultados de las compañías para tener una buena cartera de dividendos:

"No dirt, I don’t even look at a balance sheet or an income statement. I’m not in the business of analyzing company financials. That’s the job of the rating firms I use. I let them do their job and they let me do mine.

My job is in determining what a company does for a living, learning how they operate in good times and bad, and then deciding if that’s a company I want to do business with. If I do, I look to the rating firms for financial strength ratings and valuations. I look to the firms to determine the safety of the dividend.

I don’t know the intricacies of oil pressure valves or what causes specific readings. I don’t need to know. All I need to know is that when the needle is within a certain range it indicates to me to do something or do nothing. My job was to determine I needed oil and a gauge. The engineers job was to tell me what criteria to look at to determine what I need to do.

That’s how I look at valuations. The rating firms are my engineers and they tell me where the needle should be when I want to buy a position.

Yeah, it’s that simple! … The hard part is convincing yourself that it is. I did that long ago. And you know what? This comment was probably the best comment I’ve made in years and most won’t get it. … Ha!

1 Like

Respecto a la distribución de valores por sectores de la cartera, parece que Chowder sigue más o menos la clasificación realizada por Morningstar.

Link que puede resultar de interés al respecto (creo que es de acceso libre, como estoy conectado automaticamente a M*, si no es de acceso libre y alguien está especialmente interesado que me pase su correo)

http://corporate.morningstar.com/us/documents/methodologydocuments/methodologypapers/equityclassmethodology.pdf