Porque MO solo es USA y la otra el resto del mundo.
CL y MMM sí son core en muchas carteras que lleva. De hecho, MMM es la única industrial que considera core. En la cartera de su hijo las core que tengo apuntadas:
Core holdings for my son, age 32.
CL … GIS … KHC … KMB … KO … MKC … PEP … PM … PG … SO … D … VZ … T … JNJ … BDX … VFC … ADP … MMM … XOM … O
Si se tuviera que quedar con un portfolio de 7:
D, JNJ, O, KHC/GID, PG/CL, VZ/T, MMM/XOM.
Más acerca de las core:
The way I go about deciding who is Core is that I look at their product line or service. I need to know what they do for a living. If I like what they do for a living and I think they represent the best recession proof protection, I determine it a Core holding the moment I make my first purchase.
In industrial’s I only consider MMM a Core holding because it does have consumer spending protection with part of their product line. LMT is 5 times as large as MMM but I don’t consider LMT a Core holding because it depends on government spending and isn’t recession proof. Although MMM is currently a smaller position than LMT, I wll be adding to it soon.
In Energy I only consider XOM as Core. I think they are the leader in the energy sector.
In discretionary, I do prefer the clothing line of VFC to other companies and have declared them Core. I could force myself to make GPC a Core due to their Napa store business. I know others might declare NKE as Core and I wouldn’t argue with it, but I only want a couple of discretionary considered Core.
In healthcare it’s JNJ and ABT. JNJ is an obvious selection but with the St Jude merger I really like the medical supply business of ABT. Although I may invest in biotech or pill companies, I don’t want them as buy and hold forever. Every portfolio I help manage has a full position in JNJ or is overweight. When I start a new portfolio for folks and we pick 5 Core holdings to start and then a few Supportive positions, JNJ is always, always one of the original 5.
Other than that, about 80% of our Core holdings are in the consumer staples and utilities, businesses that are considered recession resistant.
I expect that income to flow in all market conditions and that includes during recessions, and the staples and utilities are going to get access to that consumer dollar no matter how squeezed the consumer is.
–
Now, what makes a Core position? … The answer to that will vary from person to person. And this is important, just because I don’t consider MCD or SBUX or WBA a Core position, it doesn’t mean I can’t have a large position.
For me, a Core position would be as close to a “picks and shovels” company as you can get. I hope folks know the gold mining story where it was the people who sold the picks and shovels to the prospectors that made the money.
A Core company for me is the “supplier” of goods and services. If I own WBA, I only have access to the consumer dollars spent at WBA. But if I own JNJ, I have access to all consumer dollars, in all establishments that sell JNJ products. I own the supplier. The supplier is my Core!
When I look at the product line of VFC, and the number of ways they can market their product line, it provides what I think is the best access to the consumer discretionary dollar. VFC is the supplier.
MCD is not a supplier. SBUX is not a supplier. SYY is and SYY could qualify for Core with me, but I wanted to limit the number of Core positions.
Everything I focus on with the Core centers around maximum exposure to the consumer dollar, not business dollar (for the most part), not government dollar, the consumer dollar.
If someone wishes to have HRL as Core, or MCD as Core over VFC, I’m not going to suggest they’re wrong for doing so. It depends on their expectations. … What … do … you … want?
But, here’s the other aspect of what I consider Core, the most important part. Once the portfolio is established with the companies I wish to own, and every portfolio I manage is at that point now, I do not use Core positions as a source of generating cash. Trimming a Core is the most egregious of errors, so select wisely.
I don’t care how over-sized a Core gets, it won’t get trimmed. I don’t care how over-sized a Core gets, I will continue to add more.
If I have a need to generate cash for any reason, I’ll trim LMT, MCD, MSFT, SBUX, etc. but I won’t trim MO* or KO.
- Ahora MO ya no la considera core.
A Core for me, is a company I wouldn’t think twice about adding to if it drops 40% in value and wouldn’t think twice about adding to it if it’s 20% overvalued. It makes no difference because Core shares are not for sale which is why the number is small in comparison to the portfolio, so choose wisely.
There are a lot of good companies that can qualify as Core, and managed the way I am managing ours, but you don’t want to have too many of them. Shoot, 20 might even be too many for all I know, but when I decided to use this concept, I took the idea from Focus Funds. Most Focus Funds limit their holdings to around 20 Core companies. Buffett has a fewer number, but I’m no Buffett, so 20 seemed reasonable to me.