Crazy, creo que la hice desde fondotop, que permite cambiar la moneda del fondo (entre dos opciones). Simplemente trace la gráfica de uno y otro de manera independiente y tomé nota de hasta que nivel llegaba el gráfico de crecimiento. La verdad es que con esta mini-corrección se piensa uno lo de entrar eh ??
Saludos
Ah ok, probare a ver, thanks. Lo digo porque me extrañaba que al compararlos en mornigstar el Dividend iba muy por delante.
Lo cierto es que buscaba un RV global para acompañar el Mutual Discovery que ya tengo, y estaba viendo que opciones habia. El Harris es de los que mas me gusta pero en cuanto a rentabilidad no es de los mejores, mi idea es compararlo con otros y si la diferencia porcentual no es demasiada pillarlo.
Comparto la carta de uno de los inversores más seguidos por la comunidad Value.
“An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.”
-William Mayo, a founder of Mayo Clinic
We all know the story of Tiger Woods learning to imitate his father’s golf swing at just six months old. So last month, when Gary Woodland won the U.S. Open, it was a victory for all the late bloomers who played many sports while growing up. In high school, Woodland played shortstop on a championship baseball team and he was a Division II college basketball player. In “How Basketball and Baseball Helped Gary Woodland Master Golf,”1 The New York Times reported, “a funny thing happened to Woodland as he was supposedly wasting his time on other sports instead of focusing all of his attention on golf. He learned many transferable skills and life lessons that made him a better player and, he believes, a more grounded and well-rounded person,” and, “Being at the plate or free-throw line with the game on the line taught Woodland how to embrace the pressure and discomfort instead of succumbing to it.” I can almost hear the sighs of relief from parents who’ve been told that their multi-sport children have already fallen too far behind to excel at a specific sport.
Like Woodland who benefitted from being a generalist in sports, we at Oakmark benefit from having investment analysts who are generalists. Although investment firms generally assign their analysts to specialize in just one industry, we believe that analysts who examine a wide breadth of companies provide far more value to the investment process than those who focus on one narrow industry.
When analysts come to work at Oakmark, we have already confirmed that they share our long-term value investment philosophy. If they don’t, they don’t survive the interview process. From day one, they can look within any industry for businesses that are undervalued, growing and run for the benefit of shareholders. We believe that level of freedom allows us to attract and retain more talent, speeds development, improves research department flexibility, and most importantly, results in the robust debate our process requires. Because our analysts look for the most compelling values wherever they may lie, it is quite common that multiple analysts will follow stocks in the same industry. This enables each analyst to provide critical feedback about the others’ investment ideas. For example, consider what happens when an Oakmark analyst presents a new bank stock. Because most of our team members either cover one of our bank holdings or have considered recommending one we don’t own, they can each contribute to a debate of the new idea’s investment merit.
In the book Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialist World2, author David Epstein argues that many fields have gone so overboard with specialization that generalists are now the more valuable problem solvers. Epstein states that “highly credentialed experts can become so narrow-minded that they actually get worse with experience, even while becoming more confident—a dangerous combination.” Through numerous examples, Epstein differentiates between “kind” and “wicked” environments. He says a “kind” learning environment is defined by psychologist Robin Hogarth as one where “patterns repeat over and over, and feedback is extremely accurate and usually very rapid.” Specialists can thrive in “kind” environments. As a simplistic example, learning to play tic-tac-toe is the epitome of a kind environment: The rules are fixed, patterns repeat and feedback is both accurate and rapid. Without study, simple repetition quickly produces an unbeatable player who could tie for World Champion.
Unfortunately, most of life occurs in less kind learning environments. Hogarth calls the opposite of a kind environment “wicked.” As Epstein relays, “In wicked domains the rules of the game are often unclear or incomplete, there may or may not be repetitive patterns and they may not be obvious, and feedback is often delayed, inaccurate, or both.” On the continuum between kind and wicked environments, investing seems to be much closer to the wicked end.
We can cite business conditions that often lead to successful investments, but we can also show examples when those same conditions led to failures. Bad news for a company typically pushes its stock price down, but sometimes, when the news has already been thoroughly discounted, the announcement can actually make the stock price go up. We can buy a stock that looks unbelievably cheap and then the stock price drops even lower. Investors with less patience or conviction will often give up before the pendulum swings and the positive results begin.
Our own value approach, which has been successful over the long run, can still go through difficult periods, like today, when our five-year trailing performance lags behind the market averages. Though we’ve been through these periods before and have seen the rebound that often follows, we also know that “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” Becoming successful at investing has very little in common with becoming successful at tic-tac-toe. The learning environments are about as different as they could be.
To demonstrate the value of generalist thinking in wicked environments, Epstein cites the story of a chemist at Eli Lilly who posted some questions online that had baffled Lilly’s chemists. Relatively quickly, solutions came rolling in—most from individuals who worked in unrelated fields. The project was so successful that it was spun off into a separate company, InnoCentive, which enables experts in any field to post complex problems online and provide rewards for anyone who can solve them. A little more than one-third of the posted problems have been completely solved—an impressive statistic, considering teams of specialists had been stumped! According to Epstein, InnoCentive also discovered that the broader the backgrounds are for those who try to solve the problems, the more likely it is that the problems are answered.
Investing involves a search for solutions to complex problems—a “wicked” environment not well suited to extreme specialization—yet in a typical investment firm, one analyst will be responsible for one industry. Let’s say an investment firm has an analyst assigned to the chemical industry. That individual will know a tremendous amount of detail about a dozen chemical companies. Rank ordering those 12 companies based on business quality is that individual’s forte. Knowing the expected news flow of the next six months is also an important part of that job. But this individual is focused only on chemical companies. A question such as “Is DuPont a better business than credit card issuer Capital One?” would probably be met with a blank stare. The more important question, “Which is likely to be the better long-term investment?” is one an industry specialist is not trained to answer.
At Oakmark, we believe it is easier for our generalists to acquire specialist-level knowledge than it is for a specialist to learn how to place that knowledge into a useful context. When our generalists need deeper knowledge in a specific industry, they will search for relevant articles, listen to podcasts, talk with experienced management teams, consult with experts in the field and interview the industry specialists at brokerage firms. Compared to my early career, the internet has made it much easier to access specialist knowledge. However, knowing what to do with all of that information—which is the domain of the generalist—remains as difficult now as it was then.
Having generalists also makes Oakmark a more flexible company that can question its own assumptions. When we believe that a stock we own would benefit from a fresh look, our director of research will assign it to a different analyst. Because our analysts have all studied companies from many different industries, this is nothing out of the ordinary for them—and a fresh set of eyes often produces a valuable new perspective. Imagine how different that would be if you asked the analyst who has spent a career following 12 chemical companies to suddenly pick up coverage of, say, computer giant IBM. It simply wouldn’t work. In addition, our “devil’s advocate” process relies on generalists. Each of our analysts thinks about every stock we own. If they disagree with a holding, they present the sell case on a stock someone else covers. At specialist firms, the auto analyst isn’t thinking about—and might not even be aware of—the firm’s cable TV position. Presenting the case against it would be nearly impossible.
A final advantage of the generalist model is that it provides analysts with better training for becoming portfolio managers. All of Oakmark’s current portfolio managers previously worked as generalist analysts. If industry specialists want to become portfolio managers, it is an open question as to how adept they will be at making cross-industry comparisons. Yet every day, a portfolio manager has to make judgments like whether Alphabet is more attractive than Ford or whether Citigroup is a better investment than Merck. Our analysts constantly make those judgments as they decide which companies to recommend for purchase. For a specialist, that’s a brand new way of thinking.
For every prodigy like Tiger Woods there’s a Gary Woodland whose skills were honed from generalist experience. So if your child enjoys playing soccer, baseball and basketball, but the baseball coach says it’s time to drop the others, you probably won’t ruin your child’s life by ignoring that advice. And as you think beyond sports, remember Epstein’s conclusion that the more uncertain the environment, the more likely it is that a generalist will have greater success than a specialist. We believe Oakmark’s track record shows that our shareholders benefit from the broad perspective of our analysts. I believe our work environment also benefits: Woodland credited the breadth of his background for making him more coachable, grounded and well rounded. Those same traits in our analysts make Oakmark a better place to work.
Saludos
Saben si ya es contratable en alguna plataforma española???
Gracias
En Renta 4 no que es la que uso yo.
The most common question we are getting asked today by investors is, “How should I change my portfolio given how much the market is down?” If you’ve read any of our older commentaries, you can guess that the answer will probably include the word “rebalance.”
During times of crisis, we think it is important to remember what our expertise is and limit our opinions to what we know best. Nobody at Oakmark is an infectious disease specialist. Our opinion on the duration and magnitude of the economic decline caused by the coronavirus is no more likely to be accurate than what you can read at many online sources. But our expertise is in valuing businesses and we have the historical perspective of how stock market prices and long-term business values can sometimes radically diverge.
The S&P 500 has declined by 30% since its peak on February 19. My colleague Win Murray recently wrote a piece looking at discounted cash flow math. He showed that with the market trading at more than 20 times earnings, the current year cash flow represents only about 4% of a typical company’s value. Clearly, this suggests the market decline may be excessive relative to a sober analysis of the potential loss in business value. With our historical perspective, we can tell you that if the economy and P/E multiples return to “normal” within a few years, current valuations look unusually attractive.
During market corrections over the past decade, we’ve often been asked, “How do the values today compare to those during the Great Recession in 2008?” The answer has always been that while the values looked good relative to history, they were not as extreme as in 2008. Today, I can say that our analysis suggests similar attractiveness. On our approved list of about 120 stocks, all but two are trading beneath our buy target. At Oakmark, we normally sell stocks when they reach our sell targets and redeploy that capital into those selling at their buy targets. Today as in 2008, we see opportunities to sell a stock at its buy target and redeploy the capital into a stock selling at half of our buy target.
By no means does that mean today is the market bottom. We don’t think we are any better at guessing market tops and bottoms than anyone else. That’s why our advice is always to look at one’s asset allocation—and when extreme market moves take it out of balance, sell what’s gone up and use those funds to buy what’s gone down. In a little under a month, the stock market has fallen by nearly 30%, while long bonds have increased nearly 20%. If your asset allocation in mid-February was consistent with your financial plan, the market has since moved it out of balance. To restore your asset allocation today would require selling about 30% of your long bond portfolio and reinvesting the proceeds in stocks.
As an example, say that on February 20, a $100,000 portfolio was invested $60,000 in the S&P 500 and $40,000 in long-term U.S. Treasuries. Today, the portion in the S&P 500 would have fallen to about $42,000, while the bonds increased to $48,000. But, the bonds have inadvertently become the majority of what now is a $90,000 portfolio. To restore a 60/40 balance, the investor needs to sell $12,000 of bonds and invest that money in equities1. We and others don’t know when the market will bottom, but rebalancing after large moves restores exposure to an asset that has underperformed and positions the portfolio for an eventual recovery. And remember, rebalancing isn’t necessarily completed after one adjustment. If the stock market either recovers quickly or continues to decline, another rebalance would be needed to get back to asset allocation targets.
Most of the Oakmark portfolio managers have added to their personal holdings of our Funds to restore their own portfolio balance. An interviewer last week said to me, “As value investors, you must feel like kids in a candy store.” While that is true for those of us who work at Oakmark, most investors have the opposite reaction. It’s easier emotionally to sell after a market decline than it is to buy. That’s a big reason why so many investors have historically underperformed the market. They buy after stocks go up and sell after stocks go down. Instead of making that an emotional decision, taking steps to rebalance removes the emotion and has you buying after declines and selling after increases. As with things outside of finance, if decision-making can be mechanized, the implementation becomes much easier. We are confident that there are many attractive opportunities today for investing additional long-term capital in the stock market.