Q: More of a portfolio construction question, I would really appreciate your opinion on the following. Whether in The Post or The Globe, more and more, I’m reading in the ‘personal financial profiles’ that individual investors should be allocating, in some cases up to 30% of their portfolios, to alternative investments. These typically include private company debt, individual mortgages, and ever-increasingly now, factoring, the assuming of small business’ accounts receivables.
I’m a conservative investor, close to retirement, no pension, planning to live off the income of my portfolio. Without over-reaching for yield, I invest in mostly blue chip big-cap, reasonably diversified, with an allocation to some of your growthier names. But when I look at what is increasingly being suggested by planners, always under the auspices that alternatives are safer because they cannot be marked to the market in times of corrections, I cannot comprehend it. Companies that cannot qualify for the better rates that banks offer, people who don’t qualify for bank mortgages, and companies who have to sell their receivables because they cannot wait to collect them on their own, sound very high risk to me, worlds higher than investing in a mix of banks, lifecos, utilities, pipelines, industrials, tech, health, reits, preferreds, fixed income, and the like. While the market values of what I typically invest in can tank during correction periods, in my mind, they certainly don’t carry the very high risk of permanent capital loss that these so-called alternatives do. Particularly so since most of the ‘alternatives’ I assume are small companies.
Are these being offered because, a) you require a broker to get them for you, hence you must use one and pay fees, and your accounts likely become stickier because of it, and b) so a broker, when in a correction period, can point to these and say they’re safer because they’re not reacting to the negativity — but only because in truth, there is no market to mark them against. Not until you try to sell, that is.
Long question, but am I missing the bigger picture, and these ‘alternatives’ are something that should be considered?
I’m a conservative investor, close to retirement, no pension, planning to live off the income of my portfolio. Without over-reaching for yield, I invest in mostly blue chip big-cap, reasonably diversified, with an allocation to some of your growthier names. But when I look at what is increasingly being suggested by planners, always under the auspices that alternatives are safer because they cannot be marked to the market in times of corrections, I cannot comprehend it. Companies that cannot qualify for the better rates that banks offer, people who don’t qualify for bank mortgages, and companies who have to sell their receivables because they cannot wait to collect them on their own, sound very high risk to me, worlds higher than investing in a mix of banks, lifecos, utilities, pipelines, industrials, tech, health, reits, preferreds, fixed income, and the like. While the market values of what I typically invest in can tank during correction periods, in my mind, they certainly don’t carry the very high risk of permanent capital loss that these so-called alternatives do. Particularly so since most of the ‘alternatives’ I assume are small companies.
Are these being offered because, a) you require a broker to get them for you, hence you must use one and pay fees, and your accounts likely become stickier because of it, and b) so a broker, when in a correction period, can point to these and say they’re safer because they’re not reacting to the negativity — but only because in truth, there is no market to mark them against. Not until you try to sell, that is.
Long question, but am I missing the bigger picture, and these ‘alternatives’ are something that should be considered?
