Q: Hi Peter,
In response to Robert’s question of Nov 10 regarding your thoughts on what folks will wish they had done before interest rates start going back up, you said “…we would reduce very expensive growth stock exposure…”
My 24 year-old has a concentrated, strongly growth-oriented TFSA (at least 10+ yr investment horizon). He’s comfortable in holding higher weightings and “letting the winners run” of those companies that seem to have “staying power”, recognizing that there will be inevitable periods of under performance in their stock performance from time to time (LSPD, for example) but that over the “long-term” they should produce attractive returns. The growth stocks that have done well for him so far include:
GSY (+434% return/16% portfolio weighting)
LSPD (+432%/9%)
KXS (+161%/15%)
TOI (+42%/12%)
HUT (+103%/6%)
He also has the following growth stocks that (so far) have been less than stellar:
AT (-39% return/4% portfolio weighting)
MAGT (-29%/3%)
NVEI (-10%/4%)
WELL (-1%/7%)
Which of the above would you consider “very expensive” and reduce exposure to, regardless of current weightings? In general, aside from personal risk tolerance/comfort levels, how do you determine by how much or to what level, you would reduce “very expensive” holdings to versus simply “letting the winners run” over the long-term? Which of the above stocks that are currently in the red would you reduce exposure to given this is a TFSA (no tax loss benefit if selling for possible later buy-back) - rather than riding out (potential opportunity cost) what is hopefully just the volatility inherent in growth stocks and a period of under-performance (of indeterminate length, admittedly) - assuming no changes in the investment thesis and fundamentals of these companies and the long-term investment horizon.
Thanks, as always, for your insightful help.
Read Answer
Asked by Bruce on November 13, 2021