The simple share-picking strategy that has 'beaten every UK fund' over a decade: ED CROFT
In the third part of our series on how to pick shares, Ed Croft, the founder and chief executive of Stockopedia, looks at how a simple rules-based approach that he has dubbed the no admin portfolio system, has delivered returns that top all UK companies funds over the past decade.
He explains the three mistakes all investors can make and the solutions and runs through the rules investors can put in place to easily select winning stocks.
Most of us have been there. Picked some great stocks with conviction. Run our winners. Been delighted with the gains. Only to see those gains drain away.
It hurts, it's galling and you are left wondering where you went wrong.
Worse than that, by the time it happens you may have started counting on those gains as part of your future planning. How are you going to pay for that big ticket item - that home purchase, a child's education, or that early retirement? It's very real.
In this piece, I'll introduce the three mistakes we can all make, and the three solutions.
But first, a personal tale…
For me, my big lesson came in the global financial crisis. I was young enough to be reckless, but old enough to have known better.
I had a silly amount of my capital riding on two big picks. Both were AIM listed stocks.
One was called Renesola (SOLA) - a solar energy company that was absolutely smashing it on sales growth. The other was RC Group (RCG) - a biometrics company. I'm sure some of you remember these stocks.
I'd bought really well. And I'd bought more as they rose. At their peak, I had 50 per cent of my portfolio in RCG, and probably 30 per cent in SOLA. They really were motoring - they had both already tripled. I couldn't have been more confident.
It was 2007… what could possibly have gone wrong? As I explain below, lots did.
The three investing mistakes we make
There's an eye-opening academic research paper by Barber and Odean titled 'The Behaviour of Individual Investors'. When I first read it I was gobsmacked.
It was a mirror of every mistake I'd ever made, and hugely influential in shaping my future mindset.
I've thought long and hard about their findings and grouped them into three themes:
1. We suffer 'perverse stock selection'
That quoted phrase is their words. We often pick risky stocks for the wrong reasons.
We often talk about the perils of story stocks at Stockopedia. Stories are how the human mind makes sense of the world, but projecting a Hollywood ending onto a share is not rational.
Whether we're chasing headlines, themes we know a lot about or jumping on a bandwagon so not to miss out. We seem to have a 'taste for stocks with lottery-like payoffs'.
But lottery tickets have negative returns,
2. We under-diversify
We buy a share and get to know the theme. The price goes in the right direction, and we buy more. We buy another benefiting from the same theme.
One highlight from the paper showed that 'on average investors hold only four stocks' which tend to be 'highly correlated' - i.e. too few stocks in too few sectors.
I ended up in 2007 with a portfolio 80 per cent in Chinese AIM stocks. Hindsight is wonderful isn't it.
3. We buy and sell recklessly
We're human. We're prone to want to do something. This action bias might have helped when we were chased by lions, but in volatile markets it's an expensive tendency.
It's so easy to buy and sell these days. A trade is just a thumb press away.
But ease of trading does not a disciplined investor make. 20 per cent of investors turn over their portfolio almost three times per year - which is not only hugely costly in terms of transaction and tax costs, but can't be good for mental health.
Beyond this, we're terribly prone to hanging onto our losers, and snatching at profits.
And even worse, we tend to pull all our capital out of the market at lows, and reinvest at highs.
The framework that solves the problems
I'm sure we can all recognise some of these behaviours in our own habits. But as John Templeton once said 'If you want to have a better performance than the crowd, you must do something differently from the crowd'.
So in this vein, I propose three dimensions of intelligent investing that can guarantee you invest contrary to the three mistakes that almost all investors make.
1. Invest in stocks exposed to proven return drivers.
● The simple solution to 'perverse stock selection'.
● Buy good (quality), inexpensive (value), rising (momentum) shares.
● These kinds of shares are highlighted by the Stockopedia StockRanks - which score every share for their quality, value and momentum. These kinds of shares are remarkably ignored by the crowd, but have consistently outperformed over the last decade.
2. Ensure you have enough diversity in your portfolio construction
● In ten years of tracking portfolios the highest probability shares, only 7 per cent are likely to double in a single year. So we don't diversify just to reduce risk, we diversify to maximise our chance of owning a big winner. These are the stocks that can make a real difference to your portfolio.
● Own at least 14 stocks to give yourself a better chance of holding a mult-bagger.
● Own stocks across at least six (out of 10) sectors, and make sure you own both cyclicals and defensives. Think of your portfolio like a football team - you need strikers and defenders. And be careful going all-in on a favourite theme - we are not so smart!
● Avoid huge positions. Start with equal weights.
3. Pre-commit to buy and sell discipline
● Have a plan for every share purchase - a plan actively helps you avoid reactive over-trading and snatching at profits. This includes having a sell plan. Whether that sell plan is based on time (e.g. after a one year holding period), thresholds (e.g. when value is realised, or the StockRank falls below a certain level), or events (e.g. selling immediately on a profit warning).
● Only hold for the long term the highest quality securities. Be extremely wary of just holding because you've grown familiar with the story. The numbers must back it up. As Jim Slater would say, 'be first in the line of disappointed enthusiasts' if something goes wrong.
● Don't hang onto your losers - have a bias to selling them (using a stop loss, or after a fixed time), or average down (but only if you have genuine insight - which you probably don't). Doing nothing creates opportunity cost, and can turn a small loss into a big one.
The consistent application of simple rules is extraordinarily powerful. As Van K Tharp once said, 'If you don't have rules, everything you do is a mistake'.
Putting the rules to work
At Stockopedia, we've run a model portfolio based on these principles for a decade. It's an equal weighted 20-stock portfolio, populated with the highest quality, value and momentum stocks, refreshed once per year.
There's no stock picking. It's a simple rules-based approach that works.
Known as the 'NAPS' Portfolio - as it's a 'no admin portfolio system' - the portfolio has beaten every single fund manager in the UK over the decade to 2025.
The NAPS portfolio has outperformed all funds in the IA UK All Companies sector
If you'd like to apply similar systematic principles to your own portfolio and learn more about how the NAPS process works, you can check out our latest webinar below.
Watch now to discover the simple rules behind a market-beating strategy.
This article is part of Stockopedia's The Smart Money Playbook series. As a special offer, This is Money readers can get 25 per cent off a Stockopedia membership.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
a minute ago
- The Sun
Future of chain Claire's on UK high streets uncertain after US parent firm files for bankruptcy
FASHION accessories chain Claire's is facing an uncertain future on UK high streets, after its US parent firm filed for bankruptcy. It is the second time the ear-piercing favourite has declared itself bust, after previously filing for bankruptcy in 2018. 1 Its finances are now under pressure from weak consumer demand and supply chain uncertainty. The filings showed that the parent business reported liabilities of up to $10billion (£7billion) and owed between 25,000 and 50,000 creditors. Claire's operates 2,750 stores worldwide, including 280 in the UK. While British stores remain unaffected for now, the UK arm has lost £25million over the past three years and is at risk of collapsing into administration later this month. It has been working with advisers to explore a sale or restructuring. However, potential buyers, such as Hilco Capital, are understood to have walked away. Retail experts say Claire's is struggling to stay relevant. Julie Palmer, from Begbies Traynor, said: 'Claire's low-price offering is clearly not strong enough to win over its core customers — teens and young adults — as they now have access to a vast array of affordable and convenient products online through platforms like Amazon and Temu.' Claire's boss Chris Cramer said: 'We remain in active discussions with potential strategic and financial partners and are committed to completing our review of strategic alternatives.' Nostalgic 90's retailer files for bankruptcy after chain misses rent payments for June and July 'CORE BLIMEY! MINING giant Glenciore has decided to stick with its London stock listing, scrapping plans to shift to New York, in a win for the City. It has been listed on the FTSE since 2011, when it was valued at £37billion — at the time the exchange's largest float. However, the Swiss-based firm has announced plans to slash £753million in costs by 2026, including job cuts across its 150,000-strong workforce. METRO BANK ON THE UP METRO BANK has bounced back, posting a £43.1million pre-tax profit for the first half of 2025 — up from a £33.5million loss reported in the same period last year. The lender doubled new corporate and small business loans to £1billion, and cut 8 per cent from its costs by axing a third of its workforce and reducing branch hours. Boss Daniel Frumkin said: 'Our strong performance reflects the decisive actions we have taken.' Elsewhere, Sabadell shareholders have approved the £2.65billion sale of TSB to Santander.
Telegraph
a minute ago
- Telegraph
A long-term plan is needed to get the country out of its financial hole
SIR – Whether by raising income tax rates, a wealth tax or through less overt measures, the Government will try to extract more money from the people that it serves ('Reeves facing £50bn black hole as tax pressure mounts ', report, August 6). However, such measures risk being self-defeating. Those who are unable or unwilling to leave the country will bear the brunt of the tax rises. That includes standard and higher-rate taxpayers. Every pound the Government extracts from their bank accounts is a pound that cannot be spent on businesses that provide goods and services. Thus, businesses will take another hit which, in turn, will reduce their tax payments. Since the failure of the Truss administration, there has been no long-term plan to get the country out of its financial hole. Eventually, there will have to be one and it will likely involve curbing the insatiable appetite of government to control and spend. When such a plan sees the light of day we may be surprised at the boost it gives to confidence and investment. David Porter Plymouth, Devon SIR – Labour dug itself a financial hole when it pledged not to increase National Insurance (NI), VAT or income tax rates. Instead of imposing VAT on private schools and possibly even on private health, a simple 1 or 2 per cent rise on NI and/or the basic rate of income tax would have solved the Chancellor's problems. Now she is having to cast her net wider – and creating more problems as a result. John Tilsiter Radlett, Hertfordshire SIR – Taxing jobs and taxing capital is not going to result in economic growth. Is it too much to expect a former Bank of England economist to grasp this? Patrick Loxdale Aberystwyth, Ceredigion SIR – There is a limit to which any economy can be taxed. The UK is at that limit. The British public understands this. It is plain that public sector expenditure must be cut to balance the books. Given the Government throws billions around like confetti – on the Chagos Islands, the immigration fiasco, welfare, public sector pay rises, excessive numbers of civil servants – there is much low-hanging fruit. The economy is being badly managed as never before. Enough is enough. Please can we have some economic sanity. Stuart Moore Bramham, West Yorkshire SIR – Having continually criticised the Conservatives for the last 12 months for creating a £22bn black hole in the public finances, I trust Labour will now be constantly criticising itself for doubling the deficit. Paul Webster Dyserth, Denbighshire
The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘One in four councils could lose money' under Government's funding proposals
Around a quarter of councils in England could lose money under the Government's proposed reforms to how local authorities are funded, analysis has found. A report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the changes would create big 'winners and losers' as ministers attempt to address perceived unfairness in levels of core funding across the country. Sir Keir Starmer's own council, Camden in north London, will be hit by the reforms when taking inflation into account, the IFS added. The think tank said Camden, along with other inner London boroughs including Westminster, will have less money to spend on services even if they increase council tax by the maximum amount allowed. Whitehall will provide a minimum level of funding, a so-called funding floor, for council leaders during the changes, but the IFS said overall cash for inner London town halls would be 11-12% lower in 2028-29 in real terms. The paper said: 'Around one in four councils would see real-terms falls in overall funding under the Government's proposals, with around 30 on the lowest funding floors seeing real-terms cuts of 11–12%. Conversely, another one in four councils would see real-terms increases of 12% or more.' The changes, which will come into effect from next year, are being consulted on by ministers. The Government plans to create a new methodology to assess local authority needs relatively and factor in population and deprivation. It will also assess need for adult and children's services. Overall spending will fall for 186 councils and rise by the same total sum for 161. One in 10 will see a fall in overall funding, while one in 10 will see an increase of 10% or more. The overall Government spend on local authorities will not change. The changes will be phased in across three years, from 2026/27 to 2028/29. Kate Ogden, co-author of the IFS report and a senior research economist with the think tank, said: 'England has lacked a rational system of local government funding for at least 12 years – and arguably more like 20. It is therefore welcome that the nettle of funding reform is being grasped, and some councils will benefit substantially under the new system. 'But the changes will sting for those councils that are assessed to currently receive too high a share of the overall funding pot, and so which lose out from moves to align funding with assessed spending needs.' The proposals are criticised in the report as 'not particularly redistributive to poor, urban areas of England'. It cites South Tyneside and Sunderland councils being among those to lose out from the reforms as slow population growth is accounted for. The report added: 'It is somewhat surprising that, on average, councils in the most deprived 30% of areas would see very similar changes in overall funding over the next three years to those for councils in the middle 40% of areas.' It noted that rural areas, which feared being badly hit by changes, will benefit from a 'remoteness adjustment' which will compensate areas with higher needs due to being far from large towns. London will gain the least, with a cash-terms increase in funding of 8% in the next three years. Analysis by the London Councils collective has highlighted the risk of the funding 'dramatically underestimating' needs for local services in parts of the capital. It noted the city has the highest rate of poverty in the country when housing costs are factored in. Outside the capital, the East Midlands (22%) and Yorkshire & the Humber (19%) are set to see the biggest increases in funding, with the South East set to see the smallest at 13%. However, the proposals have been criticised by youth charity the National Children's Bureau, which said it was 'significantly concerned' about the way the Government plans to work out needs for children's services. Ms Ogden added: 'The Government should consider giving highly affected councils which currently have low council tax rates greater flexibility to bring their council tax bills up to more typical levels to offset funding losses. 'More generally, reform of council funding allocations is just one part of the financial sustainability puzzle. Efforts to reduce demands on, and the cost of providing, local services through reform and the use of new technology will also be vital.' A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: 'The current, outdated way in which local authorities are funded means the link between funding and need for services has broken down, leaving communities left behind. 'That's why we are taking decisive action to reform the funding system so we can get councils back on their feet and improve public services, with the IFS recognising that our changes will better align funding with councils' needs.'
