‍

When markets become polarised and concentrated, active managers face a problem that has very little to do with stock picking and a great deal to do with survival. The dilemma sits across four uncomfortable axes — business risk, tracking error, absolute risk, and intrinsic value — and they rarely point in the same direction.

The history is unsparing. Tony Dye refused to chase dot-com valuations, was branded "Dr  Doom," and was forced out of Phillips & Drew in March 2000, weeks before the Nasdaq peaked and fell roughly 80%. Julian Robertson called dot-com stocks "an inadvertent Ponzi scheme," lost his investors to redemptions, and closed Tiger Management the same month; the residual portfolio went on to return 120% over the following six years against –7% for the S&P 500. Ted Aronson shut AJO Partners in December 2020, citing "the longest drought in value on record." Value's sharpest rally in a generation began within months. In each case, the strategy was vindicated. The business was not.

This is the structural irony of disciplined investing in a momentum cycle. The conditions that make a strategy most uncomfortable to own are precisely those that set up its greatest opportunity. Underperformance triggers redemptions, redemptions raise costs, costs trigger more departures. The market's ability to force the right strategy out of business at the wrong moment is itself the mechanism that creates the mispricing.

An emerging markets manager that we have used is a recent example. Strip out TSMC, Samsung and SK Hynix, names the strategy quite reasonably declined to own given its focus on emerging markets consumer growth companies, and performance was broadly in line with benchmark. It was not enough. The fund is closing, and the underlying emerging-markets consumer-growth thesis, arguably the most pregnant part of a diversified portfolio, will be liquidated regardless of intrinsic value.

The same tension now confronts allocators. The Mag Seven and the AI semiconductor complex sit at extreme weightings in global benchmarks. Tighter tracking-error budgets quietly force exposure to a handful of names whose pricing embeds heroic assumptions about reinvestment payoffs. Reducing that exposure is intellectually defensible and career-fragile. Maintaining it is comfortable in the short run but exposes clients, particularly retirees facing sequencing risk, to drawdowns from which their portfolios may not recover in time.

There is no clean answer, but there is a coherent posture. Hold managers whose processes are genuinely uncorrelated: a growth manager riding the capex cycle while it runs, alongside a valuation-anchored manager already rotating into the next opportunity set. Accept that both may underperform a concentrated benchmark in the short term, and that this is a feature of the design, not a flaw. Communicate the trade-off honestly, before the drawdown rather than during it.

What the Dye, Robertson and Aronson episodes teach is not that discipline fails. It is  that discipline must be paired with a business model, and a client base, that can withstand being early. In polarised markets, the hardest job is not identifying value. It is staying solvent long enough for value to assert itself. Arguably out of favour stock pickers have had it the toughest, including some local mid-cap growth managers, but it also makes our job a bit tougher as tighter tracking error constraints mean that you might be called upon to (sharp intake of breath) time markets. Advisers on the other hand arguably have the most important and difficult role but one that can be made a whole lot easier if we do the second part of our job well, namely effective communication. With that in mind we are and will be doubling down on our efforts to look forward and communicate the benefits of diversification while at the same time keeping up with Joneses.