-
Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST)
-
Procter & Gamble Company (The) (PG)
-
Loblaw Companies Limited (L)
Q: Greetings 5i,
Despite their lacklustre performance this year, I am very fond of consumer staple holdings that focus on food and household products. My reasoning is that I consider their essentiality, as well as their (at least theoretically) defensive nature make them excellent, steady, long-term holds that do not need to be constantly monitored; thereby providing a "sleep at night" factor which I highly prize. Thus, my current sector exposure consists of full positions (5%) in L and PG that, barring some fundamental catastrophe in either, I intend to hold indefinitely. I also hold AMZN (5%), but, due to the breadth of its business, consider it more of a "hybrid."
To these, I am considering adding a position in COST, as I feel that, in addition the aforementioned reasons for favouring staples, its business model is perhaps better equipped to withstand the "Amazon effect" than many other retailers (WMT, KG, etc.). I am also looking to add some geographic diversity to my retail exposure, and view the recent weakness in the stock as a good potential entry point.
However, I realize that this addition would increase my sector weighting, and possibly create some unnecessary overlap. I would therefore like to ask your advice regarding this addition, and whether my reasoning appears sound.
I am 36 years old, debt-free, and relatively conservative. My investment portfolio is solely for the purpose of expediting my retirement, and I will have no need of its funds for the foreseeable future. Excluding ETF's, my portfolio currently consists of 22 positions (with none exceeding a 5% weighting), and is, for my goals and investing style, well diversified across sectors.
Based on my situation, does the addition of COST sound like a reasonable course of action to you?
Thank you.
Despite their lacklustre performance this year, I am very fond of consumer staple holdings that focus on food and household products. My reasoning is that I consider their essentiality, as well as their (at least theoretically) defensive nature make them excellent, steady, long-term holds that do not need to be constantly monitored; thereby providing a "sleep at night" factor which I highly prize. Thus, my current sector exposure consists of full positions (5%) in L and PG that, barring some fundamental catastrophe in either, I intend to hold indefinitely. I also hold AMZN (5%), but, due to the breadth of its business, consider it more of a "hybrid."
To these, I am considering adding a position in COST, as I feel that, in addition the aforementioned reasons for favouring staples, its business model is perhaps better equipped to withstand the "Amazon effect" than many other retailers (WMT, KG, etc.). I am also looking to add some geographic diversity to my retail exposure, and view the recent weakness in the stock as a good potential entry point.
However, I realize that this addition would increase my sector weighting, and possibly create some unnecessary overlap. I would therefore like to ask your advice regarding this addition, and whether my reasoning appears sound.
I am 36 years old, debt-free, and relatively conservative. My investment portfolio is solely for the purpose of expediting my retirement, and I will have no need of its funds for the foreseeable future. Excluding ETF's, my portfolio currently consists of 22 positions (with none exceeding a 5% weighting), and is, for my goals and investing style, well diversified across sectors.
Based on my situation, does the addition of COST sound like a reasonable course of action to you?
Thank you.
