Britain’s FTSE 100 seems to be almost impervious to any bad data that can be thrown at it. GDP data shocked the market showing the UK unexpectedly contracted in the third quarter.

Sterling tumbled more than a cent against the greenbackand gilts jumped while the FTSEurofirst 300 pan-European equity index trimmed gains considerably.

But Britain’s FTSE shrugged it off, hugging its 1 percent gains in the face of data which shows the UK economy is still ailing badly.

 It is the cosmopolitan nature of the FTSE which is keeping it buoyant. Miners and energy firms make up over 32 percent of the index, while miners banks, also very much global institutions make up a further 16 percent.

Howard Wheeldon on BGC Partners says:

“The FTSE is a function of globalalisation and trading conditions and growth elsewhere in the world have more of an impact than domestic growth. If the global recession is over and demand is picking up internationally, it’s all the more reason to close your eyes to
what’s going on in the tiny island that it happens to be registered in.”

This month’s Reuters global asset allocation survey shows that investors have cut back on buying equities after an almost non-stop rally since March.

According to a survey of 49 leading investors in the United States, Britain, continental Europe and Japan, investors now hold an average of 54.9 percent of their portfolios in equities.

This is the lowest level since February and below the long-term average of 59.3 percent.

For more graphics click here and here.

Investors learned the wrong lesson from the dotcom bubble, and ended up blowing another. 

That’s the view put forward at the CFA Institute’s conference in Amsterdam by Ben Inker, head of asset allocation at GMO. He believes investors became so enamoured of diversification – which seemed to work like a charm for the large US university endowment schemes – that they ran headlong into risk asset classes and blew a giant risk bubble. 

Inker argues that because investors rushed into risk asset classes indiscriminately, they ended up paying for the privilege of taking risk.

“What you cannot do is say: ‘Because I’m diversified, I can take more risk.’ But after the internet bubble, diversification became the mantra,” he said. “Investors looked uncritically at the idea of having a diversified portfolio. That made the risk/return curve negatively sloping.” In effect, investors were paying more to take on risk. 

A small crumb of comfort for those diversified investors surveying the remnants of their portfolios, is that markets have fallen so far you are now once again being paid to take on risk. But is there anything they could have done to avoid this unpleasant sequence of events in the first place? 

Inker suggested they should have gone short risk. Unfortunately, as he conceded, it is not possible for the whole market to do this. 

Lesson learned?