This is a very good thing.

Keeping a long-term perspective will continue to be the key to success.

As long as you have picked a long-term strategy that makes sense and you believe in.

Buffett believes it is foolish to use short-term prices to judge a company's success. What happens to the stock price in the short run is inconsequential.

If adapting Buffett's investment strategy required only a change in perspective, then probably more investors would become proponents.  Unfortunately, applying Buffett's approach requires changing not only perspective but also changing how performance is evaluated and communicated.

The traditional yardstick for measuring performance is price change:  the difference between the purchase price of the stock and the market price of the stock.  In the long run, the price of a stock should approximate the change in value of the business.  However, in the short run, prices can gyrate widely above and below a company's value, dependent on factors other than the progress of the business.  The problem remains that most investors use short-term changes to gauge the success or failure of their investment approach.  However, these short-term price changes often have little to do with the changing economic value of the business and much to do with anticipating the behaviour of other investors.

Buffett believes it is foolish to use short-term prices to judge a company's success.  Instead, he lets his companies report their value to him, by their economic progress.  Once a year, he checks several variables:

• Return on beginning shareholder's equity
• Change in operating margins, debt levels, and capital expenditure needs.
• The company's cash generating ability.

If these economic measurements are improving, he knows the share price, over the long term, should reflect this.  What happens to the stock price in the short run is inconsequential.

The difficulty of using economic measurements as yardsticks for success is that communicating performance in this manner is not customary.  Clients and investment professionals alike are programmed to follow prices.  The stock market reports price change daily.  The client's account statement reflects price change monthly and the investment professional, using price change, is measured quarterly. 

The answer to this dilemma may lie in employing Buffett's concept of "look-through" earnings.  If investor use look-through earnings to evaluate their portfolio's performance, perhaps the irrational behaviour of solely chasing price might be tempered.

The Truth About Stocks for the Long Run

By Alex Dumortier, CFA September 19, 2012

Don't get me wrong. I'm convinced that equities are an appropriate and important component of a long-term strategy to build wealth. However, there are a certain number of popular myths regarding stocks that have taken hold and that can be potentially dangerous to your financial well-being. In this article, I'm highlighting two of them.

Myth 1: Stocks' expected return is 10% to 11% annually
I have seen financial writers and professional investors cite this range (or a figure contained in this range) for the historical average return for stocks innumerable times. That's fine, in principle; the trouble is that they often imply or even assert openly that this is a sound basis for future expected returns.

As far as I can tell, the source for this range may be Long-Run Stock Returns: Participating in the Real Economy (2003), in which Roger Ibbotson of Yale University and his co-author Peng Chen calculate that stocks produced an average return of 10.70% during the period 1926-2000. That's a historical observation (anomaly?) and investors should absolutely not anchor on it when they think about future returns.

That specific period was atypical in a way that can be dangerously misleading if you don't look beyond the "headline" number. Stocks started out at depressed multiples (a price-to-trailing-earnings multiple of 10.2 for the S&P Composite Index) and finished at inflated ones (26.0 for the S&P 500 Index (INDEX: ^GSPC  ) ). All told, the expansion in the multiple's girth alone fattened stocks' average return by a full 1.25 percentage points annually. Unless you have reason to believe that rising valuations will make the same contribution over your investing horizon, expecting the same average return going forward is wrongheaded.

A more realistic benchmark

Taking a longer observation period (January 1871 to August 2012) over which the change in P/E multiple was less dramatic, I found an average return of 8.61%, with the change in P/E contributing just 25 basis points, and inflation 208 basis points (100 basis points being equal to one percentage point).

8.61% - 0.25% - 2.08% = 6.27%

A reasonable historical benchmark with which to begin thinking about future returns is 6% to 7% after inflation. That range is consistent with the long-run stock return estimates in the 2007 edition of Jeremy Siegel's Stocks for the Long Run.

Incidentally, if you don't think a 1.25 percentage point difference is even worth trifling over, consider the end value of a dollar invested at 6.5% over a 30-year period: $6.61. At 7.75%, you'll have $9.38. If you were counting on the higher return and earned the lower one instead, you're now facing a 30% shortfall.

Myth 2: The longer the time horizon, the safer stocks become
This is an idea that has been heavily marketed based on Jeremy Siegel's observation that, historically, the standard deviation of stocks' average returns has fallen as you extend your time horizon. But Siegel himself is pretty cagey when it comes to the broader implications of that finding. This is what he told an audience of financial advisors in 2004:

One thing I should make very clear: I never said that that means stocks are safer in the long run. We know the standard deviation of [stocks'] average [annual return] goes down when you have more periods ... What I pointed out here is that the standard deviation for stocks goes down twice as fast as random walk theory would predict. In other words, they are relatively safer in the long run than random walk theory would predict. Doesn't mean they're safe. [emphasis added]

In a March 2011 paper, Lubos Pastor and Robert Stambaugh, respectively of the University of Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania, show that stocks are more, not less, volatile over long periods.

Siegel compiled historical return data going back over two centuries, and that is fine as far as describing how stocks behaved in the past (strictly speaking, there are problems with this data, to begin with). Pastor and Stambaugh's argument is that observing historical average returns and extrapolating them into the future leaves investors open to "estimation risk." In short, today's investors don't care what stocks did in the past; the only thing that counts is what stocks do in the future, and even two centuries of data does not allow us to know stocks' expected return with certainty. Once you take that uncertainty into account, Pastor and Stambaugh found that stocks are riskier over longer periods.

4 practical recommendations for long-term investors

Don't cling to investing myths such as the two I have highlighted above. Accepting that they are false means recognizing the seas you must navigate are more uncertain and less hospitable than you once thought. It does not mean that throwing up your hands is all that is left to do. Here are four practical recommendations:

• Time horizon is not the only relevant variable in figuring out your allocation between stocks and bonds (and other asset classes). Your risk tolerance, current earnings, and career risk are all things you should consider.
• Use conservative estimates for the equity returns you require in order to achieve your goals to account for "estimation risk."
• Always remain cognizant of valuations -- particularly when they reach extremes (i.e., bubbles).
• Always strive to keep your costs as low as possible; this makes an enormous differenceover time. In that regard, products like the Vanguard Total Market ETF (NYSE: VTI  ) , the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (NYSE: VIG  ) , and the Vanguard MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (NYSE: VWO  ) are all excellent choices.

http://www.fool.com/investing/beginning/2012/09/19/the-truth-about-stocks-for-the-long-run.aspx

Investing for the Long Run - An approach

Investment objectives.

1.  I am looking at a 10 year time horizon in this investment.

2.  My objective is to grow my initial capital 400% in 10 years, that is, doubling at the 5th year and quadrupling at the 10th year.

3.  The sum invested will be a big sum of meaningful amount (a fat pitch).

What stock to buy?

1.  Good quality growth stock, with durable competitive advantage and economic moat.

2.  Revenue and earnings growing at >15% per year, that are predictable and sustainable.

3.  ROE > 15% per year.

4.  FCF +++

5.  Good management with integrity

When to buy?

1.  When the stock price is compelling, that is, undervalued.

2.  A low buying price translates into higher returns on the invested amount.

Profits for the Long Run: Affirming the Case for Quality

Buying shares in decent, profitable businesses is a good way of minimising risk, and thereby maximising overall investing returns over the long run.

Chuck Joyce and Kimball Mayer:

"Put simply, profitability is the ultimate source of investment returns. [And] contrary to popular belief, profitability can be forecasted, and superior profitability persists. Investors systematically undervalue the unexciting stability of [such] quality stocks, except during times of financial crisis. Rather than being beholden to some black box model... we would argue that a fundamental focus on profitability remains the best way to minimize the true risk with which investors should be concerned."

Read more here:  Profits for the Long: Affirming the Case for Quality

With the passing of time, the benefi ts of low-risk investing have become more widely accepted.  Today, a wide array of low-risk strategies is now available.  

From profits, come dividends. And from dividends, come investors' incomes.


The market tends to mis-price such companies, seeing them as dull dividend machines, when it should be valuing them as dull, safe dividend machines.


Read more here: http://www.fool.co.uk/news/investing/2012/06/12/profits-for-the-long-run.aspx

Jeremy Siegel Still Invests For The Long Run (Video)

The Thrill of Investing in Common Stocks

The 2008-2009 stock market crash may have made you pessimistic about investing.

However, history tells us that you have an advantage.  This event actually offers you a great opportunity to find good stocks to invest in.

Buffett recently wrote in the New York Times that for his personal account, he bought common stocks in this market.

Another legendary investor with an outstanding record over several decades wrote, "One principle that I have used throughout my career is to invest at the point of maximum pessimism."

So, spend some time learning to invest wisely.

Based on a long historical record, the expected return on the market is about 7 percent to 10 percent per year.  Let's use the 10 percent as a benchmark.

If you have some money to invest for the long run, why not invest in common stocks?

With common stocks, you can improve your returns, especially if you enjoy the process and put some effort into learning the principles that master investors like Buffett have laid out.

Another great investor, Peter Lynch, echoes this viewpoint:

"An amateur who devotes a small amount of time to study companies in an industry he or she knows something about can outperform 95 percent of the paid experts who manage the mutual funds, plus have fun doing it."


Also read:
Commenting on selected KLSE stocks.

Aim for durable, long-term outperformance in your stock market investing

Long term investors in the stock market will know that most go through hot and cold streaks.

 

More importantly, investors should aim for durable, long-term outperformance.

 

However, many investors either

• lose in equity investment or
• end up in a no profit-no loss situation.

 

Often, it happens that you start putting money in equities and the market moves to new highs. Then you are tempted to put in more money, since you are getting higher returns. Suddenly, the market starts to slide down.

Forget returns on investment, you are not even able to recover your capital. This is a common grouse of most investors.

 

Why? Is it because you make wrong decision or because the market is only meant for speculators and gamblers?

 

No, that’s not true. We go through this pain again and again because we do not learn from our previous experiences in the market.

 

Only the ‘smart investors’ survive the ups and downs in the market and make pots of money.

Over the long term, shares have proved both less risky and more lucrative than other main forms of investments

Shares less risky in long term

Shares are generally thought of as far more risky than investing in bonds or putting money into a bank account. In many ways they are not.

It is true that if someone puts their life savings into the shares of one or two companies in the expectation of a rapid return they are taking a big risk. If they are lucky they could make a substantial gain but they could equally make large losses.

But there are two main ways in which investment in shares can be made less risky.

• One is to diversify from one or two firms to a mixed basket of different types of shares – this is discussed elsewhere on this site (see Advantages of fund investment).
• The other is to extend the duration of the investment to a longer time span.

The longer an investor’s time horizon the safer it is to invest in shares. For long term investment it is actually safer to invest in shares than in bonds or cash.

One definitive study of this phenomenon is by Jeremy Siegel, a professor of finance at the University of Pennsylvania, in Stocks for the Long Run (McGraw-Hill 2002). From a study of American stockmarket returns from 1802-2001 he shows that shares beat bonds and bills (short term government debt)

• 80% of the time with a 10-year horizon,
• 90% of the time with a 20-year horizon and
• almost all the time with a 30-year horizon.

Article ridiculed

Historically this has meant that even if someone has started to invest in shares at the worst time possible they have generally made good returns in the long term. Indeed Professor Siegel starts his book with a discussion of an article published in the summer of 1929 – just before the Wall Street crash - which argued for regular stockmarket investment. The article was subsequently ridiculed as it was published just before a three-year fall in the market which led to a cumulative decline of 89%. But Professor Siegel estimates that even taking this decline into account an investor who had invested in shares regularly for 30 years from 1929 would have made an average annual return of 13%.

Although Professor Siegel’s study concentrates on America the British market has behaved in a similar way. Over the long term shares have easily outperformed other asset classes.

Perhaps the most definitive study of long-term investment trends in relation to the British market is Triumph of the Optimists (Princeton University Press 2002) – the title itself is based on the fact that shares have outperformed other assets in the long term.

• According to this study an investment of £1 in shares in 1900 would have grown to £16,160 in nominal terms by the end of December 2000.
• In contrast the figure for long-term bonds was just £203 and
• for short term Treasury bills only £149.

Of course once inflation is taken into account the increases are not quite so dramatic. Once the 55-fold increase in prices over the century is incorporated into the calculations the return on

• shares would have been 291 times in real terms,
• on bonds 3.7 and
• on bills 2.7.

Inflation risk

Indeed one advantage of shares over bonds is that they tend to perform much better in periods of high inflation.

• Whereas inflation tends to quickly erode the capital value of bonds the stockmarket generally at least keeps up with rising prices.
• In other words one way in which shares are less risky than bonds is their relative immunity to the risk of inflation.

Another factor that can affect relative returns is taxation.

• For instance, if a government decided to impose a punitive tax on share dividends it would clearly hit returns.
• But historically companies have often found ways round this problem – such as distributing income by buying back their own shares – and all the main political parties now support wider share ownership.

As with all forms of investment the past is not necessarily a guide to the future. Returns in the next two decades may not be nearly as great as during the great bull market of 1982-99.

However, historically there is no doubt that over the long term shares have proved both

• less risky and
• more lucrative

than the other main forms of investment.

http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/default.aspx?lang=en-GB

 

The Stock Expert Who's Saying "Buy"

The Stock Expert Who's Saying "Buy"
By Selena Maranjian
June 18, 2009





Jeremy Siegel, business professor at the Wharton Business School, has given us investors a lot to learn from. He's the author, for example, of Stocks for the Long Run, and also of The Future for Investors. He's also shown us how to find great stocks and demonstrated the power of dividends.

So when he speaks, we should at least listen, right? Well, he was recently interviewed on public radio, and he advocated investing in stocks for the long haul. "In March,” he said, “we were down more than 50%. And I looked all the way back [over the] last hundred years. Once you're down 50%, your prospects are very good." That's from a guy who has spent a big part of his life studying the stock market's performance over the past 200 years.

Indeed, many well-known stocks are down 50% or more over the past 12 months:

Company
52-Week Return

Alcoa (NYSE: AA)
(72%)

MEMC Electronic Materials (NYSE: WFR)
(71%)

Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO)
(60%)

Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK)
(66%)

Mosaic (NYSE: MOS)
(71%)

Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT)
(55%)

Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold (NYSE: FCX)
(58%)


Source: Yahoo! Finance.


One objection I have to Siegel's argument, though, is that it depends entirely on past experience projecting into the future. Think back 100 years to 1909. I know there's much to be learned from the past, but I still worry that we sometimes draw too many parallels. After all, the world was very different then. Our workforce looked different. Our industries were different. Global trade patterns were very different. Business and securities regulation was very different.

He's probably right, though
Nevertheless, I'm not betting against him. Previous bear markets have happened for a variety of different reasons, yet they've all been followed by recoveries. Sure, there's a chance that this time will be the exception. But those who've believed that in the past have gotten burned every time.

As I look at my portfolio, many of my stocks are also down substantially, and I certainly think they're more likely to recover than they are to lose more value over the long run. That's not to say that those share prices won't drop tomorrow, or even over the next year. But over the coming years, I believe these current prices will look like a bargain -- and anyone buying at current levels will be glad they did.



http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2009/06/18/the-stock-expert-whos-saying-buy.aspx





Learn more:
The Best Opportunity in 35 Years
An Opportunity to Jump On
The Next Incredible Buying Opportunity
How to find great stocks
The power of dividends.