Showing posts with label cash. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cash. Show all posts

Sunday 17 May 2020

Portfolios and Selling

#Good company gets inexpensive, how much to buy?

When an understood, good company gets inexpensive, we buy its stock. But how much?

(1)  Enough uninvested cash (CASH)
My rule is simple. Provided that I have enough uninvested cash, I put 10 percent of the portfolio in it. I’ve seen other good investors use infinitely more complicated guidelines, but none that I’ve found to be more practical.

If I’m not comfortable putting at least a tenth of the portfolio into an equity, I don’t want the equity. If my conviction is lower I don’t buy less, I buy none.

(2)  Strong conviction (COURAGE)
A strong conviction is important in part because right after a buy the price of a stock is almost certain to drop. That’s the corollary to another near-certainty: that the price paid for a stock is unlikely to be a low. Rock-bottoms don’t send out invitations. So knowing when one will happen is impossible. The astute investor counts on missing them.

Correspondingly, I prefer not to put more than a tenth of the portfolio into a single equity. This reduces the chance that I’ll lack the cash necessary to take advantage of other opportunities that emerge.



#Buying is one aspect of portfolio construction. Another is selling.

There are two problems with selling. 

1.  The first is taxes. 

The profitable sale of stock is taxable in most circumstances. Just how much this eats into long-term returns is best illustrated by example.

Picture two portfolios. Each starts with only cash, buys only non-dividend paying stocks, and liquidates after 30 years. Assume that any stock sales are subject to a total long-term capital gains tax rate of 30 percent.

Portfolio one uses all its cash to buy stock on the first day. It appreciates 15 percent before taxes every year. It doesn’t sell anything until the liquidation date, at which point it immediately pays any taxes due.


Portfolio two also uses all its cash to buy stock on the first day. It too appreciates 15 percent per year before taxes. But it churns its holdings annually. At the end of every year, it sells everything, and uses all the after-tax proceeds to instantly buy different stocks. When it liquidates after 30 years, it too promptly pays any taxes due.

Portfolio one would end the 30-year period with more money. But what’s striking is just how much more. It would wind up with over twice as much cash. That’s because every year when portfolio two paid its capital gains taxes, it whittled down the amount set to grow at 15 percent over the following year. In other words, ongoing tax payments stunted the power of compounding.

By contrast, portfolio one’s capital was never whittled down. It regularly got to multiply its 15 percent by a bigger number:

http://www.goodstockscheap.com/17.1.xlsx

Of course one could never count on an equity portfolio to appreciate at exactly 15 percent annually, and the chance of immediately finding stocks to replace just-sold ones is low. Plus the 30-year period is arbitrary, and a 30 percent tax rate doesn’t apply to everyone. But however simplified, this example
highlights the toll that frequent selling takes.


2.  The second problem with selling is alternatives. 

Companies that are understood and good don’t go on sale every day. They’re hard to find. So absent an acute cash requirement, each stock sale mandates a hunt for the next opportunity.



#When selling makes sense

Even with these problems, selling does makes sense in some instances. I see four.

(a)  The first is when price flies past value. 
If EV/OI is over 25, and there are no mitigating facts, I find it hard to justify holding.

(b) The second instance is when a company that originally registered as good turns out not to be. 
This could be because the original analysis was wrong. Perhaps the threat of new entrants was stronger than it first appeared, or a market thought to be growing really wasn’t. Or it could be because circumstances have changed. Maybe a once-mighty retail chain has come under pressure from online-only sellers, or a company that thrived under regulation has faltered in deregulation.

The cognitive bias of consistency can make it hard to see such instances. We may want to hold just to validate our buys. But analyses really can be wrong, and contexts really can change. Selling in such situations keeps a snag from ripping into both a realized loss and a missed chance to redeploy cash into a better opportunity.

(c)  The third instance is when one is bought out. 
Public companies sometimes get acquired. Such transactions often happen at a premium to the recent trading price. A vote may be put to shareholders on the matter, but for everyone other than major stakeholders, it’s perfunctory. One effectively has no say.

I’ve been bought out several times. I dislike it. It turns a pleasantly appreciating investment into a taxable event. But if profitable, given the absence of practical options, it makes sense to accept such sales.

(d)  The fourth instance is when cash is needed to make an investment that’s clearly better than one already held. 
The problem with this is that fresh ideas often glow with a special promise. They’re new. The hope bias gets a prime shot at causing mischief. As such, I get extremely suspicious of my reasoning when I think that I’m spotting such a circumstance. I’ve never actually sold one company for the specific purpose of buying another.



#When selling makes no sense

Two commonly cited reasons for selling puzzle me.

1.  One is rebalancing. 
It’s selling part of a stock holding because appreciation has caused it to represent a disproportionately large percentage of the portfolio.

Rebalancing makes sense to those who equate risk with total portfolio volatility. I don’t. So on the sell side, I’ve never seen the merits of this practice.

It makes more sense to me on the buy side, since unless part of a holding was sold, a decrease in its portfolio prominence means that its price dropped. One could now buy more of it cheaper. But on the sell side rebalancing looks to me like the anchoring bias in action.

2.  A second common reason for selling is to prove that an investment was a success (taking profits). 
The sale is seen as a sort of finish line. Underlying this perception is a view that cash is somehow more real than stocks.

It’s not. Cash and stocks are different forms that wealth can take. Unrealized gains are not endemically less concrete than realized gains. Selling doesn’t demonstrate investing competence any better than does intelligent holding.


Yet another reason for selling is Industry compensation
There’s an additional reason that selling happens. It relates only to institutional portfolios, like hedge funds. It’s about compensation.

Investment funds often pay managers 2 percent of assets under management per year, plus 20 percent of any gain above some hurdle. That 20 percent is applied to pretax returns. It’s blind to taxes. For this reason professionals may emerge as more enthusiastic about selling than would their limited partners. After all, unless they’re tax-exempt, the limited partners are the ones that come to bear the bulk of the tax liabilities born of the fund’s realized gains.

One faces great impetus to sell. It feels good. It’s conclusive. It turns the brokerage statement into a congratulations card. But it also triggers a tax expense and—short of a pressing need for cash—forces a search for the next underpriced equity.

When a sale is wise, its justification is distinct. It’s an overpricing, an analytical error, a contextual change, a buyout, or a better opportunity. Absent that clarity, I hold.



#Equity portfolio can generate cash through buyouts and dividends
Even without active selling, an equity portfolio can generate cash. It can do so in two ways.

1.  The first is through acquisitions, as mentioned earlier.

2.  The second is through dividends. 
Dividends can become sizable. This fact gets lost in the commonly quoted metric of dividend yield.

Recall that dividend yield equals annual dividends divided by current stock price. But to an owner, current only counts in the numerator.

When I first bought Nike stock, the dividend yield was around 2 percent. Over a decade later when I sold it, it was still around 2 percent. But by then my dividend yield—the current annual dividend divided by the price I’d paid for the stock—was closer to 10 percent. Dividends had gone up over time, but my cost hadn’t. That’s how dividends can become a booming cash source underappreciated by all but those who get them.



#Over time, good focused (concentrated) stock portfolios outperform diversified portfolios.
Remember that my portfolio is concentrated. It contains no more than a dozen names, and usually far fewer. On purpose, it’s not diversified. Many good equity portfolios are, but mine isn’t.


1.  Good focused portfolio versus diversified portfolio
I choose to concentrate because I’ve observed over time that good, focused stock portfolios outperform diversified stock portfolios. This is because diversified portfolios are more like an index. They have more names in them. The more a portfolio looks like an index, the more it behaves like an index. It’s hard to both resemble and outperform something.


2.  Bad focused portfolio versus diversified portfolio
Of course a bad focused equity portfolio can certainly lag a diversified stock portfolio.

Concentration isn’t enough to assure outperformance. But if it’s purposefully constructed, a focused group of inexpensively bought good companies is particularly promising.



#Sequestered Cash outside of the equity portfolio for  ordinary expenses 
While I don’t diversify within my equity portfolio, I do diversify outside of it. I always keep enough cash on hand to cover expenses for a few years. As I get older, I expect to increase this number of years.

1.  In Federally insured banks
This isn’t cash inside the equity portfolio waiting to be invested in stocks. It’s cash outside of the equity portfolio, held in federally insured banks. It will never be anything other than cash or spent.

Sequestering cash enables me to confidently ride the wild price swings guaranteed to come with a concentrated equity portfolio. It’s what lets me take the long view. When the price of my stock portfolio halved during the 2008 financial crisis, I didn’t panic. I knew that I could meet all of my expenses. There was no basis for panic.

Many governments insure bank deposits. Coverage varies by country. In America, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation generally guarantees up to $250,000. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme stands behind £75,000. In Canada, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation backs C$100,000.

Because the whole point of sequestered cash is to avoid the scare that forces ill-timed stock sales, it’s wise to stay well under the insured limit. Opening up accounts at several different banks is not hard.


2.  In same currency as one's expenses Sequestered cash is best held in the same currency as one’s expenses. If it isn’t, foreign exchange rate fluctuations can hurt one’s ability to meet obligations.

As I write this, the British pound has slumped to a 30-year low against the U.S. dollar. This follows Britain’s decision to leave the European Union.1 Some American investors think the slump is overdone and have invested in the British pound.

To people whose expenses are in U.S. dollars, those pounds don’t count as sequestered cash. Instead, they count as a currency investment.



#These repositories for sequestered cash aren't really good
Two things that may look like good repositories for sequestered cash really aren’t.

1.   The first is certificates of deposit, or CDs. 

Outside of the United States they’re commonly called time deposits. They offer higher interest rates than do regular bank accounts. Money must stay in them for a predetermined period. If it’s withdrawn early, a penalty is applied that more than wipes out the extra interest.

If the CD interest rate is much higher than the regular interest rate, one could theoretically keep a portion of sequestered cash in CDs. The portion would have to be limited to that which shouldn’t be needed for the duration of the lockup period.

That said, I don’t use CDs. Since the timing of cash needs can surprise, I prefer to keep the focus of sequestered cash on costless accessibility.

2.   The other repository is cash-like funds (commercial paper). 
They too offer higher interest rates. An example is a fund that invests in commercial paper. Commercial paper is short-term notes issued by corporations.

Such cash-like vehicles usually behave like cash. One can pay bills with them. But I’ve seen instances when they don’t. During the financial crisis, an acquaintance of mine was surprised to learn that her financial institution had temporarily halted withdrawals from such a fund. She couldn’t make payments with it.

This potential—the inability to immediately liquidate—is the problem with these alternatives. The purpose of sequestered cash is to free one from worry during equity market gyrations. If what’s used for expenses ever can’t be used for expenses, that benefit is lost. One can wind up having to sell part of an equity portfolio when it’s underpriced, erasing the benefits of stock investing.


#Problems with cash
Cash has its own problems, of course. Inflation erodes its purchasing power over time. Expansionary monetary policies—governments printing money— exacerbate this. But if held in government-insured accounts under applicable limits, at least it’s always there. That availability is what makes the interim ups and downs of an equity portfolio’s price not only bearable, but almost trivial.





Summary
1. Conviction prepares one for the likely price drop that follows a stock buy.
2. Selling stocks can make sense 

  • price flies past value, 
  • when a company thought to be good turns out not to be, 
  • in buyouts, or 
  • when a clearly better opportunity emerges.

3. The problems with selling are taxes and alternatives.
4. Questionable reasons for selling include 

  • rebalancing, 
  • memorializing success, and 
  • industry compensation.

5. Equity portfolios can generate cash without active selling through 

  • buyouts and 
  • dividends.

6. Good focused equity portfolios outperform diversified equity portfolios over the long term.
7. Cash sequestered for ordinary expenses in government-insured accounts makes equity portfolio price gyrations less troubling.


Reference:

Good Stocks Cheap by Kenneth Jeffrey Marshall 2017

Sunday 12 January 2020

Managing Portfolio Cash Flow. Cash is the most Important determinant of Opportunity Cost


Most important determinant of opportunity cost:  Cash portion of your portfolio

If you hold cash, you are able to take advantage of opportunities during market declines.

If you are fully invested when the market declines, your portfolio will likely drop in value, depriving you of the benefits arising from the opportunity to buy in at lower levels.

This creates an opportunity cost, the necessity to forego future opportunities that arise.

If what you hold is illiquid or unmarketable, the opportunity cost increases further; the illiquidity precludes your switching to better bargains.

The most important determinant of whether investors will incur opportunity cost is whether or not part of their portfolios is held in cash.

Maintaining moderate cash balances or owning securities that periodically throw off appreciable cash is likely to reduce the number of foregone opportunities.



Managing portfolio cash flow

Investors can manage portfolio cash flow (defined as the cash flowing into a portfolio minus outflows) by giving preference to some kinds of investments over others.

Portfolio cash flow is greater for securities of shorter duration (weighted average life) than those of longer duration.

Portfolio cash flow is also enhanced by investments with catalysts for the partial or complete realization of underlying value.

Equity investments in ongoing businesses typically throw off only minimal cash through the payment of dividends.

The securities of companies in bankruptcy and liquidation, by contrast, can return considerable liquidity to a portfolio within a few years of purchase.

Risk-arbitrage investments typically have very short lives, usually turning back into cash, liquid securities, or both in a matter of weeks or months.

An added attraction of investing in risk-arbitrage situations, bankruptcies, and liquidations is that not only is one's initial investment returned to cash, one's profits are as well.



Hedging

Another way to limit opportunity cost is through hedging.

A hedge is an investment that is expected to move in a direction opposite that of another holding so as to cushion any price decline.

If the hedge becomes valuable, it can be sold, providing funds to take advantage of newly created opportunities. 

Wednesday 3 October 2018

How "safe is your money? Think about money from the standpoint of what you think it will buy now and later.

"Money is (always) safe"

Money is only good for what it will buy.

Its purchasing power has been decreasing steadily over the ages.

It certainly isn't safe in the sense intended by the hoarder or the frightened widow.




"Keep your money working"

This is just as much of a fallacy in its way as thinking that "Money is (always) safe."




Middle Path

You would do best steering a middle course.

Think about money from the standpoint of what you think it will buy now and later.

If you feel it will buy more later, hang on to it.

If you feel it will buy less,

  • spend it for something you are intending to buy; or 
  • invest it if you think investments will be more costly later.


Think of money as you do of anything else that fluctuates.

Thursday 27 April 2017

For the great majority of investors, a diversified equity portfolio, bought over time, will prove far less risky than dollar-based securities.


Stock prices will always be far more volatile than cash-equivalent holdings.

Over the long term, however, currency-denominated instruments are riskier investments – far riskier investments – than widely-diversified stock portfolios that are bought over time and that are owned in a manner invoking only token fees and commissions.

That lesson has not customarily been taught in business schools, where volatility is almost universally used as a proxy for risk.

Though this pedagogic assumption makes for easy teaching, it is dead wrong: Volatility is far from synonymous with risk. Popular formulas that equate the two terms lead students, investors and CEOs astray.

It is true, of course, that owning equities for a day or a week or a year is far riskier (in both nominal and purchasing-power terms) than leaving funds in cash-equivalents.

That is relevant to certain investors – say, investment banks – whose viability can be threatened by declines in asset prices and which might be forced to sell securities during depressed markets.

Additionally, any party that might have meaningful near-term needs for funds should keep appropriate sums in Treasuries or insured bank deposits.

For the great majority of investors, however, who can – and should – invest with a multi-decade horizon, quotational declines are unimportant.

Their focus should remain fixed on attaining significant gains in purchasing power over their investing lifetime.

For them, a diversified equity portfolio, bought over time, will prove far less risky than dollar-based securities.

If the investor, instead, fears price volatility, erroneously viewing it as a measure of risk, he may, ironically, end up doing some very risky things.

Recall, if you will, the pundits who six years ago bemoaned falling stock prices and advised investing in “safe” Treasury bills or bank certificates of deposit.

People who heeded this sermon are now earning a pittance on sums they had previously expected would finance a pleasant retirement. (The S&P 500 was then below 700; now it is about 2,100.)

If not for their fear of meaningless price volatility, these investors could have assured themselves of a good income for life by simply buying a very low-cost index fund whose dividends would trend upward over the years and whose principal would grow as well (with many ups and downs, to be sure).

Investors, of course, can, by their own behavior, make stock ownership highly risky.

And many do.

Active trading, attempts to “time” market movements, inadequate diversification, the payment of high and unnecessary fees to managers and advisors, and the use of borrowed money can destroy the decent returns that a life-long owner of equities would otherwise enjoy.

Indeed, borrowed money has no place in the investor’s tool kit: Anything can happen anytime in markets.

And no advisor, economist, or TV commentator – and definitely not Charlie nor I – can tell you when chaos will occur.

Market forecasters will fill your ear but will never fill your wallet.

The commission of the investment sins listed above is not limited to “the little guy.”

Huge institutional investors, viewed as a group, have long underperformed the unsophisticated index-fund investor who simply sits tight for decades.

A major reason has been fees: Many institutions pay substantial sums to consultants who, in turn, recommend high-fee managers.

And that is a fool’s game.

There are a few investment managers, of course, who are very good – though in the short run, it’s difficult to determine whether a great record is due to luck or talent.

Most advisors, however, are far better at generating high fees than they are at generating high returns.

In truth, their core competence is salesmanship.

Rather than listen to their siren songs, investors – large and small – should instead read Jack Bogle’s The Little Book of Common Sense Investing.

Decades ago, Ben Graham pinpointed the blame for investment failure, using a quote from Shakespeare: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2014ltr.pdf

Tuesday 11 April 2017

What is cash?

Cash includes the notes and coins in the petty cash box.

It also includes money in the bank current accounts, and money in various short-term investment accounts that can be quickly be turned into available cash.

It is common for a Balance Sheet to show only a tiny amount for cash.  This is because the business has an overdraft and only such things as the petty cash are included.

Practical management usage of the term cash includes a negative figure for an overdraft.

A Cash-Flow Forecast can often result in a series of forecast overdrafts.

Monday 10 April 2017

Never forget the importance of cash

"Cash is King"

Losses may eventually force a business to close but in the short term, lack of cash is likely to be the critical factor.

You should hoard cash and you should plan your cash flow very carefully - daily if necessary.

Talk to your bank early and explain your plans.

Cash should be the number one priority.

Thursday 14 May 2015

Could Negative Interest Rates Arrive In America? The Collapse Of Cash

Could Negative Interest Rates Arrive In America?
They already have. Beginning on May 1st, JP Morgan Chase has announced they will charge certain customers a “balance sheet utilization fee” of 1% a year on deposits in excess of the money they need for operations. That amounts to a negative interest rate on deposits. Banks formerly competed for your money--now they want to charge you to park it with them.  
With interest on deposits at next to nothing, or now slightly negative, the only reason for consumers to keep money in the bank is convenience. The more money you lose money on your deposits in the form of a “utilization fee”, the more attractive your mattress becomes. But, as long as paper money and your mattress are available, the Fed will not be able to fully implement its negative rate policy in its quest to create inflation. After all, there would be a global run on the banking system if rates were to fall into negative territory by more than just a few percentage points.
So how can central banks and governments ensure rapid money supply growth and velocity if consumers have the option to hoard cash? Some of the “best minds” in Keynesian thought, like Kenneth Rogoff, have a solution to this. They are floating the idea that paper money should be made illegal and the evidence shows governments are listening. If you outlaw hard cash, and make all money digital, there is no limit to how much borrowers can get paid to borrow and how much savers get charged to save. This would make it unprofitable to hoard cash, and compel people to consume and borrow electronic currency as fast as possible. Money in the bank would become the “hot potato”: as soon as it hits your bank account the race would be on to move it to the next person’s account.  Whoever gets stuck with the money when the music ends pays a fee; that would be some increase in velocity!  And vastly negative real interest rates would force the amount of leverage in the economy to explode.
This idea sounds fairly Orwellian–allowing central banks to control every aspect of monetary exchange and giving the Federal Government an electronic gateway to every financial transaction. But when you think about it, the idea of a fiat currency and the Federal Reserve were radical ideas before they became common place. Indeed, this is exactly why the authors of our constitution tried to ensure gold and silver would have the final and only say in the supply and value of money.
Just as gold once stood in the way of governments' desire to expand the money supply, physical cash is now deemed as a fetter to the complete control of savings and wealth by the state. History is replete with examples of just how far governments will go to usurp control of people under the guise of the greater good. Sadly, the future will bring the collapse of cash through its illicit status, which will in turn assist in the collapse of the purchasing power of the middle class. Wise investors would take advantage of the opportunity to park their savings in real money (physical gold and silver) while they still have a chance.  


http://www.talkmarkets.com/content/us-markets/the-collapse-of-cash?post=64180


------



We are in our seventh year of record-low interest rates and banks have been flooded with reserves. However, the developed world appears to be debt disabled. That is, already saturated in debt, therefore unwilling and unable to service new debt due to a lack of real income growth.
So the problem for central banks and governments is how to get the money supply booming in an environment where consumers want to deleverage and save. Zero percent interest rates (ZIRP) are inflationary and negative real interest rates foment asset bubbles and encourage new debt accumulation. For decades central banks have used their control of the price of money to coerce boom cycles that eventually turn to bust. But for the past six years, their foray into ZIRP land hasn’t provided the boom cycle they were expecting. Sure, they have created massive bubbles in bonds and equities--but the economy has yet to enjoy the promised growth that is supposed to trickle down from creating these bubbles.  They have set the markets up for a bust, yet the economy never enjoyed the boom. 
This has left Keynesians scratching their respective heads and scheming new ways to encourage even more borrowing and spending. The Keynesians who rule the economy now control the price of money but are having difficulty controlling its supply and producing rapid inflation rates.
Bank deposits that pay nothing and ultra-low borrowing costs haven’t proved effective in boosting money supply and velocity growth. The growth rate of M3 has fallen from 9% in 2012, to under 4% today. And monetary velocity has steadily declined since the Great Recession began. Therefore, unfortunately, the next baneful government scheme is to push interest rates much further into negative territory in real terms; and also in nominal terms as well! 
You would think this is absolutely absurd but it is already happening. The European Central Bank, has a deposit rate of minus 0.2 percent and the Swiss National Bank, has a deposit rate of minus 0.75 percent. On April 21st the cost for banks to borrow from each other in euros (the euro interbank offered rate, or Euribor) tipped negative for the first time. And as of April 17th, bonds comprising 31% of the value of the Bloomberg Eurozone Sovereign Bond Index, were trading with negative yields.

Friday 30 January 2015

Financial Efficiency - Is the stockholders' money (capital) working in forms most suitable to their interest.

Concept of Financial Efficiency

A company's management may run the business well and yet not give the outside stockholders the right results for them, because its efficiency is confined to operations and does not extend to the best use of the capital.

The objective of efficient operation is to produce at low cost and to find the most profitable articles to sell.

Efficient finance requires that the stockholders' money be working in forms most suitable to their interest.  

This is a question in which management, as such, has little interest.


$$$$$


Actually, it almost always wants as much capital from the owners as it can possibly get, in order to minimize its own financial problems.

Thus the typical management will operate with more capital than is necessary, if the stockholders permit it - which they often do.

It is not to be expected that public owners of a large business will strive as hard to get the maximum use and profit from their capital as will a young and energetic entrepreneur.

We are not offering any counsels of perfection or suggesting that stockholders should make exacting demands upon their superintendents.

We do suggest, however, that failure of the existing capital to earn enough to support its full value in the marketplace is sufficient justification for a critical spirit on the part of the stockholders.

Their inquiry should then extend to the question of whether the amount of capital used is suited to the results and to the reasonable needs of the business.


$$$$$


For the controlling stockholders, the retention of excessive capital is not a detriment, especially since they have the power to draw it out when they wish.

As pointed out above, this is one of the major factors that give insiders important and unwarranted benefits over outsiders.

If the ordinary public stockholders hold a majority of the stock, they have the power - buy use of their votes - to enforce appropriate standards of capital efficiency in their own interest.

To bring this about they will need more knowledge and gumption than they now exhibit.

Where the insiders have sufficient stock to constitute effective voting control, the outside stockholders have no power even if they do have the urge to protect themselves.

To meet this fairly frequent situations there is need, we believe, for a further development of the existing body of law defining the trusteeship responsibilities of those in control of a business toward those owners who are without an effective voice in its affairs.


Benjamin Graham
The Intelligent Investor

Friday 10 October 2014

In a financial crisis, when banks cannot lend, cash is particularly valuable.

Buffett is a balance sheet guy.  That's where the cash is reported.  Cash is the fuel that drives economic value.

Most CEOs, however, focus on growth in corporate profits more than on cash and balance sheet growth.  The source of the problem is:  some of the reported expenses in these income statements are cash, and some are determined by accounting rules.  As a result, earnings include both cash and noncash (i.e., "accounting") numbers.  Buffett cares most about the cash part.

Cash is real.  Noncash earnings are subject to accounting interpretations.  They can be adjusted to inflate earnings and boost the stock price.  But it is harder to fiddle with the cash numbers.

Buffett's long-term cash obsession creates unique opportunities that others miss.  Buffett keeps a lot of cash on hand in order to be ready for unique crisis-born opportunities.  "Do we panic when the price of filet mignon drops?  No, we rejoice.  Who wouldn't want to buy the highest-quality steaks at chopped meat prices?"

At the end of June 2008, cash represented just over 11 percent of Buffett's balance sheet.  He used some of it to provide high-cost financing for then top-credit-rated companies Goldman Sachs and GE, both desperately in need of cash.  He announced his biggest acquisition to date - buying the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway for $34 billion.  At $100 a share, he paid a reasonable, but not a cheap, price.

Sunday 17 November 2013

Hesitation can cost you dearly. The average investor foregoes 4–5% in returns each year by leaving their wealth in cash.


Hesitation can cost you dearly

The average investor foregoes 4–5% in returns* each year by leaving their wealth in cash rather than investing in a diversified portfolio.

Failing to invest at all is the first way in which we exchange long-term performance for short-term emotional comfort. Here, the comfort factor is very simple – we cannot lose if we don’t get involved. But the potential cost – on average 4–5% in lost returns each year – is very high

Often those prone to reluctance only decide to invest when there is a sustained market boom. But by going in at the top of the market, they may experience the knock-on effects of buying high: a reduction in returns and an increase in anxiety and stress.

Take this Financial Personality Assessment™


*Source:  Barclays Wealth & Investment Management, White Paper - March 2013, "Overcoming the Cost of Being Human'.

http://www.investmentphilosophy.com/fpa/


Thursday 11 July 2013

Taking small steps out of cash


Generating the returns required for a longer retirement needn't mean a wholesale change of strategy, says Alex Hoctor-Duncan.


There are three reasons why investors stay in cash: 
1.  they like the income, 
2.  they like the idea of their money being protected and 
3.  they worry about volatility. 
Investors also like the capital preservation that cash offers.
But there is inherent risk. Returns are low, so investors run the risk of seeing their purchasing power ravaged by inflation over the long term.
I sense that people are starting to recognise the limitations of cash. They feel they should look to make their money work harder, particularly as they are likely to be living longer.
However, what they want to achieve with their savings – a secure retirement with a good income – and what they are doing to achieve it, are not properly aligned. Simply saving in cash is not necessarily going to generate the returns required for a longer retirement.
This needn’t mean a wholesale change of strategy; it could be more about taking small steps out of cash, about consulting an IFA and revisiting their financial goals. It could mean looking again at how and where they invest – in the UK or internationally – and working with the adviser to set new objectives and plot the path towards those goals.
If taking small steps is the path an investor chooses, the smart option is not to take all the money out of traditional cash or bond investments. Taking a portion of that money and looking for investments which provide an element of more flexible income could be one step that less risk-averse investors could take towards achieving their goals.
The earlier they take action the better, but it is never too late. However, wait 10 years and contribution levels might need to be double what they would have been.
Moving out of cash and safe haven investments in search of higher returns will involve accepting a greater risk of capital loss. You may get back less than you originally invested. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/finance/blackrock/10121192/blackrock-investment-strategy.html


Monday 27 May 2013

WHY KEEP CASH?

Different strategies for investing available cash. WHY KEEP CASH?

One significant difference between many investors is evident in the different strategies for investing available cash.

Some investors will typically choose to be fully invested at all times, since cash balances would likely cause them to lag behind a rising market.  

Other investors, by contrast, are willing to hold cash reserves (for the short term) when no bargains are available.  Among the reasons offered are:

1.  Cash is liquid and provides a modest, sometimes attractive nominal return, usually above the rate of inflation.


2.  The liquidity of cash affords flexibility, for it can quickly be channeled into other investment outlets with minimal transaction costs.


3.  Finally, unlike any other holding, cash does not involve any risk of incurring opportunity cost (losses from the inability to take advantage of future bargains) since it does not drop in value during market declines.



Reminder:
Do not underestimate the power of CASH for the short term.
For the long term, CASH deposits will always lose out to inflation.

Saturday 6 April 2013

Warren Buffett - This is Always a Bad Investment

Cash is always a bad investment. Cash has never produced anything, and its value will go down over time. We will always have cash around, but it's not good to have too much. You would much rather own a good business. Every currency will be worth less in the future. More money will be printed than there will be goods circulating in the economy.


@7.50

Warren Buffett: "Why I always keep some cash in Berkshire Hathaway - at least $10 billion."

Friday 22 March 2013

Warren Buffett: Cash is always a Bad Investment



@7.50
Better to own a good business than to have cash. Cash is always a bad investment.W

Wednesday 17 October 2012

Different strategies for investing available cash.

Different strategies for investing available cash. WHY KEEP CASH?

One significant difference between many investors is evident in the different strategies for investing available cash.

Some investors will typically choose to be fully invested at all times, since cash balances would likely cause them to lag behind a rising market.  

Other investors, by contrast, are willing to hold cash reserves (for the short term) when no bargains are available.  Among the reasons offered are:

1.  Cash is liquid and provides a modest, sometimes attractive nominal return, usually above the rate of inflation.
2.  The liquidity of cash affords flexibility, for it can quickly be channeled into other investment outlets with minimal transaction costs.
3.  Finally, unlike any other holding, cash does not involve any risk of incurring opportunity cost (losses from the inability to take advantage of future bargains) since it does not drop in value during market declines.

Monday 17 September 2012

Types of investment


Before you decide how to invest, learn about the potential risks and rewards of the 4 main kinds of assets – shares, bonds, property and cash.

There are several different classes of asset, each with its own strengths and risks. By spreading your money across a range of assets, you can create a portfolio that balances risk, growth and income according to your priorities. Spreading your money out across assets in this way is called diversification. It can help you lower overall risk, since different kinds of assets perform well at different times.

    The main types of asset

    To help you find your ideal allocation, you should familiarise yourself with the main asset classes:
    • Shares are high-risk investments, but they offer the best long-term returns.
      Find out more about shares
    • Bonds are investments that can provide a steady income.
      More about bond investing
    • Property, particularly buy-to-let property, takes time to manage. But the potential rewards include income from rent and capital gains if housing prices rise. 
    • Cash is a safe and familiar asset, but one with very low returns.
      More on cash.

    Diversification

    If you diversify your portfolio by holding a variety of investments, you can prepare yourself for the ups and downs of the market.


    Different shares and assets perform well at different times. If you diversify your portfolio – that is, buy a variety of investments – you can take advantage of these differences in performance and achieve a more balanced return.
    The advantages of diversification are easy to see when you consider what might happen to a non-diversified portfolio.
    If you hold the shares of just one company and it collapses, you could well lose your entire investment. If you were chasing returns in a particular sector that takes a hit – much like the banking sector in 2008 – you would again find yourself with heavy losses.
    With a diversified portfolio, only a small fraction of your money is tied up in any given area. So a single bankruptcy or industry slump cannot have too large an impact on your total return. Remember that the value of well diversified portfolio can fall as well as rise.

    How to diversify

    You can diversify your investments at a number of different levels:
    • across companies
    • across industries
    • geographically
    • across asset classes.
    If you want to diversify while still keeping your portfolio manageable, you should consider pooled investments. These can include ETFsfunds, or unit trusts/OEICs, all of which invest in a basket of shares, bonds or other assets. 

    Wednesday 15 August 2012

    The greatest threat to your future financial security

    The greatest threat to your future financial security is the loss, over time, in the purchasing power of power currencies.  A dollar today buys less than 5% of what a dollar bought 100 years ago.

    Study the fascinating history and theory of money and use this knowledge as a basis in formulating and guiding your investment philosophy.

    Cash is a drag on your portfolio BUT it has a hidden embedded option value.

    Cash is a drag on your portfolio, says the conventional wisdom.  Its returns are low and often negative after inflation and taxes.

    But cash has a hidden embedded option value.  When markets crash, cash is king.  All of a sudden assets that were being traded at 5 and 10 times the money spent to build them can be had for a fraction of their replacement cost.

    Highly leveraged competitors go bankrupt, leaving the field free for the cash-rich company.

    Banks won't lend money except to people who don't need it  - such as the companies with AAA credit ratings and people with piles of money in the bank.

    In times like these the marketplace is dominated by forced sellers who must turn assets into cash regardless of price.  This is when the investor who has protected his portfolio by being cash-rich is rewarded in spades:  people will literally be beating a path to his door to all but give away what they have in return for just a little bit of that scarce commodity called cash.


    Additional note:
    Buffett always has cash in Berkshire Hathaway.  In 2008 Global Financial Crisis, many companies approached Buffett as he has plenty of cash which they sought to have badly.