Sunday 5 July 2009

REITs - Selecting REITs

Choosing a good REIT is like choosing any other value investment.

Assets = Real Estate
Debt = Debt
Returns = Rents + other payments received on the portfolio.

An investor must analyze and compare a REIT's:


  • management quality,
  • real and anticipated returns,
  • yields, growth,
  • reserves, and
  • asset values.

Many of the techniques for common stock can be put to work here.

PE and price to FFO (funds from operations) ratios are examined as they would be for other businesses.

  • Compare the PE and price to FFO for the different REITs.
  • Relate these PE and price to FFO to their growth rates.

Also important is the price to book, or P/B ratio.

  • A REIT trading below its per-share book value is essentially trading at a discount.

Remember also that REITs are not immune to :

  • asset quality problems,
  • bad management and management decisions,
  • declining markets, or
  • poor expense management.

Do the due diligence.




Malaysian REITs are:

  • KPJ Reit
  • Boustead Reit
  • Amfirst Reit
  • Axis Reit
  • Hektar Reit
  • Starhill Reit

and

  • AHP
  • AHP2
  • ARREIT
  • ATRIUM REIT
  • QCAPITA REIT
  • TWRREIT
  • UOAREIT

Saturday 4 July 2009

REITs - Property Portfolio

REIT investors should check out the property portfolio. This isn't easy, but it's easier than it used to be with online resources, usually provided by the REIT company itself.

Because real estate is not traded regularly, the ability to ascertain values is limited to:
  • appraisals,
  • replacement values, and,
  • for income-producing properties, discounted cash flow analysis.

Appraisals are difficult to find.

Looking at the properties, and their locations, and assessing commonly reported local real estate price trends, occupancy rates, and economic trends, and whether the book value of a property is sustainable, is probably best.

If the REIT you choose is diversified with a number of different types of properties in different geographic regions, you will experience less volatility if an industry or locale experiences hard times.

If you are more concentrated, be sure that the type of property or the geographic area continues to be economically viable into the foreseeable future.

Occupancy rates for past and current years are available for most major and some smaller cities in the US from commercial real estate Web sites, and you may even wish to contact a local real estate professional.

REIT appraisal is difficult, but there is another way: REIT mutual and closed-ended funds, and there are even a few REIT ETFs. Many mutual fund families have funds built around REIT investments. REIT mutual funds are an easy way to get exposure to REITs without spending volumes of time researching the valuations of underlying holdings, vacancy rates, economic vibrancy, and so on. One way to find these funds is to enter "REIT mutual fund" in your search engine.

REITs - Debts and Leverage

Good REIT managers will typically hold debt levels to 35% or less of the total capitalization of the trust.

Some managers have long tenure and have weathered many storms.

The lower the level of debt, the more conservative management tends to be.

Also, look for managers investing their own funds in the REIT.

REITs - what and why

REITS are technically investment trusts that works like closed-ended funds holding real estate instead of stocks or bonds.

REITS pool investor money to allow average individual investors to invest in a portfolio of
  • commercial,
  • residential, or
  • specialized real estate properties.
By buying shares in a REIT, you take proportional ownership in the real estate ventures that the trust owns. And these ventures range beyond traditional properties to health care and retirement facilities; ports and warehouses; even car dealerships, penitentiaries, and high-end hotels.

Certain REIT characteristics make them attractive to the value investor.
  • Like closed-ended funds, REITS trade on the exchanges, often at a discount to NAV.
  • It is possible to focus on certain types of real estate or certain regions of the country.
  • And, typically, they pay healthy yields, often in excess of 5%, while providing some downside protection.

In the US, there are about 190 publicly traded REITs with some $400 billion of assets.

  • REITs performed very well during the 2000-2002 market correction, and continued to perform well as real estate prices boomed in the middle of the decade, with a gain of 35% as a group in 2006.
  • But as the real estate market soured in 2007, REITs and particularly those in the mortgage business or with highly leveraged portfolios, tended to suffer.

Investors like REITs for:

  • their yield,
  • their ownership with hard physical assets,
  • their stability, and
  • for their long-term performance, estimated at over 13% annually during 1975-2005, which is better than most stock investments.

Many investors pick REITs for their negative correlation with stocks - when stocks are doing poorly, REITs are doing well or are holding their own.

Value Investing: Provide a Margin of Safety

The idea of buying a company at a bargain price to achieve a margin of safety, provides a buffer if business events don't turn out exactly as predicted (and they won't).

The value investing style calls for building in margins of safety by buying at a reasonable price.

The style also suggests finding margins of safety within the business itself, for instance:
  • so called "moats" or competitive advantages that differentiate the business from its competitors
  • a large cash hoard, or,
  • the absence of debt.
These offer a financial margin of safety.

Value Investing: Focus on Intangibles

Today's value investors are as intently focussed on business intangibles, like brand and customer loyalty, as on the "hard" financials.

It is all about looking at what's behind the numbers, and moreover, what will create tangible value in the future.

So a look at the market or markets in which the company operates is important.

Therefore, it is so important to look at:
  • products,
  • market position,
  • brand,
  • public perception,
  • customers and customer perception,
  • supply chain,
  • leadership,
  • opinions, and
  • a host of others factor.

Value investing: It's not about diversification

Is diversification the key to investing success?

Diversification provides safety in numbers and avoids the eggs-in-one-basket syndrome, so it protects the value of a portfolio.

But the masters of value investing have shown that diversification only serves to dilute returns.

If you are doing the value investing thing right, you are picking the right companies at the right prices, so there's no need to provide this extra insurance.

In fact, over-diversification only serves to dilute returns.

That said, perhaps diversification isn't a bad idea until you prove yourself a good value investor.

The point is that, somewhat counter to the conservative image, diversification per se is not a value investing technique.

Value investing: No magic formulas

Some people look for a magic formula in investing that guarantees success.

Value investing isn't quite that simple.

There are so many elements and nuances that go into a company's business that you can't know them all, let alone figure out how to weigh them in your model.

So rather than a recipe for success, you will instead have a list of ingredients that should be in every dish. But the art of cooking it up into a suitable vlue invstment is up to you.

Like all othe investing approaches, value investing is both art and science. It is more scientific and methodical than some approaches, but it is by no means completely formulaic.

Value Investing: A Quest for Consistency

Value investors have varying approaches to risk, some willing to accept greater risk for greater rewards.

However, almost all value investors like a degree of consistency in
  • returns,
  • profitability,
  • growth,
  • asset value,
  • management effectiveness,
  • customer base,
  • supply chain, and
  • most other aspects of the business.

It's the same consistency you would strive for if you bought that espresso cart or hardware store yourself.

Before agreeing to buy that hardware store, you'd probably want to know that the customer base is stable and that income flows are steady or at least predictable. If that's not the case, you would need to have a certain amount of additional capital to absorb the variations. Perhaps, you would need more for more advertising or promotion to bolster the customer base.

In short, there would be an uncetainty in the business, which, from the owner's point of view, translates to risk.
  • The presence of risk requires additional capital and causes greater doubt about the success of the investment for you or any other investors in the business.
  • As a result, the potential return required to accept this risk, and make you, the investor, look the other way is greater.

The value investor looks for consistency in an attempt to minimise risk and provide a margin of safety for his or her investment.

This is not to say the value investor won't invest in a risky enterprise; it's just to say that the price paid for earnings potential must correctly reflect the risk.

Consistency need not be absolute, but predictable performance is important.

Value Investing: Always do due diligence

This cannot be repeated enough.

The value investor must do the numbers and work to understand the company's value.

Although there are information sources and services that do some of the number crunching, you are not relieved of the duty of looking at, interpreting, and understanding the results.

Diligent value investors review the facts and don't act until they're confident in their understanding of the company, its value, and the relation between value and price.

With great discipline, the value investor does the work, applies sound judgement, and patiently waits for the right price. That is what separates the masters like Buffett from the rest.

Investing is no more than the allocation of capital for use by an enterprise with the idea of achieving a suitable return. He who allocates capital best wins!

Value Investing is a style of investing

Value investing is a style of investing. It is an approach to investing.

As an investor, you will adopt some of the principles of this style of investing, but not all of them.

You will develop a style and system that works for you.

Since blogging, this journey has been an interesting and rewarding discovery.

A blended approach for the Value Investor

If you decide to take up the value investing approach, know that it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing commitment.

The value investing approach should serve you well if you use it for, say 80% or 90% of your stock portfolio. Be diligent, select the stocks, and sock them away for the long term as a portfolio foundation.

But that shouldn't exclude the occasional possibility of trying to enhance portfolio returns by using more aggressive short-term tactics, like buying call options.

  • These tactics work faster than traditional value investments, which may require years for the fruits to ripen.
  • Of course, this doesn't mean taking unnecessary or silly risks, rather, it means that sometimes investments can perform well based on something other than long-term intrinsic value.
  • It doesn't hurt to try to capitalize on that, so long as you understand the risks and are willing to face losses.
  • In fact, it is best to think of a short-term trading opportunity as simply a very short-term value investment - a stock, for instance, is very temporarily on sale relative to its true value.

Likewise, it's perfectly okay to put capital away for short-term fixed returns. You don't have to work hard on "due diligence" for all parts of your portfolio at the same time.

  • A solid base in bonds, money market funds, or similar investments (safe blue chips with sustainable dividend yield) will produce returns and allow you to focus your energy on the parts of your portfolio you do want to manage more actively.

You don't have to use the value investing approach for ALL your investments. Depending on your goals, it's okay to mix investing styles.

Throughout market history, much has been made of the different approaches to investing. There are:

  • fundamental and technical analysis,
  • momentum investing,
  • trading,
  • day trading,
  • growth investing,
  • income investing,
  • speculating,
  • story or concept investing
  • theme play, and,
  • academic treatment of security valuation and portfolio theory (institutional trading).

All styles make money some of the time, but no one style makes money all of the time. Each style suggests a different approach to markets, the valuation of companies, and the valuation of stocks.

Volatility: Use the dips to find value

Market volatility seems to be here to stay.

Markets will rise and fall in 5% or 10% increments in a given month - with no real change in business value to support the change.

Investors must, more than ever, be patient and try to separate real business change from market change.

And they will learn to use the dips to find value.

REITS and Returns

Funds from operations (FFO) is an important measure of a REIT's operating performance.

FFO includes all income after operating expenses, but before depreciation and amortization.

Growth in FFO typically comes from:
  • higher revenues,
  • lower costs, and,
  • management's effective recognition of new business opportunities.
REITs with a growing FFO are generally more desirable, because this is a demonstration of an ability
  • to raise rents and
  • keep occupancy stable.
Beware of dividends that are being paid out of profit from the sale of property or from cash reserves; these payments may not be sustainable.

The National Association of REal Estate Trusts (NAREIT at www.nareit.com ) defines FFO as net income (excluding gains or losses from sales of property or debt restructuring) with the depreciation of real estate added back.
  • Most commercial real estate holds its value longer and more fully than other tangible equipment that a business may possess, such as tools or vehicles.
  • The depreciation that the accounting process records each year is often overstated.

Current accounting processes may call for depreciation of a building (according to a certain formula) even though the real value of the building may have increased due to outside forces like

  • increased demand or
  • low supply of vacancies

in the area where the building is located. For this reason, adding back the depreciation is a clearer way to measure the operating profits of one REIT against another.

FFO is more like the cash flow measures used to evaluate other businesses, and in most cases more completely demonstrates annual performance.

How Value Investors Use Investment Products

To be honest, if you are an experienced investor with time on your hands and all the right information and tools at your fingertips, you may not need investment products. But if you're starting out, don't have time, or need to build out a portfolio, they may make sense.

Investment products have investor benefits and investing benefits.

  • Selecting stocks can be a daunting chore for busy people.
  • Although you may be a skilled and knowledgeable investor, you may not have the time or inclination to be actively involved in tracking detailed financial information and selecting stocks.

One popular strategy for getting started in value investing is to use all the tools and skills, that you pick up on this, to start picking stocks on a small scale.

  • A few funds, like a core value-oriented fund or ETF, can put the remaining bulk of your investment dollars to work.
  • Practice makes perfect. As you gain confidence with your stock selection skills, you can move more dollars into individual equities and allocate fewer dollars to funds.

Funds and investment products can also be a great tool to round out a stock portfolio.

  • You may not feel comfortable choosing foreign stocks, small company stocks, or stocks in some other specialty area.
  • You can get exposure to these areas while getting the help of professional money mangers.

Funds, and their choices, can also light the way to individual stock selections.

  • Although some are reluctant to provide up-to-the-minute lists and selected stocks (they are required to twice a year), their investment lists, and top investments in particular, can initiate your own research into these companies.
  • Most interesting is to follow the funds of value "gurus" like Bill Nygren and Bill Miller, and of course, Warren Buffett. Imitation is not only flattering, but it can give you good ideas and save a lot of time.

Some investment products are:

  • open-ended and closed-ended mutual funds
  • REITS, and,
  • ETFs.

Whether or not you're a do-it-yourselfer, funds and other investment products have their place.

Investing in REITS

Value investors strive to identify investments trading at valuations below intrinsic value.

The objective is to identify REITS with potential for significant appreciation relative to risk.

Because REITS are generally regarded as hedges or defensive investments, they may be overlooked during bull markets.

Most recently, REITS in healthcare and industrial sectors have done well because they have both a real estate and a business component.

  • Prologis, a REIT with worldwide logistics facility interests and a logistics business to go with it, is a good example.
And during weak economic times, REITS are fairly defensive and often hold up well because of the underlying stability of real estate prices and rent returns.
  • That isn't to say they're immune, as has certainly been seen with mortgage REITS and some leveraged residential REITS recently.

Kinds of closed-ended funds

There are many types of closed-ended funds.

The Wall Street Journal lists closed-ended funds under 14 different headings.

Most closed-ended funds are in fixed income categories like bonds and municipal bonds.

For value investors, the so-called "specialized equity" and "general equity" funds offer the most interesting opportunities.

Country funds, under the category "world-equity funds," also can be good vehicles to introduce international diversification into a portfolio.

Within closed-ended equity funds, value-oriented funds invest in defined categories like real estate or natural resources.

A few strategy funds, like the Madison Claymore Covered Call Fund, employ covered call option writing strategies to extract income from equity positions, and pay more than 10% in annual returns. These may also be worth a look.


Ref: Value Investing for Dummies
Build wealth through smart, steady investing.

Closed-ended funds: 2 ways to make and 2 ways to lose money

The price of a closed-ended fund is tied to the market value of the underlying securities. But it doesn't match NAV exactly. There is no process to peg the price to the NAV daily.

Instead, the price is set by the market, based on supply and demand for the shares of the fund. In a sense, a closed-ended fund is a set of securities within a security - a basket of fluctuating stocks trading inside a traded stock shell.

Closed-ended funds provide investors with two ways to make and two ways to lose money:
  • The underlying value fo the securities portfolio changes.
  • The market's assessment of the value of the portfolio changes, which usually creates a discount or premium to portfolio value in the price of closed-ended fund shares.

Closed-ended funds: Why a discount, anyway?

Most closed-ended funds sell at a discount.

A recent sampling showed that more than 2/3rds of equity funds trade at a discount, and more than 90% of international equity funds trade at a discount. Many discounts are modest (5 to 10%), but many are 30% or more.

There is much research and speculation about why discounts happen. The debate isn't nearly as important as understanding a few of the most common reasons.

When selecting a closed-ended fund, investors must determine the reason the fund is trading at a discount and whether the discount is significant enought to be attractive. A discount may be justified by

  • uncertainty,
  • popularity or perceptions of the fund, and
  • the underlying asset base.

All 3 factors can work to cause a fund based on securities in Russia or Turkey, for example, to sell at a discount.

Likewise, during the heyday of the Asian Tigers, many funds based in Asia sold at a premium. The reason? Popularity and the perception of future growth and gains.

Using closed-ended funds

Closed-ended funds have advantages and disadvantages.

Closed-ended fund investors can expect diversification and professional management (although some question the quality of this management, since many of these managers aren't in the limelight.)

There are management fees, usually 1 to 2%, extracted from portfolio returns.

Liquidity (relative lack of interest and trading activity) can be a double-edged sword:
  • If you're selling, you may not get as good a price, but
  • if you're buying, you'll likely get a discount.
It is not hard to see that these funds should be considered long-term investments.


Closed-ended funds can be used
  • to build out a portfolio or
  • add specific components like international exposure.

Patient value investors seek not only a good price (meaning a good discount), but also a fund with solid long-term potential.

Many pros use closed-ended funds, including Warren Buffett.
  • In 1972, Source Capital was trading at nearly a 50% discount to NAV. Buffett purchased almost 20% of the outstanding shares.
  • Though the price fluctuated in the interim, Buffett hung in for 5 years before selling for an estimated $15.7 million profit.

Friday 3 July 2009

The Science of Economic Bubbles and Busts

From the July 2009 Scientific American Magazine 41 comments
The Science of Economic Bubbles and Busts

The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has prompted a reassessment of how financial markets work and how people make decisions about money
By Gary Stix

The worldwide financial meltdown has caused a new examination of why markets sometimes become overheated and then come crashing down.

The dot-com blowup and the subsequent housing and credit crises highlight how psychological quirks sometimes trump rationality in investment decision making. Understanding these behaviors elucidates the genesis of booms and busts.

New models of market dynamics try to protect against financial blowups by mirroring more accurately how markets work. Meanwhile more intelligent regulation may gently steer the home buyer or the retirement saver away from bad decisions.

It has all the makings of a classic B movie scene. A gunman puts a pistol to the victim’s forehead, and the screen fades to black before a loud bang is heard. A forensic specialist who traces the bullet’s trajectory would see it traversing the brain’s prefrontal cortex—a central site for processing decisions. The few survivors of usually fatal injuries to this brain region should not be surprised to find their personalities dramatically altered. In one of the most cited case histories in all of neurology, Phineas Gage, a 19th-century railroad worker, had his prefrontal cortex penetrated by an iron rod; he lived to tell the tale but could no longer make sensible decisions. Cocaine addicts may actually self-inflict similar damage. The resulting dysfunction may cause even abstaining addicts to crave the drug any time, say, the thudding bass of a techno tune reminds them of when they were stoned.

Even people who do not use illicit drugs or get shot in the head have to contend with the
reality that some of the decisions cooked up by the brain’s frontal lobes may lead them astray. A specific site within the prefrontal cortex, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) is, in fact, among the suspects in the colossal global economic implosion that has recently rocked the globe.

The VMPFC turns out to be a central location for what economists call “money illusion.” The illusion occurs when people ignore obvious information about the distorting effects of inflation on a purchase and, in an irrational leap, decide that the thing is worth much more than it really is. Money illusion may convince prospective buyers that a house is always a great investment because of the misbegotten perception that prices inexorably rise. Robert J. Shiller, a professor of economics at Yale University, contends that the faulty logic of money illusion contributed to the housing bubble: “Since people are likely to remember the price they paid for their house from many years ago but remember few other prices from then, they have the mistaken impression that home prices have gone up more than other prices, giving a mistakenly exaggerated impression of the investment potential of houses.”

Economists have fought for decades about whether money illusion and, more generally, the influence of irrationality on economic transactions are themselves illusory. Milton Friedman, the renowned monetary theorist, postulated that consumers and employers remain undeluded and, as rational beings, take inflation into account when making purchases or paying wages. In other words, they are good judges of the real value of a good.

But the ideas of behavioral economists, who study the role of psychology in making economic decisions, are gaining increasing attention today, as scientists of many stripes struggle to understand why the world economy fell so hard and fast. And their ideas are bolstered by the brain scientists who make inside-the-skull snapshots of the VMPFC and other brain areas. Notably, an experiment reported in March in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA by researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany and the California Institute of Technology demonstrated that some of the brain’s decision-making circuitry showed signs of money illusion on images from a brain scanner. A part of the VMPFC lit up in subjects who encountered a larger amount of money, even if the relative buying power of that sum had not changed, because prices had increased as well.

The illumination of a spot behind the forehead responsible for a misconception about money marks just one example of the increasing sophistication of a line of research that has already revealed brain centers involved with the more primal investor motivations of fear (the amyg­dala) and greed (the nucleus accumbens, perhaps, not surprisingly, a locus of sexual desire as well). A high-tech fusing of neuroimaging with behavioral psychology and economics has begun to provide clues to how individuals, and, aggregated on a larger scale, whole economies may run off track. Together these disciplines attempt to discover why an economic system, built with nominal safeguards against collapse, can experience near-catastrophic breakdowns. Some of this research is already being adopted as a guide to action by the Obama administration as it tries to stabilize banks and the housing sector.


The Rationality Illusion
The behavioral ideas now garnering increased attention take exception to some central ideas of modern economic theory, including the view that each buyer and seller constitute an exemplar of Homo economicus, a purely rational being motivated by self-interest. “Under all conditions, man in classical economics is an automaton capable of objective reasoning,” writes financial historian Peter Bernstein.

Another central tenet of the rationalist credo is the efficient-market hypothesis, which holds that all past and current information about a good is reflected in its price—the market reaches an equilibrium point between buyers and sellers at just the “right” price. The only thing that can upset this balance between supply and demand is an outside shock, such as unanticipated price setting by an oil cartel. In this way, the dynamics of the financial system remain in balance. Classical theory dictates that the internal dynamics of the market cannot lead to a feedback cycle in which one price increase begets another, creating a bubble and a later reversal of the cycle that fosters a crippling destabilization of the economy.

A strict interpretation of the efficient-market hypothesis would imply that the risks of a bubble bursting would be reflected in existing market prices—the price of homes and of the risky (subprime) mortgages that were packaged into what are now dubbed “toxic securities.” But if that were so and markets were so efficient, how could prices fall so precipitously? Astonishment about the failure of conventional theory was even expressed by former chair of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan. A persistent cheerleader for the notion of efficient markets, he told a congressional committee in October 2008: “Those of us who looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity, myself especially, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”

Animal Spirits
The behavioral economists who are trying to pinpoint the psychological factors that lead to bubbles and severe market disequilibrium are the intellectual heirs of psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, who began studies in the 1970s that challenged the notion of financial actors as rational robots. Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 for this work; Tversky would have assuredly won as well if he were still alive. Their pioneering work addressed money illusion and other psychological foibles, such as our tendency to feel sadder about losing, say, $1,000 than feeling happy about gaining that same amount.

A unifying theme of behavioral economics is the often irrational psychological impulses that underlie financial bubbles and the severe downturns that follow. Shiller, a leader in the field, cites “animal spirits”—a phrase originally used by economist John Maynard Keynes—as an explanation. The business cycle, the normal ebbs and peaks of economic activity, depends on a basic sense of trust for both business and consumers to engage one another every day in routine economic dealings. The basis for trust, however, is not always built on rational assessments. Animal spirits—the gut feeling that, yes, this is the time to buy a house or that sleeper stock—drive people to overconfidence and rash decision making during a boom. These feelings can quickly transmute into panic as anxiety rises and the market heads in the other direction. Emotion-driven decision making complements cognitive biases—money illusion’s failure to account for inflation, for instance—that lead to poor investment logic.

The importance of both emotion and cognitive biases in explaining the global crisis can be witnessed throughout the concatenation of events that, over the past 10 years, left the financial system teetering. Animal spirits propelled Internet stocks to indefensible heights during the dot-com boom and drove their values earthward just a few years later. They were present again when reckless lenders took advantage of low-interest rates to proffer adjustable-rate mortgages on risky, subprime borrowers. A phenomenon like money illusion prevailed: the borrowers of these mortgages failed to calculate what would happen if interest rates rose, which is exactly what happened during the middle of the decade, causing massive numbers of foreclosures and defaults. Securitized mortgages, debt from hundreds to thousands of homeowners packaged by banks into securities and then sold to others, lost most of their value. Banks witnessed their lending capital decline. Credit, the lifeblood of capitalism, vanished, bringing on a global crisis.


Rules of Thumb
Behavioral economics and the related subdiscipline of behavioral finance, which pertains more directly to investment, have also begun to illuminate in more detail how psychological quirks about money can help explain the recent crisis. Money illusion is only one example of irrational thought processes examined by economists. Heuristics, or rules of thumb that we need to react quickly in a crisis, are perhaps a legacy that lingers from our Paleolithic ancestors. Measured reasoning was not an option when facing down a wooly mammoth. When we are not staring down a wild animal, heuristics can sometimes result in cognitive biases.

Behavioral economists have identified a number of biases, some with direct relevance to bubble economics. In confirmation bias, people overweight information that confirms their viewpoint. Witness the massive run-up in housing prices as people assumed that rising home prices would be a sure bet. The herding behavior that resulted caused massive numbers of people to share this belief. Availability bias, which can prompt decisions based on the most recent information, is one reason that some newspaper editors shunned using the word “crash” in the fall of 2008 in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid a flat panic. Hindsight bias, the feeling that something was known all along, can be witnessed postcrash: investors, homeowners and economists acknowledged that the signs of a bubble were obvious, despite having actively contributed to the rise in home prices.

Neuroeconomics, a close relation of behavioral economics, trains a functional magnetic resonance imaging device or another form of brain imaging on the question of whether these idiosyncratic biases are figments of an academician’s imagination or actually operate in the human mind. Imaging has already confirmed money illusion. But investigators are exploring other questions as well; for instance, does talking about money or looking at it or merely thinking about it activate reward and regret centers inside the skull?

In March at the annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society in San Francisco, Julie L. Hall, a graduate student of Richard Gonzalez at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, presented research showing that our willingness to take risks with money changes in response to even subtle emotional cues, again undercutting the myth of the steely, cold investor. In the experiment, 24 participants—12 men and 12 women—viewed photographs of happy, angry and neutral faces. After exposure to happy faces, the study’s “investors” had more activation in the nucleus accumbens, a reward center, and consistently invested in more risky stocks rather than embracing the relative safety of bonds.

“Happy faces” were a constant presence during the real estate boom earlier in this decade. The smiling visage and happy talk of Carleton H. Sheets, the late-night real estate infomercial pitchman, promised fortunes to those who lacked cash, credit or previous experience in owning or selling real estate. Lately, Sheets’s pitch now highlights “Real Profit$ in Foreclosures.”

Behavioral economics has gone beyond just trying to provide explanations for why investors behave as they do. It actually supplies a framework for investing and policy making to help people avoid succumbing to emotion-based or ill-conceived investments.

The arrival of the Obama administration marks a growing acceptance of the discipline. A group of leading behavioral scientists provided guidance on ways to motivate voters and campaign contributors during the presidential campaign. Cass Sunstein, a constitutional scholar who wrote the well-regarded book Nudge, which President Barack Obama has reportedly read, was appointed head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which reviews federal regulations. Other officials who are either behavioral economists or aficionados of the discipline are now populating the White House.

Sunstein and his Nudge co-author Richard Thaler, the latter one of the founders of behavioral economics, came up with the term “libertarian paternalism” to describe how a government regulation can nudge people away from an inclination toward poor decision making. It relies on a heuristic called anchoring—a suggestion of how to begin thinking about something in the hope that thought carries over into behavior. People, for example, might be prodded into saving more for retirement if they were enrolled automatically in a pension plan from the outset, rather than merely being given an option to sign up. “Employees are enrolled if they do nothing, but they can opt out,” Thaler remarks. “This assures that absentmindedness does not produce poverty when old.” This idea was reflected in the Obama administration’s plans to automatically enroll people in a retirement plan in their workplace.

Decision making can be more complex than simply responding to a gentle push down a given path. In those circumstances, a “choice architecture” is needed to help someone decide among various options. In buying a house, for instance, purchasers need clearer information about money illusion and the like. “When all mortgages were of the 30-year, fixed-rate variety, choosing the best one was simple—just pick the lowest interest rate,” Thaler says. “Now with variable rates, teaser rates, balloon payments, prepayment penalties, and so forth, choosing the best mortgages requires a Ph.D. in finance.” A choice architecture would require that lenders “map” options clearly for borrowers, reducing an imposing stack of paperwork when buying a house into two neat columns, one that lists the various fees, the other that notes interest payments. Captured in a digital format, for instance, these two spreadsheet columns could be uploaded and compared with offerings from other lenders.

Along similar lines, Yale’s Shiller outlines an intricate strategy designed to avoid the excesses of bubble economics by educating against errors in “economic thinking.” Shiller suggests adopting new units of measurement akin to the unidad de fomento (UF) put in place by the Chilean government in 1967 and also embraced by other Latin American governments. The UF is a safeguard against money illusion, allowing a buyer or seller to know whether a price has increased in real terms or is just an inflationary mirage. It represents the price of a market basket of goods and is so commonly used that Chileans often quote prices in these units. “Chile has been the most effectively inflation-indexed country in the world,” Shiller says. “House prices, mortgages, some rentals, alimony payments, and executive incentive options are often expressed in these inflation units.”

Shiller also remains an ardent advocate of new financial technology that could serve as
antibubble weapons. Regulators are now scrutinizing the sophisticated financial instruments that were supposed to protect against default on the mortgage-backed securities that fueled the housing boom. Shiller, however, argues that derivatives (a class of financial instruments that is meant to shield against risk but whose misuse for speculation contributed to the credit crisis) can help guarantee that there are enough buyers and sellers in housing markets. Derivatives are financial contracts “derived” from an underlying asset, such as a stock, a financial index or even a mortgage.

Despite the potential for abuse, Shiller perceives derivatives as prudent “hedges” against dire economic scenarios. In the housing market, homeowners and lenders might use these financial instruments to insure against falling prices, thereby providing sufficient liquidity to keep sales moving.

Can Biology Save Us?
Ultimately, a solution to the current crisis will have to be informed by new ways of thinking about how investors act. One particularly creative approach would correct deficiencies in existing economic theory by melding the old with the new. Andrew Lo, a professor of finance at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an official at a hedge fund, has devised a theory that gives equilibrium economics and the efficient-market hypothesis their due while also acknowledging that classic theory does not reflect the way markets work in all circumstances. It attempts a grand synthesis that combines evo­utionary theory with both classical and behavioral economics. Lo’s approach, in other words, builds on the idea that incorporating Darwinian natural selection into simulations of economic behavior can help yield useful insights into how markets operate and provide more accurate predictions than usual of how financial actors—both individuals and institutions—will behave.

Similar ideas have occurred to economists before. Economist Thorstein Veblen proposed that economics should be an evolutionary science as early as 1898; even earlier Thomas Robert Malthus had a profound influence on Darwin himself with his musings on a “struggle for existence.”

Just as natural selection postulates that certain organisms are best able to survive in a particular ecological niche, the adaptive-market hypothesis considers different market players from banks to mutual funds as “species” that are competing for financial success. And it assumes that these players at times use the seat-of-the-pants heuristics described by behavioral economics when investing (“competing”) and that they sometimes adopt irrational strategies, such as taking bigger risks during a losing streak.

“Economists suffer from a deep psychological disorder that I call ‘physics envy,’ ” Lo says. “We wish that 99 percent of economic behavior could be captured by three simple laws of nature. In fact, economists have 99 laws that capture 3 percent of behavior. Economics is a uniquely human endeavor and, as such, should be understood in the broader context of competition, mutation and natural selection—in other words, evolution.”

Having an evolutionary model to consult may let investors adapt as the risk profiles of different investment strategies shift. But the most important benefit of Lo’s simulations may be an ability to detect when the economy is not in a stable equilibrium, a finding that would warn regulators and investors that a bubble is inflating or else about to explode.

An adaptive-market model can incorporate information about how prices in the market are changing—analogous to how people are adapting to a particular ecological niche. It can go on to deduce whether prices on one day are influencing prices on the next, an indication that investors are engaged in “herding,” as described by behavioral economists, a sign that a bubble may be imminent. As a result of this type of modeling, regulations could also “adapt” as markets shift and thus counter the type of “systemic” risks for which conventional risk models leave the markets unprotected. Lo has advocated the establishment of a Capital Markets Safety Board, similar to the institution that investigates airline accidents, to collect data about past and future risks that could threaten the larger financial system, which could serve as a critical foundation for adaptive-market modeling.

As brain science unravels the roots of investors’ underlying behaviors, it may well find new evidence that the conception of Homo economicus is fundamentally flawed. The rational investor should not care whether she has $10 million and then loses $8 million or, alternatively, whether she has nothing and ends up with $2 million. In either case, the end result is the same.

But behavioral economics experiments routinely show that despite similar outcomes, people (and other primates) hate a loss more than they desire a gain, an evolutionary hand-me-down that encourages organisms to preserve food supplies or to weigh a situation carefully before risking encounters with predators.

One group that does not value perceived losses differently than gains are individuals with autism, a disorder characterized by problems with social interaction. When tested, autistics often demonstrate strict logic when balancing gains and losses, but this seeming rationality may itself denote abnormal behavior. “Adhering to logical, rational principles of ideal economic choice may be biologically unnatural,” says Colin F. Camerer, a professor of behavioral economics at Caltech. Better insight into human psychology gleaned by neuroscientists holds the promise of changing forever our fundamental assumptions about the way entire economies function—and our understanding of the motivations of the individual participants therein, who buy homes or stocks and who have trouble judging whether a dollar is worth as much today as it was yesterday.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Bubbles and Busts."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-science-of-economic-bubbles

Look at the long term and be aware of stocks that dip as the business cycle dips.

Always be wary of cyclical stocks.

True, companies may look irresistable with low PE and high short-term sales and earnings growth rates.

But a closer look at the long term reveals a PE in the teens and years of marginal earnings or even losses mixed in.

Look at the long term and be aware of stocks that dip as the business cycle dips.

Basic industries, such as capital equipment, natural resources, paper, farm mchinery, automobiles, and auto suppliers, are notorious for sending signals of intermittent strength while showing little in the way of sustained growth.

The recent tanking of homebuilding stocks is an extreme case in point. It is amazing how many short-term-oriented investors bit on the apparent "value" in this sector.



Also read:
Is the Firm Cyclical?
For cyclical stocks, your best bet is to look at the most recent cyclical peak, make a judgment whether the next peak is likely to be lower or higher than the last one, and calculate a P/E based on the current price relative to what you think earnings per share will be at the next peak.
The expanding P/E in cyclical stocks
Here’s the rub about cyclical stocks: Their valuations are counterintuitive. In other words, you should be looking at cyclical stocks as their P/Es expand, not shrink.
Recognizing Value Situations - Cyclical Plays
Generally, cyclical companies shouldn't be confused with value investments. Growth, although apparent in the short term, usually isn't sustainable. If a company seems cheap and has something new in its portfolio to avoid cyclical price and earnings behaviour, it may be worth a look.

Parents Can Help Ease the Burden

By Mara Lee
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, July 19, 2008; Page F02

There are things parents can do to make it easier for their children to handle their affairs after they die or if they should become unable to manage them.

Most important:

Tell them where everything is.
  • Where's your will?
  • Where do you have bank accounts, stock holdings or safety deposit boxes?
  • Where are those statements?
  • Where are your tax records?
  • Your utility bills?

Elinor Ginzler, a co-author of "Caring for Your Parents: The Complete Family Guide," said children should bring these things up, as uncomfortable as it is.

"Don't wait until bitter crisis," she said. She recommends that children broach the subject by saying, "I want you always to be in control."

It's not comfortable to talk about funerals and burials, she acknowledged, but if parents tell their children how they want them to handle things, they can be assured that they'll do what they want.

Ginzler said parents should give a child power of attorney in case they have medical problems that prevent them from making their own decisions.


Carylin Waterval, whose mother died rather suddenly in September, established power of attorney while her mother was in the hospital. It was helpful, she said.

Ginzler said that if a parent has become incapacitated before getting this set up, it's arduous to get it done. "Just being her daughter doesn't give you that authority," she said.

Mary Ann Brewer is co-owner of Busy Buddies, a company in Northern Virginia that helps elderly people with downsizing moves, as well as helping people whose parent has died.

She said parents want to treat all their children equally and so sometimes they'll make them all executors of their will.

"At some point in time, all those children may not be getting along," Brewer said. "Pick one executor."

Cyndy Esty, one of six children, traveled from her home in Chevy Chase to Boston to take care of her father's estate after he died of cancer nine years ago at age 79. She and one sister were co-executors. "It's amazing how much bickering can come up over the littlest thing," she remembered, even a candy jar.

After 14 years in the business, Brewer and her partner, Nancy Loyd, have seen a lot of parents seek to minimize conflict over their things, either for a downsizing or planning for after they die.

Some are simple, such as putting the name of the intended recipient on the back of a piece of furniture or the bottom of an heirloom. Or letting the children draw straws about asking for certain pieces.

Others are more involved. In one case, parents gave each child a chance to pick something they wanted, starting from youngest to oldest, then changing the order in each successive round.

Another couple gave each child $500 in play money and set starting bids for belongings. The children had to outbid each other if more than one wanted the same thing.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071801433.html

Financial Lessons From Michael Jackson

Michelle Singletary
Thursday, July 2, 2009; 9:58 AM


Financial Legacy

There's much talk about the musical genius of the late Michael Jackson. But in my column today I wanted to discuss the lesson we can learn from how Jackson handled his money.

At one point the pop icon was spending about $20 to $30 million above his earnings each year, according to one expert. And he came very close to losing his Neverland ranch to foreclosure. Read about how a sense of entitlement can cost a fortune in Jackson's Money Woes Can Teach Us About the Dangers of Entitlement.

Jackson's financial downfall is surprising considering his assets, which include the partial rights to many of the greatest hits by The Beatles and other great artists. But Jackson apparently borrowed heavily against his catalog of songs. He also had some hefty legal bills.

Read Legally, Jacksons Face Long & Winding Road (June 30) by Paul Fahri.

The Associated Press reported Jackson's net worth at $236.6 million. But according to the news service, "Documents do not show how much money he had coming in that year or how much he was spending, which makes it hard to estimate just how cash-poor he was."

Here are some of the latest reports about Jackson's finances:
* Battle to control Jackson's fortune begins (June 30)
* AP Exclusive: Jackson said net worth $236M in 2007 (June 30)
* Jackson's will cuts out ex-wife Debbie Rowe (July 1)

What's In the Will?

For a time it was unclear whether or not Jackson had left a will. However a will has surfaced.
Jackson's mother, Katherine, was named guardian of his children and the will puts his assets in a trust.

Here are a few articles that emphasize the necessity of a will:
* Property Rights and Responsibilities After a Loved One Dies (May 30) by Benny L. Kass
" Parents Can Help Ease the Burden (July 19, 2008) by Mara Lee
" A Worthy Read to Get Serious About Estate Planning (Aug. 28, 2008)


By Ilyce R. Glink with Samuel J. Tamkin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201452.html

The Right Direction Starts With the Right Decisions

The Right Direction Starts With the Right Decisions

By Michelle Singletary
Sunday, June 28, 2009



Over the years, I've found that people end up in financial trouble not only because they don't have enough money. It's also because of poor decision-making.

The following is an edited transcript of an online chat with people who needed to be pointed in the right financial direction.


QI am separated, with two young sons, and my husband lost his job about five months ago. I am solely supporting myself and my children and am finding it difficult to cover all of our expenses. I have stopped dining out, I bring my lunch, don't have cable, etc., but my income just doesn't cover the monthly bills. I think I have to cut back my Thrift Savings Plan contribution to 5 percent or possibly less. I currently contribute 10 percent. There really isn't anything more I can do to cut expenses. Do you agree about reducing my retirement contribution?

AI do agree. I would cut out your contributions completely for now.

Although I'm a huge advocate for saving for retirement, you need the money right now so you don't go down financially. Even when there is an employer match, I would urge you to cut back on investing for retirement until you can figure out how to make your income match your expenses. For example, can you move to cut housing costs? Can you get a roommate? I know people don't like to do that with kids, but at least explore the option, perhaps with a close friend or relative.

Also, have you explored everything to keep your marriage together? Even without a job, having your husband help at this point could allow one or both of you to get a part-time job. And he wouldn't be paying for the cost of his separate living expenses. Just asking.

We're in a position to refinance our home at a lower interest rate, and we need a new roof. You usually advise against treating your equity like an ATM, but what about needed repairs? It's very unlikely we can set aside $7,000 to $10,000 in cash without wiping out our emergency funds. My husband and I are journalists, so our jobs are on the line these days with the awful economy. Any suggestions?


Here's how I would approach this decision. Find out how much it costs to fix the roof and whether not fixing it would create major damage to your home. In other words, is this something that can wait or be fixed more cheaply for now? If you are unsure about your job situation, I wouldn't deplete your savings. So in this case, if you absolutely need the roof done, pulling that money -- and that money alone -- out of the house equity during the refinance is acceptable. Try your best, though, to find another way to pay cash to fix the roof.

I have a friend who lives in the District who really wants to buy a house in Maryland to move her children to a better school district. She has a good job making decent money, at least $45,000 to $50,000 a year. She has credit scores between 500 and 700. She does not have money for a down payment. She has some credit card and student loan debt. I have suggested that my friend rent in Maryland until she is ready to buy. What advice would you give her?


You are a good, good friend giving great advice. Your friend is not ready to buy a home and would probably have trouble doing so anyway with the tougher lending standards. At any rate, let's look at her financial profile:


-- She has credit scores in the 500 to 700 range. That's a huge range. In the case of a mortgage, the lender will take your middle credit score. Still, having a score in the 500 range is not good.


-- She has credit card debt. Not good.


-- She has student loan debt. Not good.


-- Her income is decent, but it will be hard finding a home in Maryland in a decent neighborhood with that income.

So you are right. She should rent and build up her emergency savings, pay off the credit card and student loan debt and get her low credit scores up.

Why did you say student loans are not good? As long as you're paying them back, what's the deal?


The deal is, it's debt.

Debt = bondage.


* * *

I added that last question from the chat to illustrate one of the reasons people make bad decisions. Too many people blindly follow conventional wisdom -- that a student loan is good debt -- when that wisdom is and has always been wrong.

As I pointed out in the chat, lose a job, get sick, etc., and no loan looks good at that point.

-- By mail: Readers can write to Michelle Singletary at The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.

Where Kids Learn All About The Bulls and the Bears


Where Kids Learn All About The Bulls and the Bears

(By Tim Grajek For The Washington Post)
By Candice Lee Jones
Kiplinger's Personal Finance
Sunday, June 21, 2009

Long division or long stock position? Both are part of the curriculum at Chicago's Ariel Community Academy, a public school sponsored by Ariel Investments, where the kids are managing real-life portfolios.

Each first-grade class is given $20,000 to seed a portfolio. At first, the money is invested on their behalf as they study the savings-and-investment curriculum, a joint project of Ariel Investments and Nuveen Investments.

Finance classes start with counting coins. By sixth grade, students take more control of their portfolio.

Teacher Connie Moran says students usually choose to invest in names they recognize -- Nike, Target, McDonald's. And yes, their investments are down just like yours. Between March 31, 2008, and March 31, 2009, class portfolios fell an average of about 40 percent.

"They're no different than other investors; they're not happy with the loss," Moran said. Academy instructors are turning those losses into lessons learned.

When each eighth-grade class graduates, the original grant is donated to the incoming first-grade class. Half of any profits go toward a gift that the class gives the school -- hence, students also learn about philanthropy -- and the other half is divided among the students. (The school is hoping that this year will not be the first without profits.)

When the proceeds are divvied up in August, each student can either keep the cash or invest it for college. Lessons must be sinking in -- 95 percent of the students choose to invest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061903908.html

US Stocks Fall Sharply as Jobless Claims Hit 26-Year High

Stocks Fall Sharply as Jobless Claims Hit 26-Year High

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 2, 2009; 4:58 PM

Stocks tumbled today after a government report showed the country's unemployment rate reached 9.5 percent last month as employers cut more jobs than expected, stoking investor concerns of a prolonged recession.

This Story
467K Jobs Cut in June; Jobless Rate at 26-Year High
Stocks Fall Sharply as Jobless Claims Hit 26-Year High
The losses were broad based with all 30 blue chip stocks on the Dow Jones industrial average losing ground. All of the major indexes, including the Dow, fell at least 2.5 percent and posted another weekly loss. Meanwhile, nervous investors moved into government bonds, a traditional safe haven during market turbulence, raising prices on some long-term notes.

After Wall Street closed the second quarter with its first quarterly gain in more than a year and a half, "many investors were feeling that the worse was behind us," said Matt McCormick, portfolio manager and banking analyst at Bahl & Gaynor Investment Counsel, an investment management firm. "This is a reminder that, no, it's not."

The Dow fell 2.63 percent, or 223.32 points, to close at 8280.74, while the broader Standard & Poor's 50-stock index was down 2.91 percent, or 26.91 points, to close at 896.42. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite index tumbled 2.67 percent, or 49.20 points, to close at 1796.52. After a short trading week, the Dow and S&P were down 2.8 percent and 3.2 percent respectively. The Nasdaq lost 2.58 percent for the week.

Financial stocks helped lead the declines today. Bank of America and Morgan Stanley fell 3 percent and 4.8 percent respectively. And energy stocks also took major losses after crude oil prices fell nearly 4 percent to $66.73 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Exxon Mobil and Chevron each fell about 3 percent, while ConocoPhillips was down 2.6 percent.

Investors have been caught between optimism about early signs the recession is easing and pessimism about the pace of economic recovery. The labor report out this morning exacerbated concerns that the nation's workforce remains under assault and is unlikely to recover soon.

The number of jobs on employers' payrolls fell by 467,000 in June, according to a Labor Department report. That was significantly worse than analysts had expected. The unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent, from 9.4 percent. Many economists expect that the rate will surpass 10 percent by fall.


The report suggests that hopes for an economic recovery during the second half of the year are "overly optimistic," Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist for Mizuho Securities, wrote in a research note. "Instead, the data is fully consistent with our forecast for a slower rate of decay in the economy. The worst of the contraction may be behind us but the economy is still in consolidation and will be through year end."

In one piece of upbeat labor news, the numbers of workers filing new claims for jobless benefits last week fell by 16,000 to 614,000, according to a Labor Department report out today. But the rate remains historically high and economists have said the number of workers needing unemployment insurance for an extended period is troubling.

Overseas stocks were also down. The FTSE 100 in London fell 2.6 percent and the Dax index in Germany fell 2.5 percent. Japan's Nikkei 225 average closed down 0.6 percent in trading Thursday.

Thursday 2 July 2009

Ben Graham has a lot of ideas about what you should avoid

You’ve probably observed that Ben Graham has a lot of ideas about what you should avoid.

Defensive investors should avoid everything but large, prominent companies with a long history of paying dividends.

Even enterprising investors should avoid junk bonds, foreign bonds, preferred stocks, and IPOs.

To put it simply, Graham doesn’t like risk. It comes through time and time again in every chapter of the book - do the footwork, minimize risk, and don’t swing for the fences.


http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2008/11/28/the-intelligent-investor-the-positive-side-to-portfolio-policy-for-the-enterprising-investor/

The Intelligent Investor: The Positive Side to Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor

Chapter 7 - Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor: The Positive Side
Graham says that there are four clear areas of activity that an enterprising investor (read: not an ultra-conservative investor) should focus on:

1. Buying in low markets and selling in high markets.
Graham says, in essence, that this is a good strategy in theory, but that it’s essentially impossible to accurately predict (on a mathematical basis) when the market is truly “low” and when it’s truly “high.” Why? Graham says that there’s inadequate data available to be able to accurately predict such situations - he basically believes fifty years of data is needed to make such claims, and as of the book’s writing, he did not believe adequate data was available in the post-1949 modern era. Note, though, that Graham returns to the notion of high and low markets in the next chapter.

2. Buying carefully chosen “growth stocks.”
What about growth stocks - ones that are clearly showing rampant growth? Graham isn’t opposed to buying these, but says that one should look for growth stocks that have a reasonable P/E ratio. He wouldn’t buy a “growth stock” if it had a price-to-earnings ratio higher than 20 over the last year and would avoid stocks that have a price-to-earnings ratio over 25 on average over the last several years. In short, this is a way to filter out “bubble” stocks (one where irrational exuberance is going on) when looking at growth stocks.

3. Buying bargain issues of various types.
Here, Graham finally gets around to the idea of buying so-called “value stocks.” For the most part, Graham focuses on market conditions as they existed in 1959, pointing towards what would constitute value stocks then. What I found most profound, though, is a brief bit on page 169. Here, Graham discusses “filtering” the stocks listed by Standard and Poor’s (essentially a 1950s precursor to the S&P 500) and identifying 85 stocks that meet basic value criteria, then buying them and finding that, over the next two years, most of them beat the overall market.

That’s an index fund, my friends. Graham had basically conceived of the idea in the 1950s - it worked then, and it works now.

4. Buying into “special situations.”
Graham largely suggests avoiding “topical” news as a reason to buy or sell, mostly because it’s hard for investors to gauge how exactly such news will truly affect the stock’s price. Instead, one should simply file away interesting long-term news for later use if you’re going to evaluate the stock. For example, recalling that a company is still paying off an incurred debt from ten years ago and that debt is about to be paid off might be an indication of an upcoming jump in profit for the company - and a possible sign of a good value.


Commentary on Chapter 7
Zweig provides a ton of supporting evidence that market timing doesn’t really work, and that “examples” of market timing that are often used to show how good it can be are cherry picked using the amazing power of hindsight.

He makes a similar argument about growth stocks, saying that there are often periods where growth stocks appear to be taking off like a rocket, but that it’s impossible to know where the top of that rocket ride is. He provides several examples of this and largely seems to agree with Graham that the only growth stocks a person should invest in are ones that are truly sound as a business and not merely the beneficiaries of a lot of hype. How can you do this? Keep a very close eye on the real business numbers of any growth stock you own.

In the end, Zweig argues that the best solution for most investors is pretty simple: diversify, diversify, diversify. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, ever. Instead, buy lots of different stocks from lots of different industries and from lots of different markets (foreign and domestic).


Ref: The Intelligent Investor: The Positive Side to Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor

The Intelligent Investor: A Negative Approach to Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor

But first, a chapter of cautionary advice. Graham is nothing if not cautious, after all. The focus here is on things that even enterprising investors should avoid.

Chapter 6 - Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor: Negative Approach
So, what should you avoid?

First, avoid junk bonds. If they have anything less than a stellar bond rating, don’t bother, even if they appear to return very well. Junk bonds put your principal at risk, and the point of buying bonds is to have a safe portion of your portfolio.

Second, avoid foreign bonds. Here, there are stability issues, and it’s often hard to adequately judge the risk of buying bonds from government and private entities operating under rules unfamiliar to you. Today, arguably, Graham would be okay with buying bonds within the European Union, but I would guess Graham would avoid anything outside of that.

Third, avoid preferred stocks. Preferred stocks are ones that have a higher priority in the event of a liquidation of the business, but often come at a premium price. Almost always, Graham doesn’t feel these are worth any sort of premium. Of course, in the United States, preferred stock is generally not sold directly to individual investors, only to large institutions, so it’s largely a moot point.

Finally, avoid IPOs. To put it simply, new issues do not have any track record upon which to adequately judge the company. The “hype” of an IPO is all you really have to judge the issue on. Instead, let others jump into that feeding frenzy and wait until time has shown which companies swim and which ones sink.

Those are some good rules for anyone to follow, particularly if you’re concerned about not losing the money you invest. Most of these investments have a pretty significant amount of risk and in Graham’s world, one shouldn’t put the principal at undue risk.


Commentary on Chapter 6
Zweig looks at modern examples of all four of these cases and largely comes to the same conclusions as Graham: they’re quite risky and probably not worth it for the average investor. The only caveat that Zweig makes is that there could be room for a mutual fund of junk bonds in a large and diverse portfolio, but it should be considered risky and not be considered anywhere close to a “safe” portion of the portfolio.

Zweig also covers day trading here, describing it as something for most people to avoid. Why? In a world where trading is completely free and trades could be always executed without delay, many people could make a solid income from day trading.

But that’s not the real world. Brokerage fees can eat up a lot of one’s gains, as can trading delays. This forces day traders to walk a tightrope - it becomes a high risk game, and that’s not a game for an investor with any conservative streak. Zweig almost writes it off as gambling, in fact.

So, in short, avoid junk bonds, foreign bonds, IPOs, and day trading and you’re off to a good start in Graham’s world.


Ref: The Intelligent Investor: A Negative Approach to Portfolio Policy for the Enterprising Investor

The Intelligent Investor: The Defensive Investor and Common Stocks

Chapter 5 - The Defensive Investor and Common Stocks
Graham’s advice, then, tends to focus on people who are willing to put in that extra time - and if you’re willing to do that, he has a lot of wisdom to share.

First of all, diversify. You should own at least ten different stocks, but more than thirty might be a mistake, as it becomes difficult to follow all of them carefully and also seek out new potential stock investments.

Second, invest in only large, prominent, and conservatively financed companies. Look for ones with little debt on the books and ones with a large market capitalization.

Third, invest only in companies with a long history of paying dividends. If a company rarely pays dividends, your only way to earn money from that company is if the market deems the stock to be valuable, and you shouldn’t trust that the market will do so.

Graham seems to point strongly towards the thirty stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a good place to start looking, as they usually match all of these criteria. I’d personally stretch that to include stocks that make up the S&P 500, but the Dow is a great place to find very large blue chip companies that are very stable and have paid dividends for a long time.

Other than that, Graham pooh-poohs many other common strategies.
Buying growth stocks? Nope.
Dollar-cost averaging? Good in theory, not great in practice.
Portfolio adjustments? Be very, very careful - and only do annual evaluations.

In short, be very, very wary and play it very, very cool.

Remember, this is Graham’s advice for the defensive, very conservative investor.


Commentary on Chapter 5
So, what does Jason Zweig have to say about all of this?

His big point is that simply “buying what you know” isn’t enough. You shouldn’t buy Starbucks’ stock simply because you drink their coffee. You need to spend the time to analyze the company’s situation, both internally and in the marketplace, and determine whether or not it’s a reasonable value. You can’t get there just by knowing the products they produce.

Zweig seems to generally feel that most people on the ground that are defensive investors are better off just buying mutual funds (preferably index funds) or seeking help from investment advisors, because the work needed to adequately study enough companies to build a good defensive portfolio is beyond what’s available to most people in their busy lives.

For me? I might tinker with individual stock buying, but I think I’d prefer to keep most of my money in index funds, simply because I, too, don’t feel like I have adequate time to really study enough stocks to build a good defensive stock portfolio.

Ref: The Intelligent Investor: The Defensive Investor and Common Stocks