Saturday 17 December 2011

Six classic investing mistakes


  • 28 Jul 11

Six classic investing mistakes

Successful investing is as much about avoiding costly errors as it is about finding cheap stocks. Here are six of the best ways to go about losing money.


Six classic investing mistakes
Done well, value investing is a successful, proven, and safe way to invest. The logic of the approach—buying an asset for less than its underlying value—is irrefutable, and the records of those that practice it are convincing (see Warren Buffett’s essay, The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville).
However, an understanding of the principles of value investing isn’t enough. In investing, mistakes are inevitable, and the key is to learn from them and avoid repeating them. Moreover, we can try and learn vicariously; through the experience of others.
Over the past 12 years, we at the Intelligent Investor have made plenty of mistakes, and have also had more than our fair share of successes. We’ve learnt from both. What follows is your opportunity to do likewise in six key areas.

KEY POINTS

  • Value investing is successful but mistakes will be made
  • Six of the most common ones explained
  • Illustrated with recommendation case studies

1. Focusing only on the numbers

One of the most common investing mistakes, especially for the inexperienced, is to concentrate only on a stock’s financial data. Applying a price-to-earnings ratio, a book value multiple, or a discounted cash flow analysis can provide very precise estimates of value. But that’s not all there is to analysing stocks, as Gareth Brown’s cover story made clear with the return on equity measure (see ROE: Plusses and pitfalls).
The big four banks, for example, all carry forecast dividend yields of about 6% to 7%, and price-to-earnings ratios of around 10 to 12. Looking at the numbers, they’re closely matched.
Big four bank PERs and dividend yields
PERDividend yield
Commonwealth12.66.1%
NAB12.76.6%
ANZ11.96.5%
Westpac10.67.1%
When you consider the risks entailed by ANZ’s Asian expansion and NAB’s aggressive push for market share however, suddenly the numbers don’t seem to tell the whole story. These qualitative factors are the reason we favour Commonwealth Bank andWestpac over ANZ and NAB.
So, before looking at the numbers, make sure you truly understand the business that’s generating them.

2. Mistaking permanent declines for temporary ones

In the hunt for value, it’s often necessary to buy stocks with a few fleas. When businesses hit rough patches and earnings temporarily decline, it can be a great time to buy. This strategy led to successful Buy recommendations on Cochlear at $19.04 on 18 Mar 04, and Leighton Holdings at $7.83 on 11 May 04.
We have a positive recommendation on Aristocrat Leisure today for the same reason. While mismanagement, a poor product line-up, the strong Aussie dollar, and cyclical headwinds are all hurting Aristocrat in the short term, we expect this business to perform well in the long run.
The risk is if its current problems aren’t temporary. If Aristocrat’s profits stay permanently depressed, we'd have overpaid for this business, and be guilty of having mistaken Aristocrat’s structural decline for a cyclical one.

3. Buying low quality businesses

Owning high quality businesses over the long run is the key to successful investing. Our Masterclass special report on Warren Buffett details his incredible success employing this approach.
Unfortunately, high quality businesses are seldom cheap. Value investors therefore often end up with portfolios full of cheap but low quality stocks, entailing greater risk, more stress, and higher stock turnover.
In the past, Intelligent Investor also fell into this trap, covering too many small and dubious businesses. But with our new focus on blue chips and wonderful businesses trading at fair prices (see Christmas trimmings: introducing the nifty 50/50), you can now fill your portfolio with high quality businesses, especially if you’re patient and buy opportunistically.

4. Neglecting economic considerations

‘If you spend more than 13 minutes analysing economic and market forecasts, you’ve wasted 10 minutes.’ Ever since uttering that sentence, legendary fund manager Peter Lynch gave value investors a free pass to ignore the economy. Or so they thought.
Lynch’s advice does not mean that you can completely ignore the economy. It means that the success of your investments should never rely on specific, short-term economic forecasts. What’s the difference?
An investment in Rio Tinto, for example, hinges largely on the continued strength of China’s economy and its building and infrastructure boom. That’s an economic forecast we’re not willing to gamble on.
On the other hand, we’re aware that weak global economies and low stock prices are currently depressing Platinum Asset Management’s earnings to less than their long term average. That’s why it’s cheap. We don’t need to know when or why, but it’s a near certainty that stock prices, and Platinum’s profits, will rise eventually. An appreciation of cycles, rather than economic predictions, should underpin your stock purchases and disposals.

5. Ignoring the market

As a value investor, a healthy scepticism of the market’s wisdom is a necessity; whenever you buy something, it should be because you think the market is pricing it incorrectly.
When you’re right, the rewards of ignoring the market can be enormous. As our special report RHG: A value investing case study explains, the market wrote this stock down from $0.95 to $0.05 before our positive recommendations were vindicated.
Horse Sense
‘There are two requirements for success in Wall Street. One, you have to think correctly; and secondly, you have to think independently.’ – Benjamin Graham
But when you’re wrong, it can be a disaster. Backing ourselves over the market explains why we were far too late in pulling the pin on Timbercorp.
Share price movements should never influence your analytical process. But it is necessary to be aware of them; they can offer a timely prompt to reconsider your thinking, as we did recently with our downgrade of Harvey Norman. The market is often right. When you’re going against the grain, make sure you know why you disagree with the market and have good reason for doing so.

6. Mistaking price and value

If you’re aiming to buy stocks for less than their intrinsic value, a lower price can only mean better value, right? Wrong.
Shoptalk
Value trap: A value trap is a stock that has fallen in price and is thus mistakenly believed to be undervalued.
Consider Telstra, which is trading close to its lowest ever price. By that simple logic, it should be more attractive than ever. But the decline of its traditional fixed-line business means it’s just not worth the high of $9.20 it hit more than a decade ago, nor the $4.80 or so it traded at in 2008.
It’s tempting to anchor to previous prices (see How anchoring sets you adrift). But they offer no clue regarding today’s value. The fact that a stock has fallen does not in itself make it cheap; only the difference between its intrinsic value and the price at which it trades does.
Avoiding these classic value investing mistakes will do wonders for your returns. In order to get the most out of this article, use this 6-point checklist to sift out these mistakes in your own portfolio. Moreover, ask yourself: 'Do I own quality stocks? Do I have an understanding of how various economic changes may impact my holdings? Do I own stocks where I don't fully understand its underlying businesses?'

Disclosure: Staff members own many of the stocks mentioned above. For a full list of holdings, see the Staff portfolio page of the website.



http://www.intelligentinvestor.com.au/articles/325/Six-classic-investing-mistakes.cfm

http://www.intelligentinvestor.com.au/investors-college/

Michael Burry’s 4 Must Read Investing Books


The Big Short by Michael Lewis featured the stories of the first individuals to bet against the US housing market before the 07/08 financial crisis. Michael Burry was said to be the first to do so.


Not only was Michael (Mike) Burry said to have been one of the first to do so, he was also one of the most dogmatic in his approach.
Michael Burry - Scion Capital - The Big Short
Michael Burry's 4 must read investment books
Originally a doctor, Michael Burry spent countless hours learning to be a stock market investor by writing a stock market blog and investing himself  throughout the late 90′s and early 00′s. By the end of decade, he would be the instigator of billions of dollars of bets against the US housing market.
An intriguing character in the book who also turned an original $100,000 in his Scion Capital hedge fund into hundreds of millions, I spent some time trying to find excerpts from his early blog and forum posts.
One of the excerpts (including the 4 books he recommends to all those new to investing) is below:
Re: books
To get started, I’d suggest the following four books:
If you read these books thoroughly and in that order and never touch another book, you’ll have all you need to know. Another book you might want to consider is Value Investing made easy by Janet Lowe – a quick read. I have a fairly extensive listing of books on my site, with my reviews of them, and links to purchase them at amazon [Michael Burry's site no longer live].
My problem is I’ve read way too much. One book stated, “If you’re not a voracious reader, you’ll probably never be a great investor.” But sometimes I wish I had a more focused knowledge base so that my investment strategy wouldn’t get all cluttered up.
Re: Security Analysis (Graham and Dodd) you can get a lot of the same info in a more accessible format elsewhere, but everyone says that Buffett’s favorite version is the 1951 edition. Yes there are differences, and the current version has a lot of non-Graham like stuff in it.
Good Investing,Mike
For a full list of his comments and posts, you can visit this Michael Burry profile on Silicon Investor.  http://www.siliconinvestor.com/profile.aspx?userid=690845




Michael Burry Profiled: Bloomberg Risk Takers

http://bloom.bg/oTqnej#ooid=AydDFvMjqk2DszwdQhDSgt4DJn280PSc


Michael Burry Profiled: Bloomberg Risk Takers

    July 20 Bloomberg) -- "Bloomberg Risk Takers" profiles Michael Burry, the former hedge-fund manager who predicted the housing market’s plunge. He forecast that the bubble would burst as early as 2007, and he acted on his conviction by betting against subprime mortgages. The former head of Scion Capital LLC was profiled in Bloomberg columnist and bestselling author Michael Lewis' book "The Big Short". (Source: Bloomberg)


No savings account beats inflation


No savings account beats inflation
Savers will struggle to erode the effects of rising inflation as the savings number of products dries up.

A sign warning of inflation
No savings account beats inflation Photo: .Keith Leighton / Alamy
Today's inflation figures show that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) fell during November from 5pc to 4.8pc.
In order to beat inflation, a basic-rate taxpayer paying 20pc would need to find a savings account paying 6pc per year, while a higher rate taxpayer at 40pc needs to find an account paying at least 8pc.
However, there is not a single savings account on the market that taxpayers can choose to negate the effects of tax and inflation whether it is CPI at 4.8pc or the Retail Prices Index (RPI) at 5.2pc.
The effect of inflation on savings means that £10,000 invested five years ago, allowing for average interest and tax at 20pc, would have the spending power of just £9,210 today.
Sylvia Waycot, spokesperson for Moneyfacts.co.uk, said: "Savers continue to lose out to inflation even though the rate fell today. With returns so low and inflation unsteady, people don't know which way to turn."
A growing number of people are falling into an eroding spending-power trap which has already wiped nearly £800 off the spending power of £10,000 in just five years, said Ms Waycot.
"Over the last year the number of savings accounts that beat inflation for basic rate taxpayers has dropped successively from 57 to absolutely none, which must leave savers wondering why they save at all," she said.

Can money buy happiness?


Can
 money buy happiness?
Yes, if you re poor.
Money is better than poverty, Woody Allen quipped, if only for financial reasons. If we re starving or homeless, money can bring a better life.
But beyond a certain point ” a surprisingly low point ” more money doesn t deliver more happiness.
A study of tens of thousands of people in 29 countries compared average life satisfaction in each country with average purchasing power (see Figure 9).[1]It showed that in poor countries, purchasing power and life satisfaction are clearlyrelated. Yet once countries are half as rich as America, there is absolutely no relationship between money and happiness.
Click To expand
Figure 9: Life satisfaction and purchasing power in 29 countries
Looking within individual countries bears this out. Very poor Americans are less happy, but otherwise money does not affect happiness. Being one of the 100 richest Americans adds only a smidgeon to happiness.
Or consider a study of 22 lottery jackpot winners, who showed initial euphoria. It didn t last. Within a year, the winners were no happier than before.
More evidence: real purchasing power in three rich countries doubled between 1950 and 2000, yet happiness levels didn t rise at all. As countries become wealthier, depression soars, with victims also suffering at a much younger age.
The evidence is overwhelming. Being moderately well off means that you are happier than if you were very poor. But once you are well fed, clothed, and housed, getting wealthier probably won t make you happier.
In the nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill gave one excellent reason for this being true ” we don t want to be rich, we just want to be richer than other people. When our living standard improves but everyone else s does too, we don t feel better off. We forget that our cars and houses are better than before, because our friends all drive similar cars and have just as pleasant homes.
Right now, I m living in South Africa. Here, I feel rich. In Europe or America, I don t. My feeling has nothing to do with how well off I am and everything to do with how well off other people are. Living standards are much lower in South Africa, so I feel wealthy.
There s also the pain and hassle of making money. On April 8, 1991, Time magazine s cover story highlighted the price paid for successful careers:
  • 61 percent of 500 professionals said that earning a living today requires so much effort that it s difficult to find time to enjoy life.
  • 38 percent said that they were cutting back on sleep to earn more money.
  • 69 percent said they d like to slow down and live a more relaxed life ; only 19 percent wanted a more exciting, faster paced life.
  • 56 percent wanted to find more time for personal interests and hobbies, and 89 percent said it was important to them to spend more time with their families, something that their careers made difficult.
How are we doing now? Have many of us fled the rat race? Nah. We re still chasing more money for more time. The average working American now works 2,000 hours a year. That s two weeks more than in 1980! And the average middle-income couple with children now work 3,918 hours between them ” seven weeks more than just 10 years ago.
More money can be a trap, leading to more spending, more commitments, more worry, more complexity, more time on administering money, more desires, more time at work, less choice about how we spend our time, and degradation of our independence and life energy. Our lifestyle locks us into our workstyle.
How many houses or cars do we need to compensate for heart attacks or depression?


[1]See Martin E P Seligman (2003) Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Deep Fulfillment, London: Nicholas Brealey.

http://flylib.com/books/en/1.522.1.36/1/

How Anyone Can Make A Million



How Anyone Can Make A Million


Is it really true, asks Aaron, my personal assistant, that I could become rich?
Yes, I say, if you do one simple thing. Come off it, Richard, that can t be true. Enter Alison, Aaron s younger friend. Alison is a hairdresser with pink, punkish hair. If it was easy, we d all be millionaires. You know as well as me that there are a few people with all this, she waves at the swimming pool, lush gardens, and tennis court, and then there are all the rest of us, struggling with money.
Aaron, Alison, and I are basking in November sunshine, sip- ping ice-cold drinks at my house in Spain. I make the most of my captive audience.
You re right, I tell Alison, most people ” even with big jobs and incomes to match ” don t have much spare cash. I don t say it s easy to accumulate money. I just say it s possible for everyone.
So what s the secret? Aaron is 23, right? Assume he saves $200 a month Pigs will fly, said Alison. Maybe, I say, but imagine he saves and invests $200 a month, and it grows at 10 percent a year for 42 years, until he s65. How much would Aaron have then? $200 a month is $2,400 a year ” times 42 is $100,000 and change. But you have to add the growth on top.
So, I face Aaron, what s your guess? Maybe double that. $200,000? Alison? I m no good at sums, she says, but it couldn t be that much. Maybe $150,000?
The right answer, I reveal, is over $1.4 million. They re stunned.
But that assumes Aaron could save 10 percent ” I don t believe that
Fine, I ll come to that later, I interrupt, but Alison, what about you?
Harrumph, she says. Nobody earns less than me. You know how little hairdressers get? Worst-paid profession. Wouldn t be worth saving.
How old are you? How much do you earn? Eighteen. $16,000 a year. A tenth is $1,600. If I saved that, which I don t think I could, what would my nest egg become?
I produce calculator and paper. The computer is faster, but I want to demonstrate the sums. Aaron fetches more drinks. When he s back, I m ready.
Whaddyathink? If Alison saved $1,600 a year till 65, what would she have?
Aaron grabs the calculator. $1,600 times 47 years equals around $75,000. He multiplies that by five, his estimate for compound interest. $400,000, he guesses.
No way, Alison shrieks. Can t be more than $250,000. Have I got news for you, I tell her. Clich s seem to be expected. The right answer is $1.5 million.
Impossible, she snorts. I earn much less than Aaron, there s not much difference in our age, you say I d get more than him. Calculator must be glitched.
No, I say. It makes sense. The compounding is so powerful, just a few extra years make all the difference. It s more important to start saving early than to earn a lot.
It s all just numbers until you say how we save 10 percent of our pay, said Alison. Don t see how we can, we always spendmore than we earn.
I ll come to that later, I said. And I will. But first, should we care about money?

Why do 20 percent own 84 percent?


Why do 20 percent own 84 percent?

Money is a force, like the wind, the waves, and the weather. Money dislikes being equally distributed. Money clonesmoney.
Why? How can we attract money?
Money obeys the 80/20 principle because of compound interest ” Einstein s most powerful force in the universe.
Start with a small dollop of money, save and invest it, then compound interest will do the rest.
In 1946 Anne Scheiber, who knew little about money, put $5,000 into the stock market. She locked away the share certificates and stopped worrying. By 1995 her modest nest egg had transmogrified into $22,000,000 ” up 440,000 percent! All courtesy of compound interest.
If we never save money, we will always be poor, no matter how much money we earn.
Most people have very little money because they don t save. The typical 50-year-old American has earned a great deal but has savings of just $2,300.
People with the most money have typically saved and invested it for many years. Compound interest multiplies savings in a breathtaking way.

Have you wondered how people became wealthy?


Author: Almost Anyone Can Be A Millionaire

New Britain Native Writes Formula Book

February 28, 2000|By BILL LEUKHARDT; Courant Staff Writer
NEW BRITAIN — Growing up here in a middle-class family, Ed Dzwonkowski sometimes wondered how people became wealthy.
He had a paper route after school, but that wasn't a road to riches.
It has been decades since those news carrier days, and Dzwonkowski, 42, and a certified financial planner living in California, now thinks he has figured out how almost anyone can become a millionaire.
The key is working hard and consistently investing the weekly paycheck in assets that will appreciate in value.
``It does not happen overnight. You have to be consistent. In the old days, pensions and Social Security might have provided enough. Now, people usually don't stay in one company for life, and they may want to retire early or be forced to retire early because of illness or other reasons,'' Dzwonkowski said. ``So it's prudent to plan for yourself.''
He has put it all into a book titled ``How You Can Become a Millionaire,'' which he had printed himself and is selling through distributors across the nation. It costs $19.95 and is published by Great Spirit Publishing Co. in Huntington Beach, Calif. Dzwonkowski is Great Spirit Publishing.
According to Dzwonkowski, if a person puts $264 a month, every month for 35 years, into investments that yield 10 percent interest, that person will have $1 million at the end of 35 years.
``And if you fall short of your goal, you'll still have some sizable amount that you wouldn't have had if you hadn't begun investing,'' Dzwonkowski said.
Asked if he is a millionaire yet, Dzwonkowski gave what he called his standard answer: ``Not yet, but I'm closer today than I was yesterday. I do follow my own advice.''
The book is in its second printing. The first 1,000 copies were sold to people as far away as New Zealand. Those requests came via the Internet, he said.
Dzwonkowski's father, Edward ``Butch'' Dzwonkowski, is New Britain's registrar of voters. He says he's proud of his son.
``He gets on my case about investing. But I tell him I'm too old,'' the elder Dzwonkowski said.
His son has two words: Anne Scheiber.
Scheiber, who died in 1995 at the age of 101, was a low-paid clerk with the Internal Revenue Service who decided at age 50 to start investing, using $5,000 she had squirreled away.
She invested every month, and by the time she died, her investments had grown to $20 million, generating income of $62,000 a month. She left her money to Yeshiva University in New York.
``Anne Scheiber did what I advocate. Consistent savings and investment over time. Look what it did for her,'' the author said.

Friday 16 December 2011

THE ESSAYS OF WARREN BUFFETT - Buffett Powerful Philosophy for Investing


Published:    March 28, 2001

THE ESSAYS OF WARREN BUFFETT


by, Joseph Dancy - LSGI Technology Venture Fund

Living quiet, unpretentious lives Mr. and Mrs. Othmer - a professor of chemical engineering and a former teacher - died a few years ago in their nineties. When the Othmer's died, friends were shocked to learn that their estate was worth $800 million.
The Othmer story is not unique. Anne Scheiber never married and worked for the government, never making more than $4,000 a year. She lived a quiet, simple life. When she died in 1995, her estate was worth $22 million. Likewise, Jacob Leeder lived in a modest home and drove a 1984 Oldsmobile station wagon. Occasionally he would go out to eat - usually at a cheap, cafeteria- style restaurant. It wasn't until Leeder died last year that friends discovered that he was worth $36 million.
How did these people get so rich? Like many long term investors, they put their money into well managed undervalued companies and left it there. The Othmers had an additional benefit: in the early 1960s they each invested $25,000 with Warren Buffett. Today Mrs. Othmer's shares are worth $578 million; her husband's, sold on his death when the price was lower, were worth $210 million. Even without Mr. Buffett, if they had put their funds into the broader market they still would have done well - having an estate with a current value of between $50 million and $100 million.

The Essays of Warren Buffett

The investment strategies utilized by Warren Buffett to attain the Othmer's gains were recently published by a law professor at Cardozo University. Entitled "The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America" it is a compilation of Buffett's annual reports and other communications, and is a good overview for those not familiar with his investment philosophy (available by sending $17.45 to Prof. Lawrence Cunningham, Cardozo University, 55 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10003). Some of Buffett's more interesting investment philosophies are as follows:

1. Buy a Good "Business Boat"

Buffett points out the importance of choosing a company situated in a growing and profitable industry. He identifies his largest investment mistake - buying the company his firm was named after (Berkshire Hathaway) - not because the company was flawed, but because the industry it was in (textiles) was so unattractive.
Buffett recalls how the textile industry provided very meager returns for Berkshire. No matter how well managed the company was it would always have subnormal returns. The textile industry was a commodity business, competitors had facilities located overseas that were low cost producers, and substantial excess capacity existed worldwide.
Buffett claims he would not close down a business that is important to a community just to improve the corporate rate of return, but if it appeared that losses would be unending no other course of action makes rational economic sense.
Buffett notes "a good managerial record (measured by economic returns) is far more a function of what business boat you get into than it is of how effectively you row . . . Should you find yourself in a chronically-leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks."

2. Compound Returns by Deferring Taxes

One reason that the Othmer's were able to accumulate $800 million in assets was because their investment in Berkshire stock compounded and their capital gains taxes were never realized. "Tax-paying investors will realize a far, far greater sum from a single investment that compounds internally at a given rate than from a succession of investments compounding at the same rate. But I suspect many Berkshire shareholders figured that out long ago" according to Buffett.
Illustrating the point he notes "imagine that Berkshire had only $1, which we put in a security that doubled by year end and was then sold. Imagine further that we used the after-tax proceeds to repeat this process in each of the next 19 years, scoring a double each time. At the end of the 20 years . . . we would be left with $25,250. Not bad. If, however, we made a single fantastic investment that itself doubled 20 times in 20 years . . . we would be left with about $692,000."
Buffett's calculations use a capital gains tax rate of 34% - much higher than today's, but the point is well taken. Deferred taxes allow an investment to compound, increasing the return on investment.

3. Concentration of Investments

Professor Cunningham notes that "contrary to modern finance theory, Buffett's investment knitting does not prescribe diversification. It may even call for concentration . . . a strategy of financial and mental concentration may reduce risk by raising both the intensity of an investor's thinking about a business and the comfort level he must have with its fundamental characteristics before buying it."
Other articles have noted the tendency of Buffett to concentrate his investments, and claim that this is part of his success. If nothing else, concentration allows an investor to follow a company much more closely - which allows them to better judge when a stock is undervalued.

4. Good Business Judgment & Mr. Market

Buffett subscribes to the theory that the market is not always efficient, and that at certain times companies will be grossly undervalued or overvalued. The market allows an astute investor to buy positions in companies well below intrinsic values. In the long term, such value will be recognized.
"An investor will succeed by coupling good business judgment with an ability to insulate his thoughts and behavior from the super-contagious emotions that swirl about the marketplace . . . The speed at which a business's success is recognized is not that important as long as the company's intrinsic value is increasing at a satisfactory rate - in fact, delayed recognition can be an advantage: It may give us the chance to buy more of a good thing at a bargain price."

5. Small Base From Which to Grow

Due to the size of the funds Berkshire now manages, Buffett recognizes that the return he will obtain from his investments will be lower than when he was managing much smaller sums. Using analogies to the growth of bacteria, he notes that growth from a small base can continue at a much faster pace for much longer than from a large base.
The larger sums now being managed limit the size of companies Berkshire can invest in - using a concentrated investment approach meaningful investments in small and micro-cap companies cannot be made from a practical standpoint.

Summary

Those who are familiar with Buffett's investing style, or who have read some of the books on him published recently or the Berkshire annual reports, will find little new here. Even so, it is always interesting to read the thoughts and investment strategies of one of the world's most successful investors.


http://www.marketocracy.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Portfolio.woa/wa/ArticleViewPage?source=IdKnEfOoDlLlKcDcMaKiAbLb