Wednesday, 30 May 2012

Better Investing Philosophy




Fundamentals of Investing

 

Explaining the BetterInvesting Philosophy

 


Our February issue traditionally includes an invitation for you to bring a visitor to your investment club meeting so that they can discover how clubs can help them build wealth and can learn about BetterInvesting’s philosophy. Two years ago we published an article explaining our approach to investing that proved popular with readers. This month we’ll tackle the subject again. If you’re bringing a guest to a meeting or want to introduce someone to the BetterInvesting approach, you might consider giving them this issue.

Brad Perry, in his classic book Winning the Investment Marathon, wrote that investing “is pursued most successfully in a simple, straightforward way.” This is the Golden Rule for most investors who employ fundamental analysis and have a long-term perspective. Buy stocks of high-quality companies at good prices and continue holding them as long as the companies’ performance merits doing so.


Sales drives earnings; earnings drives the stock price. That’s what it comes down to for fundamental investors. You might hear of different ways to buy and sell stocks, and countless books have touted systems that promise great returns. But over the long term fundamental analysis is what works in building wealth.
   
Fundamental analysis comes down to studying a company’s financial performance. Broadly, there are those who look for growth stocks and those who look for value equities, but the line between value and growth investing is gray: As Warren Buffett says, value and growth “are joined at the hip.”
   
Value investing, as practiced by Buffett and his mentor Benjamin Graham, is a time-tested method involving fundamental analysis that has served many investors well. But for the typical person who has a job and family and who is managing his own portfolio while following Perry’s admonition to keep it simple, fundamental analysis focused on growth stocks might be more appropriate.
   
This is because individual investors can spot a good growth company quickly. BetterInvesting’s Stock Selection Guide arranges the fundamental data in a way that allows users to see a company’s growth and management performance as well as the stock’s investment possibilities in just a few minutes; see the Stock to Study SSG on pages 29 and 30 for an example. Meanwhile, the work required to spot a good value stock is a little more complex. But as we’ll discuss later, value should be a vital consideration as well.

The Three Most Important Ideas:
Management, Management, Management
The individual investors who belong to BetterInvesting ask two questions when studying a stock:

  Is this a well-managed company?
•  Is its stock reasonably priced?

   
We seek great management because talented, capable executives know how to ensure their company thrives over the long term amid competitive battles and periodic downturns. These are the people, in other words, who are responsible for driving the sales and growth increases that fuel stock prices.
   
In assessing management, we don’t know everything about a company’s day-to-day operations and boardroom discussions. But as laid out in a methodology promoted by association co-founder George Nicholson, we do have a lot of the information we need. A first step in finding a well-managed company is to look at the history of sales and earnings growth. An important indicator of strong management is its ability to grow the business in good times and bad.
   
We also seek companies that are growing sales and earnings over the long term at a rate that’s high relative to their size. Smaller companies generally should be growing earnings by at least 15 percent a year; mid-size companies, by 10 percent to 15 percent a year; and large companies, by at least 7 percent annually.
   
We want smaller companies to have higher growth rates partly because they generally are riskier investments than large companies. The higher growth rate compensates us for this additional risk, and if we do a good job of assessing these companies, we’ll see handsome returns. As you’ll see in this issue in “Repair Shop” and “Watch List,” finding small companies can be challenging but also quite rewarding.
   
Finally, we favor consistent growth over the long term. In the graph on this page, for example, note the railroad-track-like growth of the company’s sales and earnings. Consistent performance reassures us about the capability of management. And although the past is no guarantee of future performance (as they say in the mutual fund world), history informs our decisions regarding future growth.
   
Two other tests help us assess the company’s management. First, we check the company’s profitability before taxes and other charges outside of management’s control. We like to see stable or growing profit margins. The other ratio is return on equity — how well management is using the equity invested in the company. Again, stable or growing ROE is preferred. Comparing the company’s growth rates, profitability and ROE with those of its peers helps determine whether this is a company built for a long voyage or is simply benefiting from the rising tide for its industry.



Evaluating the Investment Potential

Once we’ve determined the company in question is likely a high-quality one worth studying further, we next project sales and earnings growth. As fundamental investors, we know that in the short term, the market may not reward the company for its excellence. But over the long term, we trust that it will. So it’s the long-term projections — five years, very roughly enough for the company to go through a business cycle — we care about.
   
We start by forecasting sales growth because we need this for building our earnings projection. With the caveat that making long-term predictions can be a humbling experience, we have a number of data points at our disposal, including:

•  The company’s historical growth rate.
•  Company statements regarding growth goals.
•  Wall Street estimates of both short- and long-term growth. Long-term sales growth estimates can be difficult to find but are sometimes buried in analyst reports.
•  The industry’s historical growth rate and estimates of future expansion.

   
More experienced investors might consider such factors as the percentage of recurring revenues, the value of projects under contract but not yet completed and historical organic growth and growth by acquisition. For retailers, they might look at projections for store and square footage expansion as well as same-store sales growth. But history is a powerful teacher for beginning and experienced investors alike.
   
We then estimate earnings growth in light of the sales projection. We’ll consider the company’s history of earnings growth and any goals it has stated. We can also access analyst reports and analysts’ consensus estimates, but these forecasts are usually overly optimistic.
   
Studying past and potential future profit margins and tax rates can help us understand the path revenues will take to earnings. We also want to think about what will happen to the firm’s number of common shares outstanding. For example, if a company regularly buys back shares to reduce the number of shares outstanding and is expected to continue this practice, we would expect future earnings to be spread among fewer shares.
   
When we’re finished, we use the earnings growth rate to arrive at an estimate of earnings per share five years from now. If we have forecast growth of 15 percent a year, and the EPS at our starting point is $1, five years from now EPS will be $2. Two things to keep in mind regarding projections:

•  It’s prudent to be conservative.
A firm might have increased earnings 25 percent annually over the past 10 years, but such performance is extremely difficult to maintain. Gravity will eventually take hold as a company moves from small to mid-size to large.
•  Earnings advances can outpace sales growth for only so long. Over the long term, they usually settle in at the rate of revenue growth. If you’re going to project EPS increases that are higher than sales growth, understand where the additional percentage points are coming from: Increased margins? Lower taxes? Fewer shares outstanding?

Checking Valuation

Once we’ve predicted the EPS five years from now, we’re ready to answer our second question: whether the stock is reasonably priced. Investors are good at discovering high-quality stocks but experience more challenges in determining the proper price to pay for the stock. Our first step is to study the stock’s price-earnings ratios over the past several years and forecast the likely high and low P/Es over the next five years. The P/E, the stock’s current price divided by a company’s EPS, is how much the market is willing to pay for $1 of a firm’s earnings; it’s the most common way to measure how expensive a company’s stock is.
   
Historical valuations can help us in this process, but P/Es often go through unpredictable periods of expansion and contraction as industries go in and out of favor on Wall Street. Another idea to keep in mind is that a stock can trade at extremely high P/Es for a while but eventually will drop — severely so when a high-growth company stumbles. P/Es also tend to contract in times of inflation.
   
After we have predicted what the high P/E for a stock will be, we’re ready to estimate a potential high price for our stock. It’s a matter of simple math: The high point of EPS — what we forecast the EPS to be five years from now — is multiplied by the high P/E to come up with a potential high price. For example, if we predict EPS will be $2 in five years and the high P/E will be 30, our predicted high price will be $60.
   
After projecting the low P/E, we can multiply it by the expected low EPS to come up with a potential low price. Since we’ve determined this is a growth company, we usually can use the most recent 12 months’ EPS as the low point for earnings. I can use other criteria for projecting a low, but this is a common method for determining this figure.

Return Expectations

Now that we have the stock’s potential range from low to high, we’re ready to see whether this stock will provide a suitable return. Our SSG divides the range into three zones: Buy, Maybe (or Hold) and Sell. The lowest 25 percent of the range is the Buy zone, and the upper-most 25 percent is the Sell zone.
   
We include the stock’s dividends — the cash payments of earnings to shareholders — in our return calculations. This gives us three ways to achieve a return on a stock


  • through dividends,
  • through the market increasing the stock’s price in concert with the earnings growth and 
  • through the stock’s price rising because the market believes the P/E should be higher.
   
We aim for our stock holdings to return 15 percent annually on average over the next five years, or a doubling of return. That’s an aggressive target, but the idea isn’t to be disappointed if we fail to meet it. It’s to maintain our focus on seeking high-quality growth stocks. Achieving returns of, say, 10 percent yearly is pretty commendable.
Managing Risk

Investors can manage their risk in picking individual stocks by following some simple rules:

•  Require that the company have at least five years of financial history. Younger firms haven’t developed enough of a track record for assessing management performance.
•  Study only companies that have proven they can make money. Someone who invests in a company that has never reported earnings is speculating, not investing.
•  Understand the possible risk and reward of owning a stock.
•  Diversify your portfolio. Even if you’ve done your homework on every holding using all the information you need to make an informed decision, you’ll still make mistakes. If you have a good-size basket of stocks, however, you’ll also have some stocks that perform much better than expected.
   
Besides investing in high-quality growth stocks and diversifying your portfolio, two other simple principles can help you build wealth over the long term. 


  • First, reinvest all your dividends and earnings. 
  • Second, invest regularly in both good markets and bad; this is often called dollar-cost averaging.
   
The type of analysis I’ve outlined provides a lot of the information fundamental investors need to determine whether a stock is a suitable investment. But not everything. Reading annual reports, listening to conference calls and viewing company presentations will help you form a fuller picture of the company.
   
In today’s unpredictable, volatile market, fundamental analysis is even more important than usual. But for an investor using a simple, straightforward methodology that focuses on the long term, these are also times of great opportunity.

Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Petronas Dagangan (29.5.2012)


  Financial   EPS Dividend NTA ttm-EPS Qtr
Date Quarter    (Cent) (Cent)  (RM) (Cent) No
21/5/2012 1/1/2012   24.8 17.5 4.95 90.7 1
24/2/2012 31/12/2011   22.3 50 4.81 88.9 5
23/11/2011 30/9/2011   22.6 15 4.7 90.4 5
10/8/2011 30/6/2011   21 15 5.04 88.5 0
26/5/2011 31/3/2011   23 60 4.83 87.6 4
16/2/2011 31/12/2010   23.8 0 4.6 80.8 3
25/11/2010 30/9/2010   20.7 40 4.66 75.8 2
24/8/2010 30/6/2010   20.1 0 4.79 75.2 1
25/5/2010 31/3/2010   16.2 45 4.59 75.8 4
19/2/2010 31/12/2009   18.8 0 4.43 76.9 3
23/11/2009 30/9/2009   20.1 15 4.35 62.4 2
25/8/2009 30/6/2009   20.7 0 4.4 55.6 1
25/5/2009 31/3/2009   17.3 33 4.19 58.3 4
24/2/2009 31/12/2008   4.3 0 4.02 57.8 3
25/11/2008 30/9/2008   13.3 12 4.06 72.9 2
28/8/2008 30/6/2008   23.4 0 4.18 72.5 1
26/5/2008 31/3/2008   16.8 33 3.94 66.8 4
26/2/2008 31/12/2007   19.4 0 3.78 67 3
29/11/2007 30/9/2007   12.9 12 3.67 64.3 2
27/8/2007 30/6/2007   17.7 0 3.69 66.3 1
28/5/2007 31/3/2007   17 20 3.51   4
26/2/2007 31/12/2006   16.7 0 3.34   3
30/11/2006 30/9/2006   14.9 10 3.25   2




  Financial   ttm-EPS Qtr
Date Quarter   (Cent) Price PE P/NTA No
21/5/2012 1/1/2012   90.7 19.48 21.48 3.9 1
24/2/2012 31/12/2011   88.9 18 20.25 3.7 5
23/11/2011 30/9/2011   90.4 16.36 18.10 3.5 5
10/8/2011 30/6/2011   88.5 16.54 18.69 3.3 0
26/5/2011 31/3/2011   87.6 16.3 18.61 3.4 4
16/2/2011 31/12/2010   80.8 12.5 15.47 2.7 3
25/11/2010 30/9/2010   75.8 11.7 15.44 2.5 2
24/8/2010 30/6/2010   75.2 11 14.63 2.3 1
25/5/2010 31/3/2010   75.8 9.23 12.18 2.0 4
19/2/2010 31/12/2009   76.9 8.92 11.60 2.0 3
23/11/2009 30/9/2009   62.4 8.57 13.73 2.0 2
25/8/2009 30/6/2009   55.6 8.33 14.98 1.9 1
25/5/2009 31/3/2009   58.3 7.78 13.34 1.9 4
24/2/2009 31/12/2008   57.8 7.36 12.73 1.8 3
25/11/2008 30/9/2008   72.9 6.71 9.20 1.7 2
28/8/2008 30/6/2008   72.5 5.99 8.26 1.4 1
26/5/2008 31/3/2008   66.8 6.57 9.84 1.7 4
26/2/2008 31/12/2007   67 7.01 10.46 1.9 3
29/11/2007 30/9/2007   64.3 7.57 11.77 2.1 2
27/8/2007 30/6/2007   66.3 7.6 11.46 2.1 1
28/5/2007 31/3/2007           4
26/2/2007 31/12/2006           3
30/11/2006 30/9/2006           2



ttm-EPS  90.7 sen
LFY Dividend  80 sen

Price (29.5.2012)   RM 20.48

PE  22.6x
DY  3.9%

Bonia (29.5.2012)


Financial EPS Dividend NTA ttm-EPS Qtr
Date Quarter (Cent) (Cent) (RM) (Cent) No.
29/05/2012 31/03/2012 3.32 0 1.33 23.81 3
23/02/2012 31/12/2011 6.55 0 1.29 26.33 2
29/11/2011 30/09/2011 9.93 0 1.25 24.33 1
26/08/2011 30/06/2011 4.01 2.5 1.15 19.37 4
25/05/2011 31/03/2011 5.84 2.5 1.13 20.37 3
23/02/2011 31/12/2010 4.55 0 1.07 18.91 2
24/11/2010 30/09/2010 4.97 0 1.04 17.91 1
30/08/2010 30/06/2010 5.01 5 1.01 16.49 4
26/05/2010 31/03/2010 4.38 0 0.96 14.21 3
25/02/2010 31/12/2009 3.55 0 0.92 12.02 2
26/11/2009 30/09/2009 3.55 0 0.92 10.82 1
28/08/2009 30/06/2009 2.73 4 0.88 10.22 4
28/05/2009 31/03/2009 2.19 0 0.85 9.43 3
27/02/2009 31/12/2008 2.35 0 0.87 10.65 2
24/11/2008 30/09/2008 2.95 0 0.84 12.8 1
28/08/2008 30/06/2008 1.94 2.5 0.81 14.22 4
26/05/2008 31/03/2008 3.41 0 0.8 17.08 3
20/02/2008 31/12/2007 4.5 0 0.76 2
15/11/2007 30/09/2007 4.37 0 0.74 1
27/08/2007 30/06/2007 4.8 3 0.7 4



ttm-EPS  23.81 sen
LFY  Dividend  5 sen

Price RM 2,33

PE  9.8x
DY  2.15%


UMW (29.5.2012)

Announcement
Financial Earning Dividend NTA (RM) ttm-EPS Quarter
Date Quarter Per Share (Cent) (Cent) (Cent) Number
29/05/2012 31/03/2012 18.83 0 3.82 49 1
24/02/2012 31/12/2011 4.4 7.5 3.65 43.24 4
24/11/2011 30/09/2011 14.51 13.5 3.69 40.46 3
19/08/2011 30/06/2011 11.26 10 3.662 39.12 2
25/05/2011 31/03/2011 13.07 0 3.635 46.6 1
24/02/2011 31/12/2010 1.62 6.5 3.485 45.34 4
22/11/2010 30/09/2010 13.17 13.5 3.594 52.76 3
20/08/2010 30/06/2010 18.74 10 3.622 51.04 2
20/05/2010 31/03/2010 11.81 0 3.515 1
23/02/2010 31/12/2009 9.04 9 3.369 4
20/11/2009 30/09/2009 11.45 5 3.325 3

ttm-EPS  49 sen
LFY Dividend 31 sen

Price  RM 7.85

PE 16x
DY 3.95%

Stock Investing is not Rocket Science!



The test of real expertise is wealth protection in bad times and solid growth in good times. So that, over a longer horizon covering boom and bust, you get attractive growth, say 20% CAGR. Of course there are a few rare, real experts (but you won’t see them on TV every day, predicting the market) who have consistently been doing this. Each Stock Shastra is the distilled wisdom of such rare, real experts. The real Gurus! And from them, here is Stock Shastra #1: Stock Investing is not Rocket Science! Now, how do you feel when you say this Shastra?

  • Benjamin Graham, one of the Gurus of stock investing, did not have a background of finance when he started investing. However, he learnt stock investing, eventually pioneering the concept of value investing; his philosophy was simple: Buy great businesses at extremely cheap prices.
  • Warren Buffett, one of the greatest stock investors of all time, started investing when he was 12, without any formal finance education. He regarded Benjamin Graham as his Guru and today is amongst the richest people in the world.
  • The common thread binding these great investors is the same. They weren’t experts when they started. But they learnt to do it on their own by following a simple and sound framework of investing and sticking to it with discipline.
  • It involved buying into a great business with the mindset of an owner. Finding such a business might require some search and analysis, but is something you can certainly manage.
  • Most importantly, sooner or later, the market gives you many opportunities to buy such wonderful businesses at throw-away prices; or sell your holdings at unbelievably high prices. The proof: Look at the 52-week Highs and lows of any of the Sensex stocks.
Once we change our mindset and decide to invest in stocks on our own, the next step is to find a wonderful business worth owning. The next Stock Shastra will tell you how to start doing this.
http://stockshastra.moneyworks4me.com/stock-shastra-1/

Monday, 28 May 2012

Different styles of framing choices causes different preferred outcomes.


Loss Aversion, Risk, & Framing

The next stop in the framing inquiry involves the unique relationship of risk taking to positive and negative framing. Since losses loom larger than gains, it appears that humans follow conservative strategies when presented with a positively-framed dilemma, and risky strategies when presented with negatively-framed ones. To illustrate, consider Kahneman & Tversky's 1984 study where they asked a representative sample of physicians the following question. Read and answer it before you continue.

Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor? 

Be sure to answer this question before you proceed.
Have you answered? OK.
Notice that the preceding dilemma is positively framed. It views the dilemma in terms of "lives saved." When the question was framed in this manner, 72% of physicians chose A, the safe-and-sure strategy, but only 28% chose program B, the risky strategy. An equivalent set of physicians considered the same dilemma, but with the question framed negatively:

Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If program C is adopted, 400 people will die. If program D is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die. Which of the two programs would you favor? 

You can see that the two questions examine an identical dilemma. Two hundred of 600 people saved is the same as 400 of 600 lost. However, when the question was framed negatively, and physicians were concentrating on losses rather than gains, they voted in a dramatically different fashion. When framed negatively, 22% of the physicians voted for the conservative strategy and 72% of them opted for the risky strategy!



Safe vs. Risky Choices by MDs

As you can see, framing the choice positively vs. negatively caused an almost perfect reversal in the choices of highly-trained experts making a decision in their field of expertise--saving (or is that 'not losing'?) lives! Clearly, framing can powerfully influence the way a problem is perceived, which in turn can lead to the favoring of radically different solutions.

Let's consider the same "negative frame => risky behavior" phenomenon from a somewhat less theoretical and more practical perspective. Imagine that you are a medical practitioner, and you have just seen your third case of advanced breast cancer in a single week. "Why," you wonder to yourself, "aren't these women performing breast self-exams (BSEs) and finding these lumps before they become full-fledged, life-endangering metastatic cancers?" Your clinic hands a brochure on BSE to every woman that enters the door, BSE is regularly described in newspapers and on TV; information on this topic isn't exactly scarce! Why do your patients choose to die rather than comply? you wonder.

But consider the act of a BSE. Logically, it's safe--but psychologically, it's a risky procedure. If you perform BSE, you may feel a lump. So performing BSE is a risky behavior, because by looking, you may find something you don't want to find. Not performing a BSE is a logical health risk behavior, but is safer psychologically. By not looking, you won't find anything that may cause you to worry.

Researchers Meyerowitz and Chaiken explored this very question in a 1987 research project. They distributed one of two brochures on BSE to equivalent patients in equivalent clinics. The brochures were identical in terms of content, but one stressed the gains associated with performing a BSE, and the other focused on the losses associated with inaction. You can guess the result, can't you? The negatively-framed brochure lead to higher positive BSE-related attitudes and behaviors. Actually, the true strength of the negative frame emerged four months after patients received the brochures. Those who received negatively-framed brochures showed significantly greater intentions to perform BSE at the later date.

Why is it that negative information causes increased persuasion in these types of situations? Psychologists have long known of the existence of the "positivity bias," which states that humans overwhelmingly expect good things (as opposed to neutral or bad things) to occur. If perceivers construct a world in which primarily positive elements are expected, then negative information becomes perceptually salient as a jolting disconfirmation of those expectations (Kanouse & Hanson, 1972). We also know that people stop to examine disconfirmations to a much higher degree than confirmations. Negative information is often highly informative and thus may be assigned extra weight in the decision-making process (Fiske, 1980; Smith & Petty, 1996). Let me ask you: if you learned that your friend's auto mechanic performed an excellent valve job but botched his automatic transmission repair, would you take your car to that mechanic? No, because negative information overwhelms positive information. You expect a mechanic to be effective, period.



This topic is considered in further detail for the benefit of my students, who must enter the URLs found on the syllabus to access the following pages (if you're not a student of mine, please don't ask! The answer will be "Sorry."):
  • Positive & Negative Frames (They're both effective in the appropriate circumstances, but you need to know which is best to use when.)
  • Why Experts Fail to Predict (One reason experts make stupid mistakes.)
  • Framing by Position (The real reason for the cheap and expensive models in the product lineup.)
  • Framing by Contrast (How contrast is used to make you do things you wouldn't otherwise do.)
  • Framing by Attribution (One of the most seductive persuasion tactics around because it makes people feel good!)

Ref:
http://www.workingpsychology.com/lossaver.html

http://www.workingpsychology.com/mediafr.html
Media framing (How the media frames the news and shapes public opinion.)

Should investors switch from bonds to shares?

Savers have preferred bonds to shares for the past seven months. But those saving for long-term goals such as retirement should remember that equities, unlike bonds, can offer a growing income.