Saturday, 5 May 2012

Why More Ignorant Money Is Lost To Less Smart Money



A.K.A Why there are more losers than winners in the market
Through the years, trading has always been a pipe dream for most who wanted to get filthy rich. With the advancements in technology over the last decade, this pipe dream has been brought closer to home than ever before. Today, it is a very accessible dream to anyone and everyone. All you need is a computer and an Internet connection.
And of course, you need the right kind of market.
This is where the hype starts. We have been over-exposed to all sorts of advertising and promotional rah-rah that makes us believe that it is actually possible to make that fortune a reality. We see ads with winners making really fantastic profits from a single trade and we hear of friends who make a living from trading and living the good life. We see the rich and famous on TV that have made fortunes in the market. We read about people making fortunes from the comfort of their homes.
We believe we can be one of them. Worse, we believe it is really that easy.
What we don’t see in most cases is the real ugly truth. We don’t get to see losers, we never see the many hundreds or thousands that get wiped out and we definitely never hear what happens to the few winners when the market turns.
We never get to see how difficult it is for those successful few to make that living. We don’t see how much studying, hard work and endless hours of practice it takes to achieve that “easy” life. We definitely don’t hear about how much losses were accrued before the wealth accumulation started.
When the market is rallying at full steam, you always get to see new gurus hyping up their courses, authors of all sorts publishing their version of making a fortune from the market and everyone rushing to brokerages to get an account open. Workshops of all kinds will be touting their software that makes profits without the trader having to put in much effort. Some gurus will adapt their classes to ride the trend of the market – if Options is the way to go, you’ll get Options teachers by the dozens … if Forex is the flavor of the trend, then that’s what you’ll get lots of.
The market in itself is hyped. When everything is running up the charts, it is so easy to make money from the market. Everyone seems to be getting in on the action when a bull run is in full steam. The hype worsens as these bull-run winners put more money into the market to help the rally climb even higher. Pretty much like what is happening in our property market today. The “Aunties” and “Uncles” at the coffee shop also seem to have the best tips and everyone in the neighborhood is an expert at stock picking.
Scandals also abound when the market is in full hype. Hedge funds and pillion-trading are two of the many ways these scandals begin. In some recent cases, the owner of the fund starts living lavishly on his clients’ monies even before the fund is profitable. This adds to the hype. We see fund managers driving fancy sports cars and living it up in penthouse condos and sprawling landed properties. Everyone wants that life and the market can give it to you.
So the average Joe, or in our case, Ah Seng, joins the hype bandwagon and puts his hard earned money into a few bets in the market. It makes money for sure. The bull-run continues. So Ah Seng buys more and grows his wealth. He tells his friend, Ah Huat, about it and he joins the bandwagon. Soon, the market is flooded with Ah Sengs and Ah Huats who know little about the danger they just got themselves into.
The fact is the market had already been running up like mad which is where all the hype came from. By the time the new gurus, workshops and books emerge, the rally is almost always halfway there. This is when the aunties and uncles get wind of the easy money and this brings on the Sengs and Huats. Next thing you know, the market is over-cooked. Yet it continues to rally, albeit on suspiciously lower volumes.
The lower volumes are an indication that the smart money is already sidelined and waiting for the inevitable. The smart money knows when to get out and stay out. They know because the ignorant money has started to flood the market.
“When the market is greedy, you should be fearful.” ~ Warren Buffet
Then the inevitable happens – the market stutters and falters … the easy money slows down … volatility begins to rule the market … the ignorant money slowly realize that they have left their asses hanging in the wind without protection. But they’ll continue to live in denial because of the hype.
The market slides south. But not in a hyped-up crash, mind you. The market is a sneaky place that gives you more rope than you need to hang yourself repeatedly. It takes a slow and steady slide with the occasional bull-trap to keep the ignorant money believing that the correction is a “normal” thing in this business. After a brief reprieve to bring hope to those living in denial, and possibly bring in more ignorant money, the market continues its sneaky slide south. This goes on for a while and before the ignorant money realizes it, more than half the investment is down the toilet.
By this time, some of the gurus quietly “disappear” from the press, some workshops cease to exist, software traders start complaining that the systems are not working as promised, fund managers appear in the news for the wrong reasons and my class starts filling out with dozens of traders looking for a fix and a more realistic way to survive the market.
The market gets down to an impossible low. Gone is the hype and all that came with it. In its wake, it leaves a massive trail of destroyed lives and emptied bank accounts. The market is now “a dangerous place” when it was once a dream maker. The market is a “casino” when it was once an ATM. When the hype is all gone along with the money, people get serious and stay away from the market.
This is when the smart money returns.
And this starts a new hype cycle that brings in the new ignorant money.
The question you should be asking is not; “When will the ignorant money start to suffer?” If you thought of asking that question, YOU are the ignorant money.
The only question you should be asking is; “How do I become the Smart Money?”
To get the answer to that question, we commit to the next big mistake – The Education.
Most people know that trading is a stressful and dangerous job. Most also know that it isn’t easy and takes a lot of work and learning. Of course, there are the few who believe that the market can be beaten with a system or with some high-tech software. Then there are those who cling on to the ignorant belief that the market is a place that can get them rich quick.
Let’s not waste time discussing the dreamers and ignoramuses. Rather, lets look at the fellow who knows what it takes and is ready to work for it. Let’s look at the fellow who sincerely wants to learn all there is to know about this business but is unable or unwilling to get a formal education for it. It has been argued that one is able to learn about trading by reading books and obtaining information through the Internet.
So if it is that simple, why do so many still fail? The answer is just as simple; Learning the wrong thing without realizing it.
Most of the books available, either at bookshops or at the library are about INVESTING and very few are actually about TRADING. So what happens is that most people don’t realize the real difference between investing and trading and will assume the two to be the same with slight variances. That could not be farther from the truth.
Investing is much easier to learn – like learning to drive a Honda Jazz. It doesn’t take much to learn it and it is easily understood and put into practice without much difficulty. The trick thereafter is not to crash.
Trading, on the other hand, is a very different skill and mind set. It is akin to driving a Formula 1 car. Unlike the Honda where the manual version has the clutch on the left foot, the F1 car’s clutch is a very different mechanism and is controlled by the right hand. Unlike the Honda which packs less than 80bhp, the F1 car stacks up an earth-shattering 900+bhp which, in untrained and inexperienced hands, could end up killing the driver.
There is so much more to trading than investing. The skills involved are very different, the psychology is worlds apart, the knowledge needed requires way more weeks and even months to acquire and the amount of research needed to be a good investor is nothing compared to the daily research and monitoring the trader is required to do to survive the market day in and day out. Where investing requires little or no practice, trading demands hours and hours of practice time to hone the skill. The financial management skills are also extremely different in that the investor protects his capital by how much he invests while the trader requires a different skill set to manage his finances – its called “cutting loss” – something easier said than done.
So without realizing it, most beginners will pick up an investment book or visit sites hosted by investors or have contributing members who are investors and assume that all that knowledge gained will stand him in good stead as a trader.
And when things don’t work out, it gets confusing. The common query that follows is always, “Why is it others can make it but I can’t?”
You can’t blame the poor fellow because there isn’t much literature on this subject and even some so-called gurus don’t know the difference. But all you have to do to know that this is true is to just look at Wall Street – how come the investors don’t have to be on the floor of the exchange everyday while the ones on the floor everyday are known as traders?
Knowledge … a little of it can kill you quickly while the wrong kind will slowly bleed you to death.
Finally we look at a controversial reason why most traders fail – The Attitude
It starts right at the start where most newcomers think that the market can be a get-rich-quick plan. This is akin to thinking that the market is like a casino. Consider this fact – the house ALWAYS wins. So if you treat the market like a casino, it will make you feel like most gamblers do. Gamblers always win a few but lose a lot.
Some trade like the market is a system to be beaten. Such traders ought to give themselves more credit. You’re insulting yourself if you have this attitude. To think that the market is a system is to include yourself in that system. Therefore, the system you are looking to beat includes you. Give yourself some respect and while you’re doing that, give the market the same respect – we’re not robots in the market and we’re definitely not part of a system. We’re humans that are driven by emotions. The market is an emotional place, not mathematical. You cannot have a system to beat an emotion because there is no math that can factor emotional irrationality.
Then we have those that don’t realize how unscrupulous the market is. Their ignorance is evident when they correctly assume the market is not that clear cut but will still buy into the hype. What is obvious is that the market is made up of all kinds of people especially those who will do anything to get an edge, even through illegal and criminal means. It is also full of experts who have spent years in Harvard and Princeton and then more years with established institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and the like. They have hugely experienced mentors to guide them to become the next generation of world class traders. These people have so much leverage and influence on market sentiment and to make their advantage more unfair, they collude with their competitive counterparts in order to corner the larger market for their own gains. With such power, how is a three-day workshop graduate expected to beat the odds? Yet more and more look past the obvious and end up throwing their hard earned money to the power-brokers.
These are also those who buy into the idea that the market can be analyzed fundamentally with valuations. Such valuations do help to reduce risk. But that is an investment-styled strategy and not suited for trading. Trading is way faster and seldom allows the security time to flex its fundamental muscles before the next gyration takes out the profits. Read the previous lesson to know the difference between the investor and the trader and you’ll have a clearer understanding of this.
Others rely purely on technical analysis. I can’t deny that I base a lot of my analysis on technicals. But that is not the end all. All it takes is one bit of macroeconomic news and all that technical analysis is out the window faster than you can say “Cut loss!” Technical Analysis is great as long as there is no news to upset the prevailing sentiment and as long as volumes don’t dip. But the market is never so generous. So in the end, Technical Analysis is only a “best guess” … and contrary to common belief, Technical Analysis is not the best guess of when to buy or sell – rather it is most reliable when used to guess the best potential against the least risk or the most risk against unfavorable potential.
Then there are those who believe that a good tip from a trader is the key to easy money without putting in any effort. For this, I have only one analogy; will you take a heap of hard-earned money out of your wallet and give it to someone you hardly know and expect to get it all back after a few weeks? And if that person was trustworthy, would you still do it? And do you really believe that it will come back with more than you gave him? If in life we don’t make such practices, then the same principles should be applied in the financial world and most of all, in the market. The desire to get-rich-quick-and-easy makes simple people do really silly things with their money. And it is always only after getting burned that you hear those famous last words,” … if only I knew …”. Yes, you’ve heard the horror stories time and again and so has everyone else. Yet people continue to write new chapters into this horror story ever so frequently … all in the name of greed, gluttony and sloth.
The financial markets are like an office block in a busy business district. The people who go to work there are serious professionals who take what they do very seriously. They are highly experienced, very influential and extremely powerful. It is also like a hospital where the surgeons, doctors and nurses are highly qualified and trained professionals. People put their life in their hands everyday.
Then one day, some over-zealous graduate with three days of workshop knowledge comes into this office block and expects to beat everyone out of their jobs. Or this hyped-up graduate with only three days of experience comes into the hospital and expects everyone to trust him with their lives.
Okay, maybe that is a bit of a stretch but the implications are no different. Every professional takes years to study his craft and then spends more years honing the skills with hours and hours of practice and hard work. They also have a mentor to constantly guide them till the day they are ready to go solo. There is no easy path to success and there will be failures along the way. The financial market is to be respected and feared. There is no other attitude except humility that will help a trader survive it.
It is said that more than 80% of the market is made up of those who lose and less than 20% are winners. The truth is that those statistics apply to any profession – how many top rated lawyers, engineers, surgeons, etc are there compared to the many also-rans?
The big money is always at the top where there are few who have it while the small money is at the bottom where most have to fight for it. And there are only two ways to be at the top – either you are already there or work hard to get there.

Friday, 4 May 2012

Valuation

Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike.
Ben Graham - "The Intelligent Investor"

How is Economic Worth determined? 

Investors have a strong focus on free cash generation. We believe that economic worth is the present value of the future stream of free cash flows. Once cash becomes distributable, it does not matter from what product or service the cash is generated; all that matters is the volume of cash likely to be generated between now and Judgement Day.

John Burr Williams first championed this proposition in his 1938 book, ‘The Theory of Investment Value’. In it, he said:

“The purchase of a stock or bond, like other transactions which give rise to the phenomenon of interest, represents the exchange of present goods for future goods – dividends, or coupons, and principal – in this case being the claim on future goods. To appraise the investment value, then, it is necessary to estimate future payments. The annuity of payments, adjusted for changes in the value of money itself, may then be discounted at the pure interest rate demanded by the investor.”

In committing to an investment, the investor gives up a scarce resource – cash. In return, he expects cash back in the future; in dividends and/or capital appreciation, which can be crystallised into cash. The value of any investment is the stream of future cash flows that an investor can expect, discounted back to a lower present value in recognition of the fact that cash received today is worth more than cash received tomorrow.

Margin of Safety 

The difference between market price paid and economic value received is Ben Graham’s famous ‘Margin of Safety’ – three of the most important words in the investment lexicon. Graham likened the stockmarket to a voting machine in the short-term but a weighing machine in the long-term.³

Long-term, there is a direct correlation between the success of a business and its stockmarket price. The unknowable is the time it will take for this to be reflected.

Once an investment has been made, we rely upon the operating performance of the company to inform us of how successful the investment has been, not the share price. That is because we believe that the principal risk for investors is economic (business based), as distinct from quotational (stockmarket price based).

Be Disciplined about Selling

When it comes to selling, we tend towards Philip Fisher’s dictum that there are three fundamental reasons only:

  • The first is that there has been a permanent deterioration of the franchise, its growth prospects or its management. 
  • The second is that an alternative superior investment proposition has been discovered at a time when sufficient cash for investment is not available. 
  • The third is that a mistake has been made and the reality is a lot less favourable than originally envisaged.⁴ 
Of course, we shall not be able to take quite such a purist's approach. The regulations that govern authorised investment funds in the UK require that a collective fund, such as a unit trust or open-ended investment company, may invest no more than 10% of its assets in any single company’s shares and no more than 40% of the fund may be made up of companies’ shares that each represent up to 5% or more of its net assets – the so-called ‘5/10/40’ rule. We have some sympathy with those who see having to sell down a successful company to invest elsewhere as a little like ‘pulling up the roses to water the weeds’. But rules are rules. 

And sometimes funds have to sell to meet redemptions.

Summing it all up 

A share represents a part ownership interest in a real business. We limit our efforts to identifying superior businesses for potential investment. We wait for the shares to come ‘on sale’ in the stockmarket. We focus on the long-term. And we don’t sell out just because the share price has risen and there is a profit to be taken.

References
³ Benjamin Graham & David Dodd, Security Analysis, Second Edition 1940
⁴Philip A. Fisher, Common Stocks And Uncommon Profits, 1958

http://www.sanford-deland.com/pages/valuation

Quality: There are a relatively small number of truly outstanding companies. Their shares frequently can’t be bought at attractive prices.

Investment is most intelligent when it is most businesslike. 
Ben Graham - "The Intelligent Investor"

“There are a relatively small number of truly outstanding companies. Their shares frequently can’t be bought at attractive prices. Therefore, when favourable prices exist, full advantage should be taken of the situation.”
Philip A. Fisher, ‘Developing an Investment Philosophy’, 1980

The moral of this is that only an excellent business bought at an excellent price makes an excellent investment. One without the other just won’t do. 

Investors start from the premise that there is no philosophical distinction between part ownership (i.e. buying shares in a company) and outright ownership (i.e. buying the business in its entirety). All we are looking for is pieces of businesses to buy at the right price.

Warren Buffett put it thus:
 “Stocks are simple. All you do is buy shares in a great business for less than the business is intrinsically worth, with managers of the highest integrity and ability. Then you own those shares forever.”¹ 

Criteria for Stock Selection 


It follows that there are several important criteria that companies selected for investment consideration must exhibit in abundance. Among these are that:
  • Their business model is easily comprehensible; 
  •  They produce transparent financial statements; 
  •  They demonstrate consistent operational performance with earnings being relatively predicable; 
  •  They generate high returns on capital employed; 
  •  They convert a high proportion of accounting earnings into free cash; 
  •  Their balance sheet is strong without unduly high financial leverage; 
  •  Their management is focused on delivering shareholder value and is candid with the owners of the business; 
  •  Their growth strategy is more likely to rely on organic initiatives than frenetic acquisition activity. 
 Buy when the Odds are in Your Favour 

 Great investment opportunities come around when excellent companies are surrounded by unusual circumstances that cause their share prices to be misappraised. Again as Buffett puts it, “Price is what you pay, value is what you get”.² Having identified a universe of truly outstanding companies, we must wait until their shares can be bought at a price on the stockmarket that is substantially less than their true economic worth. 

References: 
 ¹ Warren E. Buffett, Forbes, 6 August 1990 
 ² Warren E. Buffett, Letter to Partners (Buffett Partnership), July 1966


http://www.sanford-deland.com/pages/quality+of+business

Buffettology

http://alumni.cs.ucsb.edu/~raimisl/Buffettology.pdf


Investing from business perspective (p.21)
•The most important observation and definitely true Buffett!
•Decide what to buy first, then wait for the price (p.67)
• Caveat: may wait forever and when price drops, the company may not be
the same…


Great business vs. mediocre business
• Consumer monopoly vs. commodity (p.87)
• NOT SO SIMPLE!
• Brand competition – war (PEP-KO, MA-V-AXP-Discover)
• Brand downturn (MCD, MOT)
• Cheaper generics (soda vs. KO, batteries vs. Energizer)
• Monopolies die - newspapers!, tax preparation (HRB)
• Diworsification (HRB)
• Hit the growth wall (HOG, BRK (p.219), pharmas, MOST old monopolies!!!)
• Commodities prosper – if there is shortage – PEAK OIL?!
• Low cost producers (WMT…)
• What is “consumer monopoly”? GM was a brand, not commodity…

Excellent business checklist (p.99)
•“Earnings strong and showing upward trend” – beware of bubbles!
•Retained earnings
• It’s good to retain earnings, but they need to be reinvested at high ROI (p.
107-110) – need to track this
•Where to find those great businesses (p. 119)
• Generic blah blah

Highly predictable earnings (p.23)
•Invest only in companies with highly predictable earnings stream
•Those are the companies with a moat…
•Then you can predict rate of return…
•… and so can any other analyst /
•… so they will sell at very expensive multiplies
•… most of the time
•… but not in crashes, recessions, scandals, etc. ☺ - market
crashes are Buffettologist’s friend

The secret of compounding (p.70-73)
•Taxes kill compounding (not an issue in tax deferred accounts!
More power to trade there).
•Reinvestment (lack of) opportunities kill compounding
•Single compounding investment leads to outperformance

Investment Measures
•Initial rate of return (p. 199) = owner’s yield
•Per share 5-10 y growth rate (p.201)
•Share buybacks (p.238-239) – double edged sword, beware of
expensive share buybacks
•How company uses FCF? (p.248) – great point, but tough to
determine.

Bond investing (p. 182)

The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is.

The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. For to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves-and the better the teacher, the better the student body.

Warren Buffett



Malaysians deserve better from the press and televisions.  It is obvious that the professional life of some journalists in Malaysia is not easy.


http://mediarakyat.net/old/?p=4576
http://news.mylaunchpad.com.my/Home/Article?Key=6907ca7c-ef3b-44f9-8f35-449a5ba760fc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTGogMq9NZ0
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/suhakam-ambiga-not-given-fair-media-space-during-bersih-2.0/





Buffett winning bet that hedge funds can’t beat market


  Mar 21, 2012 – 9:42 AM ET

Nelson Ching/Bloomberg
Nelson Ching/Bloomberg
Warren Buffett made a friendly bet four years ago that funds that invest in hedge funds for their clients couldn’t beat the stock market over a decade.

    By Katherine Burton
Warren Buffett made a friendly bet four years ago that funds that invest in hedge funds for their clients couldn’t beat the stock market over a decade. So far he’s winning.
The wager that began on Jan. 1, 2008, pits the Omaha, Nebraska, billionaire against Protégé Partners LLC, a New York fund of hedge funds co-founded by Ted Seides and Jeffrey Tarrant. Protégé built an index of five funds that invest in hedge funds to compete against a Vanguard mutual fund that tracks the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. The winner’s charity of choice gets US$1-million when the bet ends on Dec. 31, 2017.
The Vanguard fund’s low-cost Admiral shares returned 2.2%, with dividends reinvested, from the start of the bet through Feb. 29, as stocks rebounded from a 12-year low in March 2009. The hedge funds fell about 4.5%, based on Protégé’s index returns for the first three years and results since then for the Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Index, which has roughly tracked the group of unidentified funds when adjustments are made for extra fees.
“Hedge funds of funds have underperformed because of high fees and mediocre manager selection,” said Brad Alford, head of Alpha Capital Management LLC in Atlanta, which runs a mutual fund of funds designed to replicate the performance of hedge funds with lower fees and the flexibility for clients to pull money out daily. Since 2009, his Alpha Defensive Growth strategy has posted an annual average return of 8.2%, almost twice the return of hedge fund of funds.
Neither Mr. Buffett nor Scott Tagliarino, a spokesman for Protégé, would comment on the bet’s progress.
Assets Decline
Funds of funds have seen clients flee in the past five years. Some of the largest U.S. public pension funds, including those in Massachusetts, South Carolina and New York, started investing directly in hedge funds instead of going through an intermediary in an effort to reduce fees and boost returns.
The amount of money they control has fallen by about one-fifth to US$630-billion as of the end of 2011, compared with a year-end peak of US$780-billion in 2007, according to Hedge Fund Research. Funds of funds were the industry’s biggest investors in 2007, holding about 43% of assets.
Mr. Buffett’s argument, like the large pension funds, is that funds of hedge funds cost too much, according to a statement he posted on longbets.org, a website backed by the nonprofit Long Now Foundation that fosters “long-term thinking.” In addition to the 2% management fee and 20% performance fee that hedge funds typically charge, the funds of funds add another layer of fees, on average 1.25% of assets and 7.5% of any gains, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Wheat From Chaff
Protégé said in its statement that because hedge funds can make bets on rising as well as falling prices of stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities, they are able to beat the S&P 500 even after fees, and that sophisticated investors such as fund- of-fund managers “with the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff” will earn returns that amply compensate for the extra costs.
The returns of Protégé’s index from 2008 through 2010, reported in Fortune magazine a year ago by long-time Buffett friend and chronicler Carol Loomis, are similar to those of the Dow Jones Credit Suisse Hedge Fund Index, after adjusting for the added fees charged by hedge fund of funds. That index fell 2.5% last year, and rose 4% in the first two months of 2012.
Protégé took the lead in the first year of the bet as its fund of funds index lost 24% and Vanguard’s fund declined by 37%. Buffett narrowed the gap in subsequent years. The S&P fund returned 27% in 2009, compared with a gain of 16% for the hedge funds, according to Fortune. The stock fund rose 15% in 2010 as the hedge funds advanced 8.5%.
Overtaking Hedge Funds
The 81-year-old Buffett, who is chairman of the holding company Berkshire Hathaway Inc., ended last year neck and neck with the Protégé funds as the Vanguard fund climbed by 2.1% and the Protégé hedge funds lost an estimated 3.75%.
The first two months of this year pushed the Vanguard fund ahead as stocks returned 9%, more than twice the gains of hedge funds.
Mr. Buffett, who told Loomis in 2008 he placed his chances of winning at 60%, had originally suggested a bet against single-manager hedge funds. Had he found a taker, he would be trailing by about 6%age points based on the Dow Jones Credit Suisse index.
If Mr. Buffett had bet returns of his own holding company against the performance of hedge funds, he’d be even farther behind. Berkshire Hathaway shares have slumped almost 17% since the end of 2007.

Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway lags behind S&P for third year in a row


  May 3, 2012 – 6:12 PM ET 

Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Daniel Acker/Bloomberg
Warren Buffett, 81, is seeking to reassure investors that the US$200-billion company he built over 42 years as chief executive officer is positioned to thrive after his eventual departure.

    Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shareholders missed out on better returns from the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index by sticking with Chairman Warren Buffett after each of his last three annual meetings.
Berkshire fell 2.4% from the firm’s April 30, 2011, meeting through yesterday, compared with the 2.8% advance in the S&P 500. This year’s gathering, planned for May 5 in Omaha, Nebraska, concludes three years in which Berkshire climbed about 32%, trailing the S&P 500’s gain of around 60%.
Buffett, 81, is seeking to reassure investors that the US$200-billion company he built over 42 years as chief executive officer is positioned to thrive after his eventual departure. Growth slowed in the last 15 years as Buffett, a former hedge fund manager, directed Berkshire’s earnings toward takeovers in industries like machine tools, power production and railroads.

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Does a High P/E Ratio Mean a Stock is Overvalued? The Answer May Surprise You!

A mistake many people tend to make is to associate this with only buying low price-to-earnings ratio stocks. While this approach has certainly generated above-average returns over long-periods of time (see Tweedy, Browne & Company’s publication What Has Worked in Investing), it is not the ideal situation.

Understanding Intrinsic Value and Why Different Businesses Deserve Different Valuations

At its core, the basic definition for the intrinsic value of every asset in the world is simple: It is all of the cash flows that will be generated by that asset discounted back to the present moment at an appropriate rate that factors in opportunity cost(typically measured against the risk-free U.S. Treasury) and inflation. Figuring out how to apply that to individual stocks can be extremely difficult depending upon the nature and economics of the particular business. As Benjamin Graham, the father of the security analysis industry, entreated his disciples, however, one need not know the exact weight of a man to know that he is fat or the exact age of a woman to know she is old. By focusing only on those opportunities that are clearly and squarely in your circle of competence and you know to be better than average, you have a much higher likelihood of experiences good, if not great, results over long periods of time.
All businesses are not created equal. An advertising firm that requires nothing more than pencils and desks is inherently a better business than a steel mill that, just to begin operating, requires tens of millions of dollar or more in startup capital investment. All else being equal, an advertising firm rightfully deserves a higher price to earnings multiple because in an inflationary environment, the owners (shareholders) aren’t going to have to keep shelling out cash for capital expenditures to maintain the property, plant, and equipment. This is also why intelligent investors must distinguish between the reported net income figure and true, “economic” profit, or “owner” earnings as Warren Buffett has called it. These figures represent the amount of cash that the owner could take out of the business and reinvest elsewhere or spend on diamonds, houses, planes, charitable donations, or gold-plated fine china.
In other words, it doesn’t matter what the reported net income is, but rather, how many hamburgers the owner can buy relative to his investment in the business. That’s why capital-intensive enterprises are typically anathema to long-term investors as they realize very little of their reported income will translate into tangible, liquid wealth because of a very, very important basic truth: Over the long-term, the rise in an investor’s net worth is limited to thereturn on equity generated by the underlying company. Anything else, such as relying on abull market or that the next person in line will pay more for the company than you (the appropriately dubbed “greater fool” theory) is inherently speculative. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be in doubt about my ability to retire comfortably.
The result of this fundamental viewpoint is that two businesses might have identical earnings of $10 million, yet Company ABC may generate only $5 million and the other, Company XYZ, $20 million in “owner earnings”. Therefore, Company XYZ could have a price-to-earnings ratio four times higher than its competitor ABC yet still be trading at the same value.

The Importance of a Margin of Safety

The danger with this approach is that, if taken too far as human psychology is apt to do, is that any basis for rational valuation is quickly thrown out the window. Typically, if you are paying more than 15x earnings for a company, you need to seriously examine the underlying assumptions you have for its future profitable and intrinsic value. With that said, a wholesale rejection of shares over that price is not wise. A year ago, I remember reading a story detailing that in the 1990’s, the cheapest stock in retrospect was Dell Computers at 50x earnings. That’s right – had you bought it at that price, you would have absolutely crushed nearly every other investment because the underlying profits really did live up to Wall Street’s expectations, and then some! However, would you have been comfortable having your entire net worth invested in such a risky business if you didn’t understand the economics of the computer industry, the future drivers of demand, the commodity nature of the PC and the low-cost structure that gives Dell a superior advantage over competitors, and the distinct possibility that one fatal mistake could wipeout a huge portion of your net worth? Probably not.

The Ideal Compromise

The perfect situation is when you get an excellent business that generates copious amounts of cash with little or no capital investment on the part of the owners relative to the profits at a steep discount to intrinsic value, such as American Express during the Salad Oil scandal or Wells Fargo when it traded at 5x earnings during the real estate crash of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. A nice test you can use is to close your eyes and try to imagine what a business will look like in ten years; do you think it will be bigger and more profitable? What about the profits – how will they be generated? What are the threats to the competitive landscape? An example that might help: Do you think Blockbuster will still be the dominant video rental franchise? Personally, it is my belief that the model of delivering plastic disks is entirely antiquated and as broadband becomes faster and faster, the content will eventually be streamed, rented, or purchased directly from the studios without any need for a middle man at all, allowing the creators of content to keep the entire capital. That would certainly cause me to require a much larger margin of safety before buying into an enterprise that faces such a very real technological obsolesce problem.



http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/beginnerscorner/a/aa021207a.htm