Saturday, 13 March 2010

The Evolution of Warren Buffett


The Evolution of Warren Buffett

After a very fruitful and successful investment career, Warren Buffett has reached what might be considered an "endgame" position. His original 1956 investment partnership of $105,000 has morphed into Berkshire Hathaway Corporation (BRK.ABRK.B), worth well over $100 billion. Depending on the market values on a given day, Berkshire is now one of the ten or so largest market cap stocks in the United States, having passed up former stalwarts like Citigroup (C) and General Electric (GE). As such, Berkshire can make meaningful investments in only stocks of say, the S&P 100, or outright purchases of stocks in the S&P 500, or their equivalents abroad. It will be difficult for Buffett to continue to beat the market, assuming that he can do so.
There are basically three ways for him to try. The first is to substitute faster-growing foreign stocks for large cap U.S. stocks. That is, he may try to beat Exxon Mobil (XOM) using the stocks of PetroChina (PTR) (owned in the past), or Petrobras of Brazil, to play the emerging markets theme.
The second way to try to beat the market is to try to time purchases near lows. or obtain special terms, as Berkshire did with its large stakes in General Electric and Goldman Sachs (GS).
The third way is to avoid stocks of clearly dying "leading" companies such as International Paper (IP), General Motors, and Eastman Kodak (EK), a quasi-index strategy that, if successful, would still lead to modest outperformance. All in all, Buffett has come a long way from his early days.
Imitating Ben Graham
Buffett's early investments were clearly in the Graham and Dodd mold. The first major one, in 1957, was National Fire American Insurance, operated by the Ahmanson brothers (the older, H.F., also gave his name to a savings and loan). The brothers tried to buy in the stock for $50 a share (just above its annual earnings), but Buffett sent an agent all over to Nebraska with a counteroffer of $100 a share. Even at this higher price, he just about doubled his money.
In 1958, Buffett put 20% of the partners' money in Commonwealth Bank of Union City, at a price of $50 a share, because he estimated its stock value at $125 a share, and the company was growing at 10% a year. This was a more than adequate (60%) "margin of safety." If the gap between price and value closed in 10 years, he would realize some $325, or a return of about 20% annualized. But he sold a year later at $80 a share, earning 60% in a year, while the ten-year return had fallen to "only" an annual 16%.
In 1959, he placed 35% of the partners' money in Sanborn Map, a company that produced detailed city maps of buildings, whose users were insurance companies, fire stations, and the like. This had been a prosperous business in the 1930s and 1940s, before a cheaper substitute rendered it unprofitable in the 1950s. Nevertheless, the stock had fallen from $110 a share to $45 a share in 20 years, even though the company had built up an investment portfolio worth $65 a share during that time using excess cash. In Ben Graham style, Buffett's partners and two allies obtained 46% of the stock and forced management to distribute most of the portfolio to shareholders, at a 50%-ish (pre-tax) gain to the investors who elected this option.
Going into the 1960s, Buffett continued to buy companies at a discount to asset value Graham style. These included Berkshire Hathaway, a struggling textile producer with per-share working capital approximating its $15 share price, Dempster Mills, and Diversified Retailing. Buffett bought all of these companies with the expectation of getting the underlying businesses for "free." This was true only for Dempster, a badly-managed company that was turned around in less than three years for triple the investment. In the case of Berkshire, at least, even "free" was too much to expect.
But Buffett eventually used Berkshire's cash flow to acquire Diversified, and then redeployed the two companies' cash elsewhere. What's more, when he distributed partnership assets pro rata in 1970, he had effectively changed the form of his investment vehicle from a partnership (where capital gains were taxed every year), to a corporation (where gains were taxed only when realized).
There was one investment during this period that signalled Buffett's eventual departure from the Graham style. That was the purchase of the stock of American Express, whose main business was credit cards, but whose stock suffered when the firm's warehousing operation vouched for the value of "salad oil" deposited by a crook. This man,Tino deAngelis, borrowed (and lost) money on the strength of phony collateral, leaving Amex holding the bag. The stock took a hit when Amex paid out $60 million, its entire net worth, to settle the resulting claims.
But Buffett realized that he was really getting the credit card business at a discount. Late in the 1960s, he sold his Amex stock for between three to five times his acquisition cost, three to five years after he had bought it.
Transition to a "GARP" Style
Warren Buffett then evolved into what we would call a "GARP" (growth at a reasonable price) investor, albeit one with a strong value bent. This transition occurred during the early years of his "new" (post Buffett partnership) incarnation, after he had hooked up with Charlie Munger, who believed that it was better to buy a great company at a good price, rather than a good company at a great price..
What happened in the early 1970s was that certifiable growth companies got not only into value, but deep value territory (great companies at great prices). One of them was Washington Post That company had publishing and broadcasting assets worth perhaps $400 million in 1970, but which sold in the market for $80-$100 million. Buffett bought some 12% of the company, which not only closed the gap between market value and asset value, but also grew earnings per share in excess of 15% over the next decade.
GEICO, a low cost insurer, had represented one of Buffett's first investments as a boy. Started with $100,000 in seed capital in 1936, it was worth about $3 million when Ben Graham bought a controlling stake in 1948. From there, it advanced in spectacular fashion to a peak of over $500 million, over 100 times, in two and half decades, before falling onto hard times in the early 1970s.
By 1976, it was near bankruptcy when Buffett had Salomon Brothers organize a rescue via a $76 million capital infusion. Berkshire provided $19 million of it, and basically co-underwrote the convertible preferred offering with Salomon. Adding this to an earlier $4 million investment in common gave Buffett a 33% stake in a company that would grow per-share earnings at about 15% a year over the next two decades.
Other, less celebrated, long term holdings from the period include Affiliated Publications, the Interpublic Group (IPG), Media General, and Ogilvy and Mather.
Buffett also experimented with cheaply priced leaders of their respective industries: Safeco for insurance, General Foods (GIS) in food, and the former Exxon in energy. There was a group of inflation hedges in the form of Alcoa (AA), Cleveland Cliffs Iron (CLFQM.PK), GATX, Handy and Harman, and later Reyolds Aluminum. Finally, there were arbitrage operations in Arcata Corporation and Beatrice Foods.
Buffett also dabbled in larger media companies such as ABC (DIS), Capital Cities, and Time Inc (TWX). He made a proposal to the management of the latter company that he take a large blocking position, to prevent a takeover, which Time rejected, to its later regret. (A takeover attempt by Paramount forced it into an ill-advised merger with Warner Communications.)
Both ABC and Capital Cities came back onto Buffett's radar screen when the chairman of the former retired, and the chairman of the latter, Buffett's good friend Tom Murphy, wanted to acquire the former, a move that had the blessing of the outgoing chairman. On its own, Capital Cities had no chance to acquire ABC, but an over $500 million investment from Berkshire provided the "equity" slice that made the leveraged deal possible. It also had the effect of making Berkshire a nearly 20% shareholder in the combined company, discouraging a takeover. At 16 times earnings, it was not a Graham investment, and had no margin of safety on the balance sheet.
But Tom Murphy reduced the combined companies' debt by over $1 billion (nearly half) within a year, while growing earnings at a mid-teens rate. (The stock grew at nearly 20% a year for a decade, because of multiple expansion, before the company was taken over by Disney.
Buffett's next moves were among the most controversial of his career (and foreshadowed his recent purchases of General Electric and Goldman Sachs preferred). Not finding any cheap common stocks around the run-up to Black Monday (1987), Buffett bought converitble preferred stocks in Champion International, Gillette, Salomon Brothers and US Airways (UAUA) issued specifically to him.
Champion was a mediocre investment and U.S. Air was a money-losing one. Salomon fell onto hard times and had to be personally rescued by Buffett. Gillette was a fundamentally strong company that paid out essentially all of its net worth in a special dividend to avoid a takeover (before Buffett's investment recapitalized it). In this regard, it was much like American Express (AXP) of the 1960s. Buffett returned to American Express in the mid 1990s with a similar $300 million investment in convertible preferred.
During this time, Buffett completed his transformation as a GARP investment by buying Coke (KO). With a mid-teens P/E ratio, this was not a classic Graham and Dodd investment, but the company was selling at "only" 1.25 times the market multiple, a ratio that expanded to 3 times in a decade, tripling the absolute multiple. Earnings more than tripled during this time, making Coke a huge winner for Berkshire.
In recent years, Buffett has added "international" to his repertoire, investing in Guinness (drinks) and Tesco (TSCDY.PK) (retail) of Britain, Posco (PKX), the South Korean steel company, PetroChina and the Brazilian real.


World's Richest Man: The Evolution of Mexico's Carlos Slim


According to Forbes Magazine, Mexico's Carlos Slim Helu has edged out Warren Buffett, and yes, even Bill Gates, to become the richest man in the world. Slim is his father's surname, and Helu is his mother's (maiden name), and thus he is distinguished from his own son, Carlos Slim Domit. So who is this relative unknown from a developing country?
Unlike Buffett and Gates who started from scratch, Slim was more like America's John Paul Getty, someone who inherited a small fortune and made it larger. He was the son and grandson of two prosperous Lebanese-Mexican retailers, who learned his trade well from his ancestors, working in their stores in the capital, Mexico City, then dealing for his own account. He also made money trading in Mexican stocks. By 1965, at the age of 25, he was worth some $40 million (Wikipedia), about the same as the partnership managed by the ten-years older Buffett.
In 1966, he married Soumaya Domit, and shortly after, established a vehicle named Grupo Carso (CARlos SOumaya). One by one, they assembled a "grabbag" of "aspirational" companies for Mexicans; Sears of Mexico, the local arm of the American retailer (SHLD); Grupo Sanborn (and Denny's of Mexico), American-style restaurant chains; Cigatam, the distributor of Philip Morris (PM) cigarettes that eventually put its main competitor, Empresas La Moderna out of business; and Condumex, an auto parts company.
By buying cheap assets that were turned around, Slim created an industrial conglomerate that could grow earnings 15% a year or so for four decades. His signature management style was the very "American" one of reducing layers of bureaucracy to cut costs and speed up decision making. Slim also created Grupo Financiero Imbursa, a source of vendor financiing that was much smaller, but much better run, than larger banks such as Banamex (bought by America's Citibank (C)), and Bancomer (now a subsidiary of Spain's Santander (STD). This was in the manner of Buffett's purchase of Wells Fargo (WFC).
In 1990, along with France Telecom (FTE) and other partners, Slim participated in the "privatization" of Mexico's Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex) (TMX). This was a cheap, and pretty good business in and of itself. Slim eventually became the largest shareholder of the company and its chairman.
But what made the deal really interesting, was that it served as a springboard for cellular and wireless operations. In 2001, Telmex spun off America Movil (AMX), a (Latin) American wireless business that operated not only in Mexico, but also Brazil, Latin America's other large market. The stock skyrocketed more than ten-fold after the spin-off. Slim's nearly one-third stake in this company is worth some $23 billion.
Slim was less successful north of the Rio Grande, and the setbacks he received in the U.S. may have delayed his emergence as the world's richest man. In A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing, we recounted how, in 1999, we started accumulating a position in CompUSA at around $6 a share, only to be taken out by Slim for $10.10, "versus [our] back of the envelope calculation of $15 to $20 a share...But CompUSA proved to be a disappointment for Mr. Slim [who shut it down]. We also went in with Slim on a U.S. office equipment company, Office Max." Slim is also the 6.4% owner of The New York Times, a sometimes struggling newspaper that nevertheless has great "strategic" and prestige value. Finally, as the owner of the Mexican arm of Philip Morris International (PM), it makes sense for him to have a large holding in the parent company.

Emerging market rally continues


Emerging market rally continues

Greek issue contained, macro-economic data looking fairly good: fund manager
  • Bloomberg
  • Published: 00:00 March 13, 2010
  • Gulf News
  • Traders sit at their desks at MICEX (Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange) in Moscow, Russia. The emerging markets gauge is heading for its longest winning streak since May.
  • Image Credit: Bloomberg
London: Stocks rose as commodity companies and banks drove the MSCI Emerging Markets Index to its fifth week of gains. Gold led commodities higher, while the yen weakened.
The emerging-markets gauge rose 0.4 per cent at 10.50am in London, heading for its longest winning streak since May. Futures on the S&P 500 added 0.2 per cent, after the benchmark index for US equities on Thursday hit a 17-month high, while the MSCI World Index climbed 0.6 per cent. The yen fell against 11 of its 16 most-traded counterparts. Gold rose for a second day and nickel climbed for the first time in five days.
Emerging-market and high-yield bond funds each took in more than $1 billion (Dh3.67 billion) in the week to March 10, according to EPFR Global, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based research company. European industrial output rose the most in more than two decades in January, signalling the recovery may be strengthening. Japanese Finance Minister Naoto Kan said intervention is an "option" when "markets move too abruptly".
"This is a continuation of the improvement in risk appetite," said Henrik Degrer, a fund manager at Svenska Handelsbanken in Stockholm, which oversees $36 billion.
"The Greek issue seems to be contained, so now we can shift again to the macro-economic data, which is looking fairly good."
South Africa's Sasol and Cnooc of China climbed, driving the MSCI emerging index higher. The Micex index in Russia, the world's largest energy supplier, advanced 0.9 per cent for the first gain in four days. The rouble strengthened 0.6 per cent against the dollar, heading for its biggest weekly rise this year.
The MSCI World Index of 23 developed nations' stocks rose 0.3 per cent, while the Stoxx Europe 600 Index advanced 0.3 per cent. Volkswagen AG, Europe's biggest carmaker, climbed 2.7 per cent in Frankfurt on speculation that Thursday's announcement of a convertible-bond sale reduces the likelihood of a rights offer.
Nikkei climbes
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index advanced 0.4 per cent as Japan's Nikkei 225 climbed 0.8 per cent. Nissan Motor, which gets about 77 per cent of its revenue outside Japan, increased 2.4 per cent.
US futures gained before a Commerce Department report at 8.30am in Washington that may show retail sales fell in February as blizzards kept Americans away from auto dealers and limited shopping at malls.
Purchases generally dropped 0.2 per cent after rising 0.5 per cent in January, according to the median estimate of 77 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News.
Meanwhile, the yen weakened to 124.18 per euro, from 123.82. The pound strengthened 0.5 per cent to $1.5139 after UK house prices increased in February at the fastest pace in more than seven years.
The Swiss franc strengthened to 1.4589 per euro, from 1.4617 Thursday, even after the central bank said it would act to stem "an excessive appreciation" against the euro.
The Dollar Index declined 0.5 per cent to 79.922, paring its gain for the year to 2.7 per cent.
"The Bank of Japan is sensitive to the dangers of deflation, after the yen appreciated in the current cycle, and is looking at intervention, along with the Swiss National Bank," said Henrik Gullberg, a currency strategist at Deutsche Bank AG in London.
Silver
Silver added 0.7 per cent to $17.295 an ounce. Nickel for delivery in three months advanced 1.6 per cent to $21,625 a metric ton, taking its gain this year to 17 per cent, the most of any of the main metals traded on the London Metal Exchange.
Crude oil rose 0.3 per cent to $82.35 a barrel in New York, before a meeting of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries this week.
The yield on the 10-year Greek bond, the country's new benchmark, fell 1 basis point to 6.34 per cent, while the two-year note yield advanced 10 basis points to 5.12 per cent. The yield premium investors demand to hold the 10-year security over German bunds declined 4 basis points to 311 basis points.
The cost of protecting against a default on Greek government bonds rose, with credit-default swaps climbing 5 basis points to 307, according to CMA DataVision prices.

"Low Sweat Investing": This investor has a clearly defined investing strategy.

Low Sweat Investing picture


Investing is never ‘no sweat’ but how about some 'low sweat' investing? That’s what I call my personal investing approach, which I think can work well for people living on their portfolios (or planning to).

My approach is simple: a diversified portfolio of stocks with dividends that rise to offset inflation, high quality fixed income investments, as well as a few higher yielding diversifiers like REITs and other alternative asset classes. I've been investing this way since the bear market of 2000-2002 and it has served me well in good markets and bad.

I’m an everyday investor living in a California beach town. Before deciding to support myself solely through investing (which is making money) and writing (which is making no money) I worked for a large advertising agency.

I’ve researched and written a number of articles and other posts on Seeking Alpha, mostly about dividend stocks, but also on ETFs, the stock market and the economy. I also reviewed a couple of offbeat books for financial adventure lovers.

The articles (and many of the Instablog posts) include references and links to the important numbers, news, studies, analysts' views, and strategists' outlooks I uncovered in researching the stories. That way, readers who want to know more can check it all out, or just dig deeper into an item or two that interests them most.



http://seekingalpha.com/author/low-sweat-investing

Why Stocks That Raise Dividends Trounce the Market


Why Stocks That Raise Dividends Trounce the Market



There are many different approaches to investing, some of them successful.

But few attain the time-tested success of investing in stocks that consistently raise dividends. And there’s no doubt these stocks have produced astonishing returns, decade after decade.

Unbiased research shows stocks that raise dividends trounce the market, while stocks that simply pay dividends roughly match the market. In what I suppose is an obvious corollary, these stocks historically beat the snot out of stocks that don’t pay dividends, without breaking a sweat between punches. It’s really been easy for them.

OK, let’s run through the research numbers first, then move on to the more interesting discussion of what might be firing them up.

A well-known study by Ned Davis Research shows that from 1972 through April 2009 (the latest data I found) companies with at least five years of dividend growth, and those initiating dividends, punched up average yearly gains of 8.7%, compared with 6.2% for the Standard & Poor's 500.

Companies that maintained steady dividends also gained 6.2% annually, same as the market, but well below what dividend raisers scored.

And non-dividend payers? Lightweights. Beaten down to under a measly 1% a year. Right, under 1% a year for over 36 years. Same story for stocks that cut or eliminated dividends.

In another study, using a different group of stocks, time period and performance measure, AllianceBernstein researched the largest 1500 stocks by market capitalization from 1964 to 1999.

Results? In the year immediately following a dividend increase, dividend raisers’ average total returns were 1.8 percentage points higher than stocks that did not raise dividends.

Compound that over a decade or two of dividend hikes and you can head for the Porsche dealership. (Think I’m kidding? Over 15 years, an extra 1.8 percentage points pops nearly $90K more out of a $285,000 stock portfolio. You don’t have to spend it on a Porsche. But you could.)

Want some more recent numbers, from stocks with decades of dividend increases already under their belt?

Standard and Poor’s research through the end of 2009 shows their Dividend Aristocrats, stocks with at least 25 years of dividend increases, beat the S&P 500 over the trailing 3-years, 5-years, 10-years and 15-years.

And the beating was another knockout, ranging from as ‘little’ as two percentage points annually to as much as nearly five percentage points, depending on the time frame.

So it’s abundantly clear these stocks have better returns. Much better returns.

But why does dividend growth achieve such superb performance? And should investors even care why? After all, more money is more money and that Porsche is still a Porsche.

My opinion? I think there are at least three reasons, and many investors could likely benefit, if they care to look at them.

1.  First, it takes an outstanding business to increase dividends for decades, and outstanding businesses are often outstanding long-term investments. Weak businesses simply can’t and don’t raise dividends for decades.


  • So if it’s true, like I think it is, that dividend increases and higher stock prices are both caused, in part, by strong businesses, then it’s vital to understand and monitor dividend-growth companies’ underlying business strength. 
  • That’s why you see successful investors evaluating these companies’ revenues, earnings, cash flows, debt levels, returns on capital, stock valuations, and so on, rather than just jumping on the dividend.


2.  Second, I think it’s also likely that a series of dividend increases, in and of itself, eventually helps pull a stock price up.


  • After all, if share prices did not follow dividends upward, over time these stocks would end up with monster double-digit yields. 
  • But that doesn’t happen because if a yield gets higher than investors think the good health of the business justifies, they buy more of the stock until the yield reverts back down to a more normal range.


All other things equal, there's simply more buyer demand for Johnson and Johnson (JNJ), McDonald’s (MCD), Procter and Gamble (PG) and other outstanding businesses (name your choice) at 4% yields than at 2% yields, so the stock prices move in response.

Of course, all other things aren't always equal. Stock prices are messy, impacted by companies’ outlooks, the economy, market conditions and so forth. 

  • But over time, yields that grow too high on healthy stocks revert to normal levels through the mechanism of buyers bidding up stock prices.


3.  Finally, in all that market messiness, investors who stick with a dividend growth strategy enjoy a powerful statistical advantage that amplifies their stock picking.


  • This advantage is something statisticians call “baseline probabilities.” 
  • To illustrate, suppose a fisherman can choose either of two nearly identical lakes. But one lake has two big fish and eight little fish in it, while the other has the opposite: eight big fish and two little ones.
  • At any level of skill and experience, the fisherman’s chances of landing big fish are much better at the second lake. That’s the idea of baseline probabilities. 
  • And research studies show there are lots more big fish in the pool of dividend raisers than in the other pools, especially the pool of stocks that don’t pay dividends, filled with so many little fish its average returns approach starvation.


All that said, a dividend-growth strategy isn’t for everyone. (It’s only for people who want to make money … kidding, just kidding!)

For example, skilled traders, technical analysts and investors who’ve simply developed unique expertise in other areas of the market certainly might decide that dividend growth is irrelevant to their investing approach.

As might those who believe corporate America brims with budding Warren Buffetts, all doggedly toiling away at brilliant but so far unrewarded capital allocation programs that make far better use of company cash than dividends would.

And on that note, oddly, some investors seem to delight in arguing that dividend raisers are inferior businesses and, despite the numbers, inferior investments. This, because finance theory says ever-higher dividends waste capital these companies could reinvest back into their business, as non-dividend payers do.

I say “oddly” because the most rudimentary logic tells you that if dividend raisers as a group were capital wasters, and non-payers were capital multipliers, the market wouldn’t reward the raiser-wasters with such monumentally higher returns.




For an in-depth look at the pros and cons of dividends, one that generated a geyser of often coherent comments, check out David Van Knapp’s Seeking Alpha article “Why I Love Dividends.”
And for profiles and analyses of a number of dividend-growth stocks, click thisMore Articles link and take your pick.
Finally, investors who prefer ETFs to stock picking might look at the Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF (VIG). VIG’s total returns and dividend reliability have outperformed both the market and popular, higher yielding dividend-growth ETFs.
References and Links
Kiplinger Magazine“Stocks That Pay Rising Dividends,” August 2009.
AllianceBernstein, “Why Dividends Matter,” November, 10, 2004.
Seeking Alpha“Dividend Aristocrats: A Comprehensive View,” by David I. Templeton, January 22, 2010.
Additional acknowledgements: Thanks to all the Seeking Alpha authors and commenters who posted data and opinions that helped inform this article.