Saturday, 17 December 2011

The essence of value investing

Speculation is where you might willingly pay more for a stock than it’s actually worth, in the hope of passing it on to a ‘greater fool’ at an even higher price.  It is a very dangerous game to play.   It is rather like chain letters and ‘ponzi schemes’: some people will make money along the way, but sooner or later most will find that there isn’t in fact a greater fool after all. 
And because a stock’s intrinsic value will ultimately be realised, the net effect for all investors of buying stocks above their intrinsic value will be a loss, while the net effect for all investors of buying stocks below their intrinsic value will be a gain.






  • 12 Apr 06
The word value comes in for a lot of abuse these days. You’ll often hear that ‘so and so is a value investor’ or that ‘such and such is a value share’, but it’s not always very clear what these things actually mean. For some it’s all about buying shares on low PERs; for others it’s about buying tangible assets for less than their book value; while still others claim that a stock like Cochlear can offer value, despite a PER of 36 and a price to tangible book value of 9.
So what’s the theory that can tie up all these loose ends? 
Old as the hills
The idea of value investing is, in fact, as old as the hills—or at least it’s as old as the people that have lived on their slopes. Take the ancient Yir Yoront people of the Cape York peninsular for example. They desperately needed stone axes for a whole range of daily activities: collecting firewood, making tools, building huts and climbing trees to gather honey (for an idea of how this might work, head along to the woodchop arena at Sydney’s Royal Easter Show). Yet, living as they did on a flat alluvial coastline, they didn’t have the materials or the know-how to make these vital tools.
In fact, the axes were made from a dense basaltic rock found close to what is now Mount Isa. This rock could be chipped easily into shape, but it maintained its sharp edge well, and it was skillfully crafted into axe heads by the Kalkadoon people. But the Kalkadoon lacked the stingray barbs they needed to make their preferred style of spear—which was excellent news for the Yir Yoront who lived and breathed stingray barbs.
So the stingray barbs flowed down a trade route from the north, in exchange for the stone axe heads that flowed along in the other direction. As the items got further from their source, their value increased.
A Yir Yoront would perhaps have given a dozen stingray barbs to secure one axe head, while a Kalkadoon tribesman might have offered a dozen axe heads for one stingray barb. Somewhere between the two, you might have found someone exchanging seven axe heads for five stingray barbs, in the knowledge that he could keep one barb and swap the other four for eight stone axes on the other side of his territory (keeping one and leaving seven to sell).
Value finds its own level
The increase in the price and value of the items as they moved along the trade route was a reflection of the effort needed to get them there. Everyone in the chain added enough labour capital (either producing goods or transporting them) to secure the items that they needed. If someone decided it was worth walking the extra 50 kilometres to get an additional stingray barb in return for his surplus axe heads, then he might do just that. And if someone tried to charge more for his stingray barbs than they were worth in his region, then the trade route would soon find its way around him.
Value, like water, finds its own level. Sooner or later, the true value of something—in terms of what it can do for people—will be recognised. And that’s the essence of value investing: you aim to buy something for less than it’s worth, so that you can keep a portion of that value for yourself when it comes to be realised. Indeed, as our ancient traders showed, value is not so much an investing strategy as the very force that keeps markets ticking along.
But when the items you’re trading have their price quoted minute by minute throughout the working day, something strange seems to happen. People start to care less about the value of the items themselves and become fixated instead on where they think their prices are headed.
At a basic level, that might be a matter of imagining that a stock price seems to be moving in a particular direction and that it might continue that way. At a more complex level, any number of arguments might be advanced to divine a stock’s next movement—maybe ‘interest rate concerns are expected to weigh heavily on housebuilders’ or perhaps ‘continued strong demand from China will maintain positive sentiment towards mining stocks’.
Greater fool
This kind of speculation, where you might willingly pay more for a stock than it’s actually worth, in the hope of passing it on to a ‘greater fool’ at an even higher price, would have struck the Yir Yoront and the Kalkadoon as a very dangerous game to play. It also strikes us as a dangerous game to play. It’s rather like chain letters and ‘ponzi schemes’: some people will make money along the way, but sooner or later most will find that there isn’t in fact a greater fool after all. And because a stock’s intrinsic value will ultimately be realised, the net effect for all investors of buying stocks above their intrinsic value will be a loss, while the net effect for all investors of buying stocks below their intrinsic value will be a gain.
So the aim of value investing is to make sure you buy things for less than they’re worth. That way, you don’t have to rely on an accommodating ‘greater fool’ appearing on cue. Of course, if you’re able to buy something for much less than it’s intrinsically worth, then you might find that you can later sell it to someone else for only a little less than it’s intrinsically worth. And you might then find that you can employ the resulting capital by buying something else again for much less than it’s intrinsically worth.
In this way a skilled value investor can make profits more quickly than by simply waiting for his investments to deliver up their value. But the crucial point is that time is on the value investor’s side: maybe someone will come along next year and make us an offer we can’t refuse for our investments, but maybe they won’t.

Psychology of Investing (articles)

Investing Fundamentals (articles)



Valuation (articles)



How to value stocks and shares


This article shows how you can value any security - if you know how much it will pay, when it will pay it and the return you want to make.



Time value of money
The principle is known as the 'time value of money' and we can flesh it out with an example. We'll assume that all money earns interest at 8% a year and costs the same to borrow. On that basis, if I have $100 now, what will it be worth in 10 years' time?
The answer is: 100 x 1.0810 = $215.89. Now, if someone offered you $215.89 in 10 years' time, how much would you pay them now for it? The answer goes like this. The money you pay now is either money that won't be earning interest for you at 8% a year for the next 10 years, or it's money that you've borrowed and on which you must pay interest at 8% for the next 10 years. Either way, paying out money now costs you 8% a year until you get it back. So, to buy a cash flow of $215.89 in 10 years' time, you'd pay up to $100 because, if you'd kept the $100 (or not borrowed it), you'd have turned it into $215.89 over 10 years (or saved yourself that amount).
So the $215.89 in 10 years' time has a value of $100. If you paid more than that then you'd make a loss; if you paid less, then you'd make a profit; and if you paid a lot less, then you'd make a really good profit. That's value investing.
Why 8%, though? Good question. It was nothing more than a stab in the dark really. People will argue until the cows come home about the right figure to use. Essentially, it should represent the 'opportunity cost of capital'. So you'd come up with a different figure depending on what you might otherwise plan on doing with the money. If you would otherwise have put it into a term deposit paying 5%, you'd use 5%. If you might otherwise have put it to work in an exciting business venture on which you expected to make 15% a year, then you might use that figure (although anticipating a return of more than 10% is pretty optimistic by most standards).
Of course most securities have more than one cash flow to consider, which means that to get the total value you have to work out the value of each individual cash flow and then tot them all up. How much would you pay for a bond that promised to pay $7.50 at the end of each of the next nine years, and then $107.50 at the end of the tenth, assuming you wanted to make 6% a year? Looking at things from the other direction, what would be your annual return if you paid $106.73 for the bond?
Principle always the same
Doing all the sums is beyond the scope of this article (but the answers are $111.04 and 6.56% in case you want to check your working and, if you're hungry for more, take a look at the Investor's College articles of issue 110/Aug 02 and issue 163/Oct 04). But the principle is always the same: all cash flows have a value according to when they are going to be received and the 'opportunity cost' (otherwise known as the 'discount rate') you ascribe to them. To get the value of a set of cash flows, you just tot up the values of the individual components.
When you get a cash flow that repeats every year, forever, something really handy happens: the sum of all the individual cash flows simplifies down to just one cash flow divided by the discount rate. So if you have a security paying 10 cents a year, forever, and you decide you want a return of 8% a year, then the security's value is 10 cents divided by 8%, which is 125 cents.
And the sums even have the decency to remain pretty simple if you assume growing cash flows - at least if you assume that they grow at the same rate each year. In this case, you just divide the first cash flow by the difference between the discount rate and the growth rate (the growth effectively offsets part of the discount rate). So if you have a security paying 10 cents this year, growing forever at 4% per year, and you decide that you want a return of 8% per year, then the security is worth 10 cents divided by 4% (that is, the difference between 8% and 4%), which is 250 cents.
Paradox
So if you're aiming to make 8% a year, then an annual payment of 10 cents growing at 4% a year is worth exactly double the value of a flat 10 cents a year. A payment growing forever at 6% would be worth four times (250 cents) as much and, somewhat paradoxically, a payment growing at 8% or more would be worth an infinite amount.
This curious result is arrived at because you've assumed an opportunity cost below the growth you expect from your investment, even though that investment is itself an opportunity.
Paradoxes aside, this is hopefully beginning to sound rather like companies paying dividends - precisely because it is rather like companies paying dividends. But companies introduce problems because the cash they pay out is neither predictable nor grows steadily. And some companies don't pay out dividends at all.