Process versus outcome
Probably the best discussion that I've seen about this issue comes from Michael Mauboussin's book More Than You Know. Tellingly, it's the very first chapter of the book, and it opens with this quote from Robert Rubin:
Individual decisions can be badly thought through, and yet be successful, or exceedingly well thought through, but be unsuccessful, because the recognized possibility of failure in fact occurs. But over time, more thoughtful decision-making will lead to better overall results, and more thoughtful decision-making can be encouraged by evaluating decisions on how well they were made rather than on outcome.
Mauboussin emphasizes the point, writing:
... investors often make the critical mistake of assuming that good outcomes are the result of a good process and that bad outcomes imply a bad process. In contrast, the best long-term performers in any probabilistic field -- such as investing, sports-team management, and parimutuel betting -- all emphasize process over outcome.
Winning the process game
Mauboussin very clearly lays out what the ideal goal of any investment process should be:
The goal of an investment process is unambiguous: to identify gaps between a company's stock price and its expected value. Expected value, in turn, is the weighted-average value for a distribution of possible outcomes. You calculate it by multiplying the payoff (i.e., stock price) for a given outcome by the probability that the outcome materializes.
What does this mean in practical terms? I often begin my investment research using a screen that identifies stocks with certain attributes. For our purposes here, let's say I'm looking for stocks that are currently out of favor with investors, so I set a screen looking for any stock that has declined by 20% or more over the past year and is currently trading at less than its tangible book value. Here are a few of the companies that pop up:
Company | Year-Over-Year Price Change | Price-to-Tangible Book Value |
|---|---|---|
| Banner Corp (Nasdaq: BANR) | (23.7%) | 0.6 |
| K-SEA Transportation Partners(NYSE: KSP) | (61.4%) | 0.4 |
| Oilsands Quest (NYSE: BQI) | (59.0%) | 0.4 |
| Hercules Offshore (Nasdaq:HERO) | (38.1%) | 0.4 |
| American National Insurance(Nasdaq: ANAT) | (26.5%) | 0.6 |
Source: Capital IQ, a Standard & Poor's company.
To follow good process in evaluating these stocks, I'd first try to identify possible outcomes for them, and what those outcomes would mean for the stock price.
- Washington-state-based Banner, for instance, traded at more than twice its tangible book value prior to the financial crisis, so we could probably envision a case where shares recover to three or four times their current value.
- American National Insurance, meanwhile, has had cyclical valuation swings that have typically put its tangible book value multiple in a range of 0.5 to just above 1.0. In a scenario where toxic assets don't eat away at the balance sheet and investment returns start to increase, investors could see real upside here, too.
- Of course, we also need to consider negative outcomes, as well. For example, investors would want to note that Oilsands Quest has never reported an annual profit. There may be a huge upside if the company finds a way to profitability, but its assets may not be worth all that much if it can only produce losses.
- Similarly, driller Hercules Offshore has been trying to find its footing again, but the need for a balance-sheet-strengthening capital raise may impact the value of currently outstanding shares.
Once you have a list of the potential outcomes for the stock in question, you can then weigh the potential for each of those outcomes to come to fruition, and end up with a good sense of whether the stock is a worthwhile investment.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/01/11/this-is-more-important-than-investment-profits.aspx
