Labels

Monday, May 05, 2014

Warren Buffett on the impact driverless and safer cars will have on the insurance business:

“If they really work well then they are good socially. But sure, they could reduce the cost of insurance. Anything that improves, reduces accident rates, reduces death rates will reduce the cost of insurance. That’s basically a good thing for society. Overall the world would be better off if we didn’t have any car accidents.”

Warren Buffett on whether he would prefer investing in Blackberry or Bitcoin:

“I’d probably short them both.”

If a business earns 6% on capital over forty years, you’re not going to make much different than 6% return, even if you buy it at a huge discount. Conversely, if a business earns 18% on capital, you’ll end up with one hell of a return long term, even if you pay an expensive looking price."
-- Charlie Munger

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

On Lisbeth Salander


Abused as a child and wrongfully institutionalized, Salander engages in dysfunctional, even autistic, behavior that might just reflect an understandable skepticism about human goodness and potential. She exists off the grid, really — having as little to do with people and institutions as possible and following an avenging ethical code of her own devising...<snip> She can hack into anything.
Salander obviously owes something to Pippi Longstocking, the strong-willed character of Astrid Lindgren’s children’s books. But there is also something of Larsson himself in the character <snip>. They shared a diet consisting almost entirely of coffee and fast food, fanatical research habits and a single-minded, steadfast sense of justice and fairness.

Friday, April 25, 2014

My favorite quotes from Howard Marks book (some paraphrasing):

* Pg 16
In the end, I've come to an interesting resolution: Efficiency is not so universal that we should give up on superior performance. Efficiency should be presume to be true until someone proves otherwise.
Respect for efficiency says we should ask some questions before we embark on a course of action:
   -Why should a bargain exist despite the presence of thousands of investors who stand ready and willing to bid up the price of anything that's too cheap?
-If the return appears so generous in proportion to the risk, might you be overlooking some hidden risk?
-Why would the seller be willing to part with it at a price from which it will give you an excessive return?
-Do you really know more about the asset than the seller does?
-Why aren't others snapping it up?

*Pg 26
Like participants in any field requiring the application of skill under challenging circumstances, superior investor's batting averages will be well below 1.000 and marked by errors and slumps. Judgements that prove correct don't necessarily do so promptly, so even the best investors look wrong a lot of the time. "Being too far ahead of your time is indistinguishable from being wrong"

*Pg 27
Investors with no knowledge of (or concern for) profits, dividends, valuation or the conduct of business simply cannot possess the resolve needed to do the right thing at the right time.

*Pg 30
Hopefully, if I offered to sell you my car, you'd ask the price before saying yes or no. Deciding on an investment without carefully considering the fairness of its price is just as silly.

*Pg 31
At Oaktree we say, "Well bought is half sold". If your estimate of intrinsic value is correct, over time as asset's price should converge with its value.
What are the companies worth? Eventually this is what it comes down to. Its not enough to buy a share in a good idea. You must buy it at a reasonable (or, hopefully a bargain) price.

*pg 32
Most nonprofessionals know little about technicals. These are nonfundamental factors that affect supply and demand for securities. e.g. Levered investors receive margin calls and the inflows of cash into mutual funds that require portfolio managers to buy. (Mine: adding and dropping to indexes/ETFs, year end tax selling). People are forced to enter into securities transactions without much regard for price.

*Pg 32
Whereas the key to ascertaining value is skilled financial analysis, the key to understanding the price/value relationship lies largely in insight into other investors' minds. Investor psychology can cause a security to be priced just about anywhere in the short run regardless of its fundamentals.

*Pg 33
The discipline that is most important is not accounting or economics, but psychology.
The key is who likes this investment now and who doesn't. Future price changes will be determined by whether it comes to be liked by more people or fewer people in the future.
Investing is a popularity contest, and the most dangerous thing is to buy something at the peak of its popularity.

The safest and most potentially profitable thing is to buy something when no one likes it. Given time, its popularity, and thus its price can only go one way: up.

*Pg 38
Buying cheap is clearly the most reliable. Even that however, isn't sure to work. You can be wrong about the current value. Or events can come along that reduce value.
Trying to buy below value isn't infallible, but its the best chance we have.

*Pg 39
Investing consists of exactly one thing: dealing with the future. And because none of us can know the future with certainty, risk is inescapable.

*Pg 47
First, risk of loss does not necessarily stem from weak fundamentals. A fundamentally weak asset - a less than stellar company's stock, a speculative-grade bond or a building in the wrong part of town can make for a very successful investment if bought at a low-enough price.

*pg. 52
Understanding uncertainty: We mustn't think of the future in terms of a single result but rather as as a range of possibilities. We must think of the full range, not just the ones that are most likely to materialise.

*pg. 53
Now that investing has become so reliant on higher math, we have to be on the lookout for occasions when people wrongly apply simplifying assumptions to a complex world. Quantification often leads excessive authority to statements that should be taken with a grain of salt. 

*pg. 54
A portfolio can be set up to withstand 99 percent of all scenarios but succumb because its the remaining 1 percent that materialises. Based on the outcome, it may seem to have been risky, whereas the investor might have been quite cautious.

*pg. 55
Investment risk is largely invisible before the fact.
We hear a lot about the worst case projections, but they often turn out not to have been negative enough. I tell my father's story of the gambler who lost regularly. One day he heard about a race with just one horse in it, so he bet his rent money. Halfway around the track, the horse jumped over the fence and ran away.
Invariably things can get worse than people expect.

*pg. 58
High risk primarily comes from high prices.

*pg. 59
When investors are unworried and risk-tolerant, they buy stocks at high price/earnings ratios and private companies at high multiples of EBITDA(cash flow), and they pile into bonds despite narrow yield spreads and into real estate at minimal "cap rates" (the ratio of net operating income to price)
There are few things as risky as the widespread belief that there's no risk.
The riskiest things: A few times in my career, I've seen the rise of a belief that risk has been banished, cycles won't occur any longer, or the laws of economics have been suspended. The experienced, risk-conscious investor takes this as a sign of great danger.

* pg. 64
Market line:
 In increasing order of risk:
Money market 4%
5 yr. treasuries 5%
10 yr. treasuries 6%
High grade bonds 8%
S&P stocks 10%
High yield bonds 12%
Small stocks 13%
Real estate 15%
buyouts 25%
Venture capital 30%

A big problem for investment returns today stems from the starting point Fr. this process: The risk-less rate isn't 4%, its closer to 1%

*pg. 66
Where do we stand in mid-2007 ? I see low levels of skepticism, fear and risk-aversion. The promised returns from traditional safe investments seem so meagre. I see few assets that people are eager to get rid of, and few forced sellers; instead most assets are strongly bid for. Trust has replaced skepticism, and eagerness has replaced reticence.

*pg. 72
Risk is covert, invisible. Loss generally happens only when risk collides with negative events.
Homes in California may or may not have construction flaws that would make them collapse during earthquakes. We find out only when earthquakes occur.

Risk is the potential for loss when things go wrong.

*pg. 75
Since usually there are more good years than bad years, and since it takes bad years for the value of risk control to become evident in reduced losses, the cost of risk control - in the form of return foregone- can seem excessive. Controlling risk in your portfolio is a very important and worthwhile pursuit.

Bearing risk unknowingly can be a huge mistake, but its what those who buy the securities that are all the rage and most highly esteemed at a particular point in time-to which "nothing bad can possibly happen"-repeatedly do. On the other hand, the intelligent acceptance of recognised risk for profit underlies some of the wisest, most profitable investments-even though most investors dismiss them as dangerous speculations.

*pg. 76
What does it mean to bear risk intelligently for profit? LEts take an example of life insurance. How do they insure people when they know they're *All* going to die?
-Its risk they're aware of. They know everyone is going to die, they factor this reality into their approach.
-Its risk they can analyse - they have doctors assess applicant health.
-Its risk they can diversify. By ensuring a mix of policyholders by age, gender, occupation and location, they make sure they're not exposed to freak occurrences and widespread losses.
-And its risk they're well-paid to bear. They set premiums so they'll make a profit if the policyholders die according to the actuarial tables on average. If they can sell a policy to someone likely to die at age eighty at a premium that assumes he would die at seventy, they'' be better protected against risk and positioned for exceptional profits if things go as expected

We do exactly the same thing at Oaktree. We try to be aware of the risks, which is essential given how much of our work involves assets that some simplistically call "risky". We employ highly skilled professionals capable of analysing investments and assessing risk. We diversify our portfolios appropriately. 

*pg. 77
As Nassim Taleb wrote in "Fooled by Randomness"
"Reality is far more vicious than Russian roulette. First, it delivers the fatal bullet rather infrequently, like a revolver that would have hundreds of chambers instead of six. After a few dozen tries, one forgets about the existence of a bullet…

*pg. 78
You can't run a business on the basis of worst-case assumptions. You wouldn't be able to do anything.

*pg. 79
Risk control is the best route to loss avoidance. Risk avoidance, on the other hand, is likely to lead to return avoidance as well.

*pg. 80
The road to long-term investment success runs through risk control more than through aggressiveness. Over a full career, most investors results will be determined more by how many losers they have, and how bad they are, than by the greatness of their winners.

*pg. 81
In investing, as in life, there are very few sure things. Values can evaporate, estimates can be wrong, circumstances can change and "sure things" can fail. However there are two things we can hold to with confidence:
- Rule number 1 - Most things will prove cyclical
-Rule number 2 - Some of the greatest opportunities for gain or loss come when other people forget rule number 1

*pg. 83
The longer I'm involved in investing, the more impressed I am by the power of the credit cycle.
The process is simple:
-The economy moves into a period of prosperity.
-Providers of capital thrive, increasing their capital base
-Because bad news is scarce, the risks entailed in lending and investing seem to have shrunk.
-Risk averseness disappears.
-Financial institutions move to expand their businesses- i.e. to provide more capital.
-They compete for market share by lowering demanded returns (e.g. cutting interest rates), lowering credit standards, providing more capital for a given transaction and easing covenants.

As the Economist said" The worst loans are made in the  best of times"

This leads to capital destruction - that is, to investment of capital in projects where the cost of capital exceeds the return on capital, and eventually to cases where there is no return of capital.


*pg. 84

When the above point is reached, the cycle is reversed -
-Losses cause lenders to become discouraged and shy away.
-risk averseness rises, and along with it, interest rates, credit restrictions and covenant requirements.
-Less capital is made available.
-companies become starved of capital. Borrowers are unable to roll over their debts, leading to defaults and 
Look around the next time there's a crisis: you'll probably find a lender. Over-permissive providers of capital frequently aid and abet financial bubbles. There have been numerous examples where loose credit contributed to booms that were followed by famous collapses: real estate in 1989-92, emerging markets in 1994-98, LTCM in 1998, venture capital funds and telecom companies in 1999-2001.
In each case, lenders and investors provided too much cheap money and the result was over expansion and dramatic losses.


*Pg 87
In the end, few things go to zero and trees don't grow to the sky. Rather, most phenomena turn out to be cyclical. 

*pg. 88
The first time rookie investors see this (cyclical) phenomenon occur, its understandable that they might accept that's never happened before-the cessation of cycles-could happen. But the second time or the third time, those investors, now experienced, should realise its never going to happen, and turn that realisation to their advantage.

*pg. 96
(on the oscillation of the investor pendulum)
The swing back from the extreme is usually more rapid- and thus takes much less time-than the swing to the extreme. (Or as my partner Sheldon Stone likes to say, "The air goes out of the balloon much faster than it went in".

*pg. 102-103
The best returns bring the greatest ego rewards. When things go right, its fun to feel smart and have others agree.
The tendency to compare returns is the most invidious.  Investing-especially poor investing-is a world full of ego. Ego can make investors behave aggressively just to stand out through the achievement of lofty results. 

In contrast, thoughtful investors can toil in obscurity, achieving solid gains in the good years and losing less than others in the bad. They avoid sharing in the riskiest behaviour because they're aware of how much they don't know and because they have their egos in check. This, in my opinion, is the greatest formula for long-term wealth creation-but it doesn't provide much ego gratification in the short run. Its just not that glamorous to follow a path that emphasises humility, prudence and risk control. 

*pg. 107
All bubbles start with a modicum of truth. 
Of course the entire furore over technology, e-commerce and telecom stocks stems from the companies' potential to change the world. I have absolutely no doubt that these movements are revolutionising life as we know it, or that it they will leave the world almost unrecognisable from what it was only a few years ago. The challenge lies in figuring out who the winners will be, and what a piece of them is really worth today… jan 3, 2000

*pg. 120
Certain common threads run through the best investments I've witnessed. They're usually contrarian, challenging and uncomfortable. 
Its our job as contrarians to catch falling knives, hopefully with care and skill. That's why the concept of intrinsic value is so important. 

*pg. 122-23
Finding bargains -
The first step is usually to make sure that the things being considered satisfy some absolute standards.
Examples include the risk of obsolescence is a fast moving segment of the technology world, the risk a hot consumer product will lose its popularity, or the industries are too unpredictable or their financial statements are not sufficiently transparent.

*pg. 125
What makes something sell cheaper than it should ?
-An asset class may have weaknesses, a company may be a laggard in the industry, a balance sheet may be over-levered
-The orphan asset is ignored or scorned. To the extent its mentioned in the media and at cocktail parties, its in unflattering terms.
-A bargain asset tends to be one that's highly unpopular, capital stays away from it or flees and no one can think of a reason to own it.

*pg. 186
I think of the sources of error as being primarily analytical/intellectual or psychological/emotional. The former are straightforward: we collect too little information or incorrect information. Or perhaps we apply the wrong analytical processes, make errors in our computations or omit ones we should have performed. 

*pg. 192
What we learn from a crisis - or ought to:
When there's too much capital chasing too few ideas, investments will be made that do not deserve to be made. 
When capital is in oversupply, investors compete for deals by accepting low returns and a slender margin for error. 
Bidding more for something is the same as saying you'll take less for your money. The higher bids for investments can be viewed as a statement of how little return investors demand.

*pg. 194
!!!!!!!!!!!!
Leverage magnifies outcomes but doesn't add value. 
It can make great sense to use leverage to increase investment in assets at bargain prices offering a high promised return or generous risk premiums. But it can be dangerous to use leverage to buy more assets that offer low returns or narrow risk spreads - in other words, assets that are fully priced or overpriced. It makes little sense to use leverage to turn inadequate gains into adequate returns.

-Be alert to what's going on around you with regard to the supply/demand balance for investable funds and the eagerness to spend them. Oversupply of capital can be dangerous for your investing health and must be recognised and dealt with. . Too much money chasing too few ideas and the accompanying dearth of prudence is worth noting.

Leading up to the 2008 crisis, what could investors have done?
-take note of the carefree, incautious behaviour of others
-preparing psychologically for a downturn
-selling assets, or at least the more risk-prone ones
-reducing leverage
-raising cash
-tilting the portfolio toward increased defensiveness.

pg. 197:

Since countercyclical behaviour was the essential element in avoiding the full effect of the recent crisis, behaving pro-cyclically presented the greatest potential pitfall. Investors who maintained their bullish positions as the market rose (or added to them), were least prepared for the bust and the subsequent recovery.

While its true that you can't spend relative outperformance, human nature causes defensive investors and their less traumatised clients to derive comfort in down markets when they lose less than others.
This has two very important effects. First, it enables them to maintain their equanimity and resist the psychological pressures that make people sell at lows. Second, being in a better frame of mind and better financial condition, they are more able to profit from the carnage by buying at lows. Thus, they generally do better in recoveries.

*pg. 198
One way to improve investment results at Oaktree is to thing about what "today's mistake" might be and try to avoid it.

*pg. 200
When there's nothing particularly clever to do, the potential pitfall lies in insisting on being clever.

*pg. 202

Equity investors can just emulate an index. Their performance will be the same as that of the index.

Active investors may take different approaches to deviate from the index. They may overweight stocks that fluctuate more than the market or utilise leverage. They may exploit their stock-picking ability, buying more of some of the stocks in the index and underweighting or excluding others, or adding stocks that are not part of the index. They alter their exposure from the market's to specific events that occur at specific companies. As the composition diverges from the index, their return will deviate as well. 
In the long run, unless the investor has superior insight, these deviations will cancel out, and their risk adjusted performance will converge with that of the index.

Active investors who don't possess the superior insight are no better than passive investors. They can try hard, put their emphasis on offence or defence, or trade up a storm, but their return may not be better than an index.. (And it could be worse due to risks borne and transaction costs that are unavailing)

*pg. 206
Without skill, aggressive investors move a lot in both directions, and defensive investors move little in either direction. These investors contribute nothing beyond their choice of style.

*pg. 207
Here's how I describe Oaktree's performance aspirations.:
In good years in the market, its good enough to be average. Everyone makes money in the good years, and I have yet to hear anyone explain convincingly why its important to beat the market when the market does well. No, in the good years average is good enough.

There is a time however when we consider it essential to beat the market, and that's in the bad years.
Thus, its our goal to do as well as the market in the good years and better than the market when it does poorly. At first blush that may sound like a modest goal, but its really quite ambitious.

If we're consistently able to decline less when the market declines and also participate fully when the market rises, this can be attributable to only one thing: alpha, or skill.

*pg. 210
Higher returns are "unnatural".
Their achievement requires some combination of the following:
-an extremely depressed environment in which to buy   (doesn't come along everyday)
-extraordinary investment skill  (rare)
-extensive risk-bearing (can work against if things go amiss)
-heavy leverage (can magnify losses)
-good luck (uncertain)

Thus, investors should pursue such returns only if they believe some of these elements are present.
Skill is the least ephemeral but its rare (and even skill can't be counted upon to produce high returns in a low-return environment)

*pg. 212
"The perfect is the enemy of the good" - Voltaire. This is especially applicable to investing, where insisting on participating only when conditions are perfect, can make you miss out on a lot. Perfection in investing is generally unattainable, the best we can hope for is to make a lot of good investments and exclude most of the bad ones.
We give up on trying to attain perfection or ascertain when the bottom has been reached. Rather, if we think something is cheap, we buy. 
One of our six tenets of our investment philosophy calls for "disavowal of market timing". Ye we expend a lot of energy to diagnose the market environment. But if we find something cheap, we won't say that it will be cheaper in six months, so we'll wait. Its just not realistic to expect to be able to buy at the bottom.

*pg.215
The best foundation for a successful investment career - is value. You must have a good idea of what the thing you're considering buying is worth. There are many components to this. To oversimplify, there's cash on the books and the value of tangible assets; the ability of the company or asset to generate cash; and the potential for these things to increase.

*pg. 217
Reason must overcome emotion.
If we avoid the losers, the winners will take care of themselves.
The defensive investor places a heavy emphasis on not doing the wrong thing.

*pg. 220
We don't know what lies ahead in terms of the macros future. Few people know more than the consensus about what's going to happen to the economy, interest rates and market aggregates. Thus, the investor's time is better spent trying to gain a knowledge advantage regarding the "knowable" : industries, companies and securities. The more micro your focus, the greater the likelihood you can learn things that others' don't.

*pg. 221
Many investors assume the world runs on orderly processes that can be mastered and predicted. They ignore the randomness of things and the probability distribution that underlies future developments.



Arthur Levitt:
Compare cash on hand to debt and liabilities. If too far apart, prob best to stay away,

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

“Markets crash all the time. You should, at minimum, expect stocks to fall at least 10% once a year, 20% once every few years, 30% or more once or twice a decade, and 50% or more once or twice during your lifetime. Those who don’t understand this will eventually learn it the hard way.”

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

I cooudn't have said it better, by Ellen Vrana on Quora (http://www.quora.com/How-do-you-develop-confidence-when-you-have-nothing-to-be-confident-about/answer/Ellen-Vrana)

In my personal experience, integrity has been the main driver of real confidence. Integrity embodies compassion, generosity of spirit, honesty, reciprocal actions.  It means treating people kindly, helping others, thinking about the world around you.

You can put yourself through almost anything as long as at the end of the day, you can say: I did the right thing and in so doing, I did right by others. 

This is how you start to get confidence in yourself, practice integrity.

It doesn’t mean you won’t have self-doubt, or that you won’t fail, or that others won’t disagree.  It will take a while to get there. But you will get through it if you believe in your integrity, and thus yourself. 

If you have nothing else, have that.  If you do, you’re already better than most.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Howard Marks @Wharton interview excerpt

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/investor-howard-marks-luck-risks-job-got-away/

“it shouldn’t take you too long to figure out that success in investing is not a function of what you buy. It’s a function of what you pay.” An asset of high quality, Marks pointed out, can be overpriced and be a bad investment; an asset of low quality can be bought cheaply and be a good investment.
“Our return over the past 25 years has been 23% a year. And 95% of our outcomes are positive,” he noted, adding that Oaktree has raised about 50 funds over the same period and never had one that lost money. “It’s not a crapshoot like — if you’ll pardon the expression — venture capital, where you invest in 10 companies but if one of them turns out to be Google, you’re a success.”
Referencing a book by famed investment advisor Charles Ellis called Winning the Loser’s Game: Timeless Strategies for Successful Investing, Marks said he doesn’t play “winner’s” tennis — he plays “not-loser’s” tennis. “If you think you can see the future and the world is going to go according to your decisions, go for winner’s tennis. But if you think the world is full of randomness and uncertainty, spend your time trying to avoid losers.” The Oaktree model is based on the latter, Marks noted: If we avoid the losers, the winners will take care of themselves. “If we can make a large portfolio of investments where none of them [strike out], then we’ll have … no bad ones to pull down the average.”
Another metaphor for successful investing which Marks is fond of citing is based on his many years in California. He compared an investment portfolio to a house located in an earthquake zone. “The house might have a structural flaw. And you might live in that house for 30 years and it doesn’t fall down. But that doesn’t prove it doesn’t have a flaw — it only means it wasn’t tested.” Marks said that the important question about a portfolio is not if it made money when the market went up, but if it would have stayed intact if the market went down: “Has the investment professional been prudent, farsighted and versatile enough to include risk controls at the same time as upside potential?”


An audience member asked Marks what he thought about new currencies like Bitcoin. Marks said that Bitcoin did not constitute dependable, safe, consistent investing. He likened it to investments such as gold, oil, paintings, jewelry or Internet start-ups with no revenue to show, saying that these things have no intrinsic value — only the value people give them. Stocks, on the other hand, have intrinsic value. “If a company produces a $2 dividend, and it’s highly likely to be able to do that for the next 20 years, you’re not going to sell that stock for $2 because you could double your money every year. You can base your decision on intrinsic value.”
 “Do things you like to do,” Marks told the audience. “It’s OK to take a drudge job and work in an investment bank 20 hours a day for a couple of years if it will advance you up that career path, but don’t do it for 30 years. This is the only life you get.”

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Baby words:

-Peatot (teapot)
-Milkaphone
-Pento (tomato)
-Hoovay (hooray)
-woof (dog)
-Brush your teeth
-Chup chup chupity cow
-ambana  banana nana
- ba
-aaji
-mapa master
-stawbery
-fockie squirrel
-stawbey
-jaam and jaam (round and round)
-booka  (book)
-baby brush your teeth
-wash your face
-wash your hands
-I (ice)baby fail down (fell down)
-baby sitting on capet (carpet)
-baby sitting in mama chair (lap)
-share (chair)
-mama car
-dutterfly (butterfly)
-bluebaby blueberry
-raspbaby
-maana - marian
-schweep  sleep
-fower flower
-blue and pink pincess princess
-tata teddy
-fun phone
-commuter computer
-so many animals
-amials , aminals - animals

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

http://time.com/jonathan-ive-apple-interview/
The simple truth is, Ive hates fuss and relishes simplicity.

But what we’ve shown is that people do care. It’s not just about aesthetics. They care about things that are thoughtfully conceived and well made. We make and sell a very, very large number of (hopefully) beautiful, well-made things. our success is a victory for purity, integrity — for giving a damn.”

They are responding to something rare — a group of people who do more than simply make something work, they make the very best products they possibly can. It’s a demonstration against thoughtlessness and carelessness

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Listening to Robert Shiller's Coursera lectures on Financial Markets. Loved the following in Lecture 2:
Adam Smith wrote 2 books. The first one is called "The Theory of Moral Sentiments". In it, he says most people thrive on praise. That's what they need more than anything. However, the mature ones then graduate to wanting to be praiseworthy rather than just to be praised. It doesn't matter to them whether they are recognized and given praise as long as they feel that their actions are praiseworthy. Society and nations benefit when they seek out such people and give them positions of authority. Most normal mature adults make a transition from the desire of praise to a desire of praiseworthiness. He says its that tendency ultimately which makes an economy work, where people don't care just about praise. The successful society promote people up those who have the praiseworthiness desire, we try to recognize them and we try to put people of character into important positions

Saturday, February 15, 2014


I agree on article's premise of amorality of universities and culture being a private occupation.

From:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579374740405172228?mod=djemITP_h

The question, in other words, isn't whether society will benefit from its educated population having a substantive familiarity with Jane Austen's novels or the Peloponnesian War but whether universities in their present state—philosophically amoral, awash with bogus and ever-multiplying subdisciplines—can be trusted to meet that goal....

... Professors of the humanities are so determined to defend their positions as the guardians of their turf (what I'm calling "turf" used to be called a canon) that they forget they are its servants...

...As the possessor of an expensive doctoral degree in English from an ancient university, I admit with regret my suspicion that, even taking into account Ms. Small's analysis, the "humanities" have only a very limited place in a modern higher-education curriculum. For those wishing to "read shrewdly and write well" or to attain "more complexly valuable" experiences, there are museums and opera houses. And of course books.




"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

"Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT. Stand with him while he is right and PART with him when he goes wrong."
-Lincoln

Thursday, February 06, 2014

If a business earns 6% on capital over forty years, you’re not going to make much different than 6% return, even if you buy it at a huge discount. Conversely, if a business earns 18% on capital, you’ll end up with one hell of a return long term, even if you pay an expensive looking price."
-- Charlie Munger


Tuesday, January 21, 2014

“ Have as much good nature as good sense since they generally are companions. ”
— William Wycherly

Friday, January 10, 2014

My favorite excerpts from "Value Investing with the Masters" by Kirk Kazanjian



1) Dreman: We'll only raise cash in a market that's in free-fall. We don't run away from bear markets or volatility. We love it. These periods allow us to get 15, 20 or 30% growers at much lower prices.

2) Eveillard: Intrinsic value is what we think we would pay, expecting a reasonable return, if we were to buy the entire company. One of the reasons Buffett is such a genius is that he has figured out that there are only a tiny number of companies that you can have reasonable confidence will be as successful 10 years from now as they are today.

3) Fries: Numbers to determine basic value: Reference to historical levels of price-to-book and balance sheet strength are important. Earnings power potential and the PE using normalized earnings are important as well. Banks, financial services and insurance companies tend to have P/B as very useful. Each company is a unique situation. e.g. Utilities sell at low multiples always due to being regulated so rate of growth and return as not particularly high.

Of 10 ideas, I'd like to think six work out. If you're better than half on average, you're doing well. A lot of success came from owning stocks that didn't sell off too much.
We aim to sell in 12-18 months.

4) Gilligan : The best investments you can make are in growth companies that are being overly penalized by the market for a short-term problem. Its not a matter of buying dogs, but rather buying good companies that have fallen out of favor. That's where the huge opportunities lie. In the purely cyclical companies, its more of a trading game. But if you can find growth, your holding period may get extended dramatically.

For a cyclical company with normal margins, less than 1X EV/Sales may interest us.
However for good ROIC 20-30% companies, may pay even 3 times EV/Sales.

We really pay attention to the ROIC and net margin numbers over time and compare to competitors to know what realistic profitability numbers should be.
In many cyclical companies, we try estimate a normalized earnings level.We predict what sales should be, and then put a margin that the company has been able to generate over time.For many companies, history is a valid guide. For years, you could put an eight times multiple on peak earnings for any cyclical company to determine the price target, and it almost always worked. PE ratios are important, but only using normalized earnings.

Ideal company: My best company grows somewhere between 8-15% (both top and bottom line).Over 15% attracts growth people and they bid up too high. In addition, ROIC should exceed cost of capital. AN ROIC atleast in the teens. It generates free cash flow, spends no more than depreciation on capital spending, fairly clean balance sheet. If you can buy a company like this at a discount to the market (EV/FCF), it could be a good opportunity.

Annual reports: You want to focus on change year over year in the annual reports, trends in margins, SG&A, R&D, tax rate and shares outstanding.
On the balance sheet, look at receivables, days of sales outstanding, inventory turns, and any outsized growth in assets or liabilities.
You want to see that cash is coming in and that its growing atleast on par with income. If you find that income growth is heavier than the growth in cash flow, something is going on.

Over a long period of time, concentrated portflios should work as long as you're disciplined. However, on any given day, you can take enormous hits. If your investors are patient and understansing, thats fine. But I don't know too many of those.

We find that when you pick a stock that works, you often grossly underestimate how well it will do.

5) James Gipson: One thing that was particularly memorable is how we played the loser's game to avoid buying overvalued assets. In 1981, oil stocks were hot. We avoided oil stocks entirely.

There is large virtue to being a rational, disciplined buyer. In 1999 and early 2000 it was very difficult to remain patient. Easy to preach, difficult to practice.

Periods of superior returns come in unpredictable lumps. Its normally when you get impatient that you get into trouble.

From a psychological standpoint, many people have "avoiding criticism" as their major goal. One way to avoid criticism is to do what everyone else is doing. The real essence of what you're asking comes down to character. Do you have the patience to persist in doing what you believe is the rational thing, even though you're not being rewarded for it?

Be rational and value-oriented. Avoid buying stocks you don't really understand.

a) Easy to understand (how it works and prospects) b) good businesses c) sell at a sizable discount to what a rational private buyer would pay to be a partner in the business.

A good business has a competitive advantage, generates superior returns on capital or on equity, and generates cash apart from accounting earnings.
Different measures for different industries. P/B useful for insurance, useless for a media company. Atleast a 30% discount.

Mathematically, you get about 95% of the maximum theoretical benefits of diversification with just 13 stocks.

Before buying any stock, ask how much you can lose by owning it. If the answer is more than you can stomach, its a good sign the investment is not right for you.

John Goode: 1st leg is inflection points. 2nd leg is : Screen to identify companies with good long-term prospects such as ROIC versus cost of capital, free cash-flow generation. Identify a population of companies that represent good business franchises. May not be attractively valued today but we want to know businesses that consistently earn a premium to their cost of capitsl. When cisrcumstances cause the shares of these companies to reach levels we believe are attractive, we are prepared to move.

3rd leg is to analyze fundamentals in the 11 S&P sectors. understand prospects that can't be determined by looking just at income statements or balance sheets. 4th leg is technical: insider buying, selling, percentage difference between price and 90 day moving average. At extremes, it suggests that our fundamental research efforts should be increased to determine whether a particular stock should be bought or sold.

What you're really trying to do is to find something cheap relative to its future prospects.

We are usually willing to hold a stock for 6-9 months unless we get information that says we've made a mistake. For best results, we have found you need to be in a stock for 18-36 months because it takes that long for low expectations to become modest expectations.

Bill Miller:
Our ideas come from new-low lists, we screen a lot and look at anything that is statistically cheap. Spectacular blowups like Waste Management in 1999. Many times terrific companies with strong competitive advantages will not make it into our portfolio because they never hit our valuation metrics. We've missed many great companies like Microsoft.

Dell in 1996 was growing at 25-30% a year earning 30% on invested capital and trading at 5 times earnings. They had a superior business model, and excellent competitive advantages.
Our models are updated every quarter as we get more fundamental data. We're always trying to figure out the underlying business value.
You can value any asset using financial theory. The PV of future cash flows essentially. The value of a business is independent of how it is financed. But how it is financed determines who has access to that value. If a company is worth 1B and there is 1B debt, the equity holders don't have an asset worth anything. In case of Exodus, the debt is trading at 15c/dollar after default. The current value of senior debt is 300M and we value teh company at 1B so we think we'll make several times our money.

Value investors tend to overlook a lot of great ideas. e.g. MSFT and CSCO were great values in 1991. Even after its severe correction, CSCO is still valued at 120B, and it was valued at 1B 10 years ago.
There are a lot of companies that are great values that we miss. In the 1970s, walmart traded at 24 times earnings. Had one bought it and held on, one would have creamed the market. Difficult.

Ronald Muhlenkamp:

P/B and ROE are useful but you have to adjust for inflation and interest rates. Even Graham adjusted his values in 1974. I still use the Graham format but adjust for inflation and interest rates.
The key is "what return you can get versus your cost of capital".

I would argue that if inflation is less than 1%, interest rates are 4.5%, and the ROE is high enough to sustain a high growth rate, PEs should be 2.5 times the growth rate. On the flip side, I've never seen a reasoned argument as to why PEs shoudl be higher than 2.5 times the growth rate.

if you have a high return on shareholder equity and you sustain it, chances are you're doing a pretty good job as a company. We then look to buy those companies at resonable prices. The price we're willing to pay changes as inflation and interest rates change. In 1980s, we wanted PE below half of ROE, today we want PE less than ROE.

The usual way is to page through Value Line. First screen for good ROE.You then look for reaosnably priced. You follow that with research to find of ROE is sustainable. You want to make sure its not just a blip, and that its a business you want to be part of.

When the numbers look good, we typically call the company and ask 3 favorite questions:
1) Are there analysts on Wall street who do a good job on your company? Thats saves us time.
2) What criteria do you use to judge your own performance? All are valid, we just want to talk and measure in their terms.
3) At what point do your people start earning a bonus ? If bonuses kick in at 15% ROE Iam interested. If they kick in at 10% ROE Iam not interested. We at least want to know what they're shooting for and what they're trying to do.

I want an ROE over 14%, which is the average. I want an above-average company. In today's environment, I want a PE below ROE. I use Value Line and analyst data but not their conclusions.

Warning signs: If revenues slow down and margins deteriorate, we get nervous. We look in 4 ways: marketing and sales, cost control, balance sheet, labor relations.

Bill Nygren :
Liberty Media was trading at 30% of its value and was also growing over time. There were only going to be more cable subscribers.The last thing we look for is economic alignment of management team with the outside shareholders. We need to believe that the management approaches their job with the mindset of an owner. From 1991-1998, it appreciated 60-fold. Business value grew so rapidly that even though the stock price was increasing , it always still traded at a discount to intrinsic value.


Oakmark Select is concentrated. Not more than 20 stocks.

We don't shun technology. Our analysts start by looking at stocks that seem cheap, they come down a lot, low PEs relative to other companies in their industries, low P/S.

Kevin O'Boyle: invest in companies generating strong returns on equity that are market leaders and operate in markets experiencing rapid growth. if these companies have sustainable competitive advantages and are bought at a reasonable price, you can generate very good returns over time.

Meridian Value fund: We observed that companies with up to a year's worth of negative earnings growth or earnings decline then did very well when their operational performance improved.Two key assumptions in this trategy are that the market tends to be very myopic and extrapolates short-term trends into the future. The second is that underlying business value tends not to be as volatile as stock price.

We don't really care about the overall market environment. We have a mandate to keep less than 10% of the overall fund in cash.

We're looking for companies whose stock price has dropped 50% or more from its high. Most companies stumble occasionally. We focus on companies that are market leaders, that have a history of generating good ROIC, or that own an asset that cannot be easily replicated. Cash flows strong enough t o support the capital structure.

We feel that it takes at least two down quarters before the stock price declines dramatically and the problem that cropped up begins to be addressed. Its in the third quarter that problems are getting fixed.
Markets are fairly efficient. After a couple of down quarters, stocks get hammered and those who see value get in. Markets are more efficient for large companies. Hence we don't necessarily wait for 3 quarters.
Earnings misses monitor. Our average holding period is 18 months.

Robert Olstein: There are 5 of us working on a portfolio. We spend a lot of time reading all kinds of publications, including magazines and annual reports, looking for hot spots. We re looking for misperceptions-where we think the negativity on a stock is not backed by the numbers. Temporary problems. You've got to have a 2-3 year time horizon for value investing.

The numbers we most look at are the estimated cash flows for the next 3-5 years. We're saying this is what we think the earnings power is. We do misestimate cash flows, we are wrong 1/3 times but not very wrong.
If I read something phony starting to develop in the financial statements, I'll sell. e.g. unbilled receivables spiking up or deferred taxes. I never talk to management, everything one needs to know is in the statements. How conservative they are, how they solved problems in the past.

Very much bottoms-up. No attempt to call the general market, interest rates or economy. Just minimizing downside risk.Out of 10 investment decisions, 3-4 will be wrong. But should not be too wrong.
We love to look at new low list, out of favor industries.

When you are looking at a fallen sector, the best balance shet will have strength to weather the storm.

Been wrong? We bought 2-3 staffing companies that were 70-80% off highs. After Y2K, their earnings estimates had fallen. We felt Internet would take over the slack. We were right for a short amount of time, but that came to a screeching halt, the bottom fell out. We lost almost 25-30% of our invesment, Never happened to me before.

Is tehre a threshold where you refuse to hold on to a stock that has gone down by a certain percentage? There's no set formula, but whever something underperforms by 10-15% relative to its group, it necessitates an automatic review of what's going on.
We hold a stock for about 2 years.

Charles Royce: We g right to its heart and soul, which is return on assets, and try to understand this. Is it permanent? Is it sustainable? What's going on that will impact returns of the sector ? If you can capture a high-returning company, even if has cyclically growth or sporadic growth, you're capturing a better engine than a company with low returns.

Lets say there are 2 companies both selling at 10 times earnings. One has a ROIC of 25%, one has a return on capital of 7%. The company with high return is going to be a better investment, If it doesnt have capital opportunities inside its own firm, its going to generate excess cash. The excess cash will operate as a positive pressure point on the comany and stock. Over time that excess cash will build up, will be spent creatively, and will be used to retire stock. The company without excess cash is flat in the water. So we're looking for companies with higher returns that tend to generate excess cash.

What else to look at? Frankyly 70% of it is looking at returns on capital and understanding the sustainability of returns on capital. If you get that right, you've really got it right.
How to gauge sustainability? You think out loud with the comapny, otehr people, and compeittors. We go through a Socratic Q&A of trying to understand the company. We want to know how competitors and customers regard the company.

What about valuation? I don't wake up and say that the whole world should sell at 9 times earnings.
Valuation is one part of risk management, important but not the only part. If I can get a deep confidence in the qualitative part of the company, I will address valuation after that. I need to understand the qualitative dimensions of the company before I'm ready to talk valuation.

I never know exactly what will happen to a given stock. I buy lots of stocks to give a higher chance of lightning to strike often.
Risk: The closer you are to reality, the better you'll' be at making judgements about risk.
Bear markets are not the time to be conservative. Best to dollar-cost average in a bear market, start off slow and add more to your portfolio every couple of weeks.

What made you a value investor? Losing a lot of money in the 73-74 bear market. I lost most of my money by having speculative risk, not understanding the importance of balance sheets, not understanding diversification principles, and not understanding integrity principles as they relate to individual companies.
The biggest mistake investors make is not reading annual reports and understanding the risks involved in their investment. Do your homework.

You don't need to swing at every pitch. This is a game that goes on and on. You can stay out of the game for a while and come back. You don't need to be hyperactive to win.
I am more conservative as markets go up, and aggressive as markets go down. I always try to stay fully invested.

Kent Simons:

Value guys like me get into trouble by buying stocks at below market multiples, and the earnings turn out not to be there. When I buy a stock, I do have assumptions about earnings in a certain amount of time. If those earnings are not to be seen, I won't hold on.
I bought Bank of New England at $24 P/E 6. And sold it for $6 at 6 P/E. They eventually went bankrupt.
The final reason I'll sell is since Iam 99.8% invested, is to raise money for something that looks even better.

Bret stanley: Typical Day: Every morning starts off with going through overnight news on the portfolio and other things that come under the heading maintenance research. We listen to every management conference call on each of our holdings. Constantly reevaluationg our IV calculations and making sure the fundamentals are unfolding as expected. 20% time on maintenance and 80% on new ideas.

Wallace Weitz:
A solid business that has some control over its destiny, that generates discretionary cash. Ideally the company is growing at some moderate rate. If anything grows too fast, I get nervous since fast growth is unsustainable most of the time. The company must also have management I really trust, who treat me like a partner, whose motives and aspirations match up with mine as an investor.

Buffett says that if he cant put a proper value on the company in his head or if being off by a percentage point or two on the discount rate makes a difference, its not cheap enough. I use 15% discount rate since thats the return we'd like to generate.

Some kind of control over their destinies, like monopolies, e.g. cable companies. In contrast, cable equipment makers generally have multiple competitors so less control over their destiny.
Recurring revenue, insulation from competition, not particularly capital intensive.

We rarely go over 5-6% in a company. I worry about specific company risk.

There are an infinite number of facts you can learn about a company, but there are usually two or three very important variables that make the company succeed or fail. A lot of Wall street research gets so bogged down in the minutae and details that it misses these two or three big things that make or break an investment. its important to be able to distinguish what matters from what doesnt. That's one of Buffett's great gifts.

Martin Whitman:
An awful lot of managements are out to rape public stockholders. We try to avoid these people. We avoid incompetent looking management, overreaching management in stock options or compensation levels and other transactions as discolsed in SEC filings.

In general, all businesses that are good are involved in wealth creation. Away from Wall street, most intelligent people would prefer to create wealth by methods other than earnings (for tax reasons). Maximise cash flow rather than earnings.

Right now, we're buying huge portoflios of tech cmpnaies selling at under 8 times peak earnings. We feel it can take 3-5 year for a cycle to turn.
On the distressed side, I read the Daily Bankruptcy reporter.

10 Keys to successful Value Investing :

1) stick with the market. Mostly the masters stay invested at all times. "Research shows tht 80-90% of investment returns occur during just 2-7% of your holding time." Christopher Browne points out.
David Dreman says that he raises cash only when the market is in middle of a freefall. "Ive seen too many good managers get hurt trying to outsmart the market. They wind up missing rallies".

2) View yourself as a long-term partner of the business. Instead of constant attention to the company's stock price, concentrate on how well the business itself is progressing.

3) Price is important. Simple-minded computer screens like low PE or low PB do not tell you much about value.

4) Build portfolio bottom up. Little consideration to macros considerations. Masters seek out individual companies one by one. Sometimes bottom up approach leads you to a more general trend that you can latch to.

5) Dreman : "We found it pays to sell, not if there's a bad quarter, but if there is a major fundamental change in the longer-term outlook".

6) Have patience: Since you're buying what is currently out of favor, it can take months or even years to work out. Periods of superior performance come in unpredictable lumps.

7) On analyst reports: Such reports can provide many general insights into a company's overall operating environment. I want an analyst to tell me what's going on in the industry and company. Their job is to know their companies but not their values.

8) Get a firm grip on what makes a company tick. What is management like ? (Mine: Is it consistent with what I would do? )



Monday, December 16, 2013

WB on moats

Wonderful castles, surrounded by deep, dangerous moats where the leader inside is an honest and decent person. Preferably, the castle gets its strength from the genius inside; the moat is permanent and acts as a powerful deterrent to those considering an attack; and inside, the leader makes gold but doesn't keep it all for himself. Roughly translated, we like great companies with dominant positions, whose franchise is hard to duplicate and has tremendous staying power or some permanence to it. (Berkshire Hathaway Annual meeting, 1995)

You need a moat in business to protect you from the guy who is going to come along and offer (your product) for a penny cheaper. (Warren Buffett Talks Business, 1995)

We're not pure economic creatures, and that policy penalizes our results somewhat, but we prefer to operate that way in life. What's the point of becoming rich if you're going to have a pattern of operations where you continually discard associations with people you like, admire, and find interesting in order to earn a slightly bigger figure?

Mine : Does a company make its customers and suppliers better off ?

Sunday, December 15, 2013


From " A checklist for investors"
An itemized list of procedures and how to follow them, the surgeon Atul Gawande has written, can "hold the odds of doing harm low enough for the odds of doing good to prevail."

Decades' worth of psychological studies show that people are extremely good at figuring out which information they need for a decision—but do a poor job of using that evidence methodically over time

As the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" puts it, "Humans are incorrigibly inconsistent in making summary judgments of complex information."

-Rub your nose in your own failures," he urges. "Avoiding the mistakes you've made in the past will take your error rate way down in the future."

Mr. Pabrai says he believes that the flubs made by great investors fall into five groups: valuation, or how cheap an investment is; leverage, or risks associated with borrowing; management and ownership; "moats," or how well-fortified business are against competition; and personal biases.

First he does all his other research; then he works through the checklist to make sure he didn't miss anything.

Among the questions on Mr. Pabrai's list: How good is management at allocating capital? Is cash flow overstated because of an unsustainable recent boom?

Guy Spier, managing partner of Aquamarine Capital, a Zurich-based investment firm that manages $160 million, uses his checklist to determine, among other things, how a company makes its customers and suppliers better off. That, he says, helps him figure out how likely the company is to be able to fend off competitors.



Thursday, December 05, 2013

Yacktman Funds Interview - Great Answers From Great Investors

From :
Yacktman Funds Interview - Great Answers From Great Investors


-The Yacktman Funds seem to contain a lot of “wonderful businesses” as opposed to classic Ben Graham net-net cheap businesses?
-
4. Can you walk us through the investment process at the Yacktman Fund?

A: A good amount of the time is spent finding the ideas. You can quickly filter a lot of things out. Once we’ve sifted through the ideas, generally the first thing we do is to read the annual reports and the proxy statements. We try to first get an understanding of the business so the business description section of the 10K is a great place to start. Then we move on to the risk disclosure section. Those are put together by management and lawyers sitting in a room trying to figure out what can go wrong with the business. These people are worried about getting sued so they’ll include the things that keep them up at night or keep them nervous in the disclosure in case something goes wrong.

I read the business description and risk disclosures first and then move on to financial statements and footnotes. We also use sell side research reports for industries we are not familiar with to help us get up to the speed. We also read trade articles or other publications that are relevant to the business. Typically, the last place we go is to the management team because management is usually there to sell you on why to own the stock. It’s much better to analyze what they have done than have them tell you what they are going to do.

We also try to get an understanding of how the businesses have performed historically. For instance, last night we were looking at the operating margins of consumer companies the 1960s and 1950s. We like history a lot because it gives you a great perspective on what might happen in the future.

-We usually buy and sell gradually. For the most part, we are slow in and slow out. Again, we don’t set a price target. Instead, what we do is we’ll make the stock 2% of the portfolio at this price and 3% if it drops further.

-Comparing companies of different industries using P/E or P/S ratio does not help you when you have a business that to earns a dollar and pays out a dollar and another business that earns a dollar and puts 50 cents back to keep up with competition. So when we are valuing a business, we’d like to focus on the forward rate of return. By that I mean if I buy a stock today at this price, what is my anticipation of the return I am going to get in the future? This forward rate of return includes free cash flow yields and anticipated growth rate.

-Furthermore, we will look at historical data and get an idea of how the business has been doing over the past 10 years. What percentage of earnings did they get to keep? We are trying to get a general idea for the future but we are not forecasting. If you are forecasting whether the business is growing at 7% or 8% in the future, you’ve already got a problem. We look at what the mean case scenario is and what the likely distribution of scenarios around the mean case scenario is. If you look at Procter and Gamble, in 20 years they will probably still own Tide, they are probably still going to be in hair and shampoo and they are still probably going to be dominating. You can pretty much forecast to a certain degree of certainty what is it going to be like in 20 years. But you can’t tell what Microsoft or Intel are going to look like in 20 years.

-The lower the ability to forecast the future, the lower the valuation should be. We’ll pay less because there is more volatility associated with it.

-And risk to us is not the risk of the stock price, it is the risk that the business is not performing as we expected. You can have a business that has been doing very well for the past 10 or 20 years but they may not be doing as well in the future. The newspaper business is a good example of this. We had looked at Gannett in the past. In 2004, at the multiple it was trading, you could expect to earn about 8.5 to 9 percent if they can repeat what they have achieved during the past 10 years. At the end of 2004, we were asking what are the odds that this newspaper company is going to keep earning 8-9% in the next 10 years and it was pretty obvious that the business model of the newspaper business is deteriorating and we did not think it was going to earn 8-9% in the future, we quickly threw the idea away.


-8. When you find out that you have made a mistake in your investment analysis, how do you go about exiting the position? Do you sell it right away?

A: As we gathered historical data from the new management team we did not feel confident in so we sold the position. If you think you’ve made a mistake, you should sell right away. Why hold something you are not comfortable with?

A: There are three co-managers of the funds. Where you see positions are very large, it is usually because we have a uniform consensus from the portfolio managers. Very often it is a relatively cheap low risk, high quality stock.

-We actually looked at JC Penney’s debt and we did not invest in it. It will be very hard to get interested in the equity if we passed on the debt.

-15.What advice would you give amateur investors with regard to suppressing the excitement and urge to act?

A: Some of the biggest investment risks come from valuation and businesses that are in highly competitive, rapidly changing markets. We would recommend sizing positions to manage the risk or uncertainty.

-Investing in cigar butts or wide moat? Both are ok if reasonable return can be expected.

Saturday, November 30, 2013

From Do You Feel Lucky? Maybe Investors Should


But aren't individuals at the mercy of high-speed traders and institutional investors with giant portfolios?

"I think a lot of that talk is nonsense," Mr. Cloonan says. "Institutions are very short-term, constantly trading in and out. They're more concerned about not doing worse than average than they are about trying to think originally as investors."

For investors who are patient and disciplined, do their research and don't get caught up in the Wall Street game of trading too much, "it's easier than it's ever been to do pretty well," Mr. Cloonan says. "You just have to decide to do the right thing."


Tuesday, November 12, 2013

good quotes


“If you own the best dealership, the top bank, and the finest restaurant in town, you will do well.”
― Charlie Munger on Diversification

“I’m not interested in meeting management today… I’m more interested in finding out how a person has behaved in the past.”
― Bruce Berkowitz

“Successful investors tend to be unemotional, allowing the greed and fear of others to play into their hands. By having confidence in their own analysis and judgement, they respond to market forces not with blind emotion but with calculated reason. Successful investors, for example, demonstrate caution in frothy markets and steadfast conviction in panicky ones. Indeed, the very way an investor views the market and it’s price fluctuations is a key factor in his or her ultimate investment success or failure.”
― Seth Klarman


“The most successful horse players (I guess they lose the least) are the ones who don’t bet on every race but wager on only those occasions when they have a clear conviction.”
― Joel Greenblatt

Friday, November 08, 2013

During a visit to Columbia Business School many years ago, a student asked Warren Buffett how one could best prepare for an investing career. Mr. Buffett picked up a stack of financial reports he had brought with him and advised the students to read "500 pages like this every day". One of the students in the class happened to be Todd Combs. Mr. Combs took the advice quite literally and eventually got into a habit of reading far more than 500 pages per day. This work ethic contributed to a successful career running a hedge fund and a position at Berkshire Hathaway allocating several billion dollars of capital.

Thursday, November 07, 2013

WB criteria for valuation of the market and some quotes


From a Motley Fool article :

In 2001 Buffett explained that determining whether the market is expensive or cheap doesn't have to be complicated. Here's the metric he uses:

The market value of all publicly traded securities as a percentage of the country's business -- that is, as a percentage of GNP. Basically, Buffett divides the total market capitalization of the U.S. stock market by gross national product. GNP measures the value of goods and services that a country's citizens produce regardless of where they live. This includes the value of goods and services that American companies produce abroad.

Buffett : "If the percentage relationship falls to the 70% or 80% area, buying stocks is likely to work very well for you. If the ratio approaches 200% -- as it did in 1999 and a part of 2000 -- you are playing with fire."

The most common way to calculate the market value is by looking up the market capitalization of the Wilshire 5000. The market cap of the Wilshire 5000 was $20.6 trillion. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has a great website where you can locate GNP ($16.9 trillion). (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GNP/)

Dividing the total market cap by GNP gives 122% indicates that the market is getting pricey.


-We don't spend any time looking back. We figure there is so much to look forward to, there's just no sense thinking of what might have been, it just doesn't make any difference. You can only live life forward. You can perhaps learn something from the mistakes

-Interest rate impact. What you really want to know in investments is what is important and what is knowable. If its unimportant or unknowable, you forget about it. We don't want to pass up a chance to do something intelligent because of some prediction that we're no good on anyway. So we don't read, or listen or do anything based on macro factors, zero.

-Concentrate on what will happen, not on the when. The when is unknowable.

Sunday, November 03, 2013

Good checklist for investing

There's a good compilation of questiosn to think of before investing.

The Quality Of Business Earnings - Checklist Of Questions

by Tannor Pilatzke


Here are quotes by WB from here :

“Investing is reporting. I told him to imagine an in-depth article about his own paper. He’d ask a lot of questions and dig up a lot of facts. He’d know The Washington Post. And that’s all there is to it.”

“You need a moat in business to protect you from the guy who is going to come along and offer it (your product) for a penny cheaper.”

“If (you go into a store and) they say ‘I don’t have a Hershey bar, but I have this unmarked chocolate bar that the owner of the place recommends,’ if you’ll walk across the street to buy a Hershey bar or if you’ll pay a nickel more for the (Hershey) bar than the unmarked bar or something like that, that’s franchise value.”



“How much more fruitful it is for us to think about whether the product is likely to sustain itself and its economics than to try to be questioning whether to jump in and out of the stock.”

“If I’m thinking about investing in a specific company, I try to size up their business and the people running it. And as I read annual reports, I’m trying to understand generally what’s going on in all kinds of businesses. If we own stock in one company and there are eight others in the industry, I want to be on the mailing list for the annual reports of the other eight because I can’t understand how my company is doing unless I understand what the other eight are doing. I want perspective on market share, margins, the trend in margins – all kinds of things...”

“It’s amazing how well you can do in investing with what I’d call “outside” information. I’m not sure how useful inside information is. But there’s all kinds of “outside” information around as to businesses. And you don’t have to understand all of them. You just have to understand the ones you’re thinking about investing in. And you can. But no one can do it for you.”

“In my view, you can’t read Wall Street reports and get anything out of them. You’ve got to get your arms around it yourself. I don’t think we’ve ever gotten an idea from a Wall Street report. However, we’ve gotten a lot of ideas from annual reports. Charlie?”


“PUCCI”: Pricing, Units, Costs, Competition and Insiders



“Investors should remember that their scorecard is not computed using Olympic-diving methods: Degree-of-difficulty doesn’t count. If you are right about a business whose value is largely dependent on a single key factor that is both easy to understand and enduring, the payoff is the same as if you had correctly analyzed an investment alternative characterized by many constantly shifting and complex variables.” -- Warren Buffett

Friday, November 01, 2013


For the casual investor, Greenblatt recommends buying a portfolio of 20-30 Magic Formula stocks, holding for one year, and then re-running the process annually.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

On the interest rate environment





The 'Rate Gap' Is Rising (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304384104579143450479627172?mod=djemITP_h)
The gap between deposit rates and borrowing rates is higher than it's been in 32 of the last 40 years. by Andrea Coombes


Low interest rates have been bruising savers for years, but for a while those same low rates
were proving a boon to mortgage borrowers.

Not anymore.

In fact, the gap between the interest consumers earn on a savings account and the rate they pay on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage is its widest in two years—and among the highest in more than 40 years—according to data analyzed by MoneyRates.com.

The widening spread also is a sign of the hurdles faced by retirees and other savers who are trying to generate income from relatively conservative investments.


For the month of September, the spread between the average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (4.49%) and the average rate on a one-month certificate of deposit (0.06%) was 4.43 percentage points, according to data from the Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.


Since 1971, the average gap between those rates has been 2.83 percentage points. In 2007, the gap hovered around one point.

The gap has been higher than average since November 2008, shortly after the onset of the financial crisis, coinciding with efforts by the Fed to push short-term rates lower to stimulate the economy. Then the difference shrank to less than four percentage points for most of the past two years.


The problem for savers is that rates on savings accounts, money-market funds and certificates of deposit are tied very closely to short-term interest rates. But other interest rates are subject to a variety of market forces that tend to drive those rates higher, including lenders' perception of risk from inflation and default.


"If you're a bank and you're going to make a 30-year commitment, you don't want to be caught receiving a substandard interest rate," says Richard Barrington, a senior financial analyst at MoneyRates.com. "You're going to be pretty quick to raise your rates on any hint that mortgage rates might be due to go up."


The highest gap recorded since 1971 between 30-year fixed-rate mortgages and one-month CDs was 6.2 percentage points in August 1982. But back then, a one-month CD paid more than 10%. Today, by comparison, "the income-producing ability of your savings has virtually disappeared," Mr. Barrington says.

Consumers have a few options. Consider owning only shorter-term CDs, so you don't lock yourself into meager payments for the long run. Look into online savings accounts, which have fewer restrictions than CDs yet may pay the same or better rates right now. And consider shorter-term mortgages, since they tend to have lower interest rates than 30-year loans do.

Tuesday, October 01, 2013

From http://on.wsj.com/15ApOsp    Why Tough Teachers Get Good Results

Psychologist K. Anders Ericsson gained fame for his research showing that true expertise requires about 10,000 hours of practice, a notion popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers." 


The rap on traditional education is that it kills children's' creativity. But Temple University psychology professor Robert W. Weisberg's research suggests just the opposite. Prof. Weisberg has studied creative geniuses including Thomas Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright and Picasso—and has concluded that there is no such thing as a born genius. Most creative giants work ferociously hard and, through a series of incremental steps, achieve things that appear (to the outside world) like epiphanies and breakthroughs.


Prof. Weisberg analyzed Picasso's 1937 masterpiece Guernica, for instance, which was painted after the Spanish city was bombed by the Germans. The painting is considered a fresh and original concept, but Prof. Weisberg found instead that it was closely related to several of Picasso's earlier works and drew upon his study of paintings by Goya and then-prevalent Communist Party imagery. The bottom line is that creativity goes back in many ways to the basics. "You have to immerse yourself in a discipline before you create in that discipline."

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324324404579044891534700108.html
Many money managers spend their days in meetings, riffling through emails, staring at stock-quote machines with financial television flickering in the background, while they obsess about beating the market. Mr. Munger and Mr. Buffett, on the other hand, "sit in a quiet room and read and think and talk to people on the phone," says Shane Parrish, a money manager who editsFarnam Street, a compelling blog about decision making.

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

We're happy due to: a strong sense of purpose, meaningful work, good friends, health, loving relationships, chance to learn, grow and help others. Long term profits come from having a deeper purpose, great products, satisfied customers, happy employees, great suppliers, and from taking responsibility for the community and environment.
John Mackey (Investment checklist)