We're not there yet, but …

ugly-dog… who knows?

Inflation may just rear its ugly head, as Modern Gal suggests:

My bet is that the long-term successful investors (like Warren Buffet) see the next big cyclical turn as being the threat of global inflation.  And by this, I mean not inflation as in 3-4%, but I mean a change in cycle to having structurally higher inflation for a number of years.  While nominal wages have (mostly) risen, real wages have not kept up with inflation for many workers.  This is the problem called the money illusion.  In other words, because your paychecks are growing larger over time, you think that you think of this as a raise or cost of living increase.  In fact, if the cost of living outpaces your raises, you have in effect gotten poorer, or your salary has lost real value.

I don’t normally talk about things that you can’t do today – and, the things that I do talk about often need to be adjusted for which part of the Making Money Cycle you are in – but, I will make a couple of suggestions and you can bookmark this post in case inflation does hit before I get a chance to write a follow up post 🙂

Firstly, what is high inflation?

To me, ‘high’ and ‘low’ are pretty meaningless terms in an inflationary context, but Modern gal suggests “let’s say inflation crept up to 5% a year … not many people are expecting a shift to a very high inflation rate, like 10%.”, which seems like a pretty reasonable range to work with, if you ask me.

Modern Gal then suggests that inflation-adjusted securities such as TIPS are sensible high-inflation strategies …

… but, here is what I think, IF you think inflation is heading up and you are in this stage of the Making Money Cycle:

Making Money 101

No great change here; get your spending under control; avoid consumer debt (although, strangely enough, it’s actually slightly BETTER for you if inflation rises AFTER you accrue the debt because your payments stay fixed – unless interest rates also rise – but, your income rises due to ‘cost of living increases’); and save money … but, if this is all you do, that inflation will eat up a lot of the benefit; as Modern Gal says:

Let’s say you have $100,000 in savings today, but you want to hold off spending until retirement.  If you decide to put your savings under a mattress (meaning you earned zero interest or dividends), in 25 years time, at a 3% inflation rate, your $100k would be the equivalent of about $48k in the future.  But let’s say inflation crept up to 5% a year, a rate that was not unusual a decade ago. Under this scenario, your $100k should be thought of as less than $30k in 25 years time.  And, if we end up with double digit inflation at 10%, the 100k adjusted for buying power in today’s dollars looks like a measly $9230.

The key Making Money 101 change (although, this is a strategy that I also recommend in the current low inflation / low interest rate environment) is to lock in your interest rate on your own home, ideally before the high inflation (which can often trigger higher interest rates) kicks in.

Making Money 201

Here, we want to take advantage of inflation which tends to push the prices of things up: the higher the rate of inflation, the more prices go up …

… so, the trick is to buy something that will rise in price with (or over) inflation BUT pay for it in current-day dollars.

What can do THAT???

Well, real-estate can, particularly in the USA where you can leverage an unusual quirk of the lending industry: you see, you can buy real-estate that will go up in value as surely as your can spell I N F L A T I O N …

… and, you can buy it with the Bank’s money and lock that ‘price’ in for up to 30 years (on some residential property).

So, that $535 payment (at 5.75% fixed interest for 30 years) STAYS at $535 even as the $100,000 property doubles in value to $200,000 over time … and, the higher the inflation rate, the quicker the property doubles … no matter what happens, your payments stay the same.

Obviously, if spending $535 p.m. was ‘good value’ when the property was $100k, it must be twice as good value when the property reaches $200k!

So, if you know that high inflation is increasing your property portfolio more rapidly, why wouldn’t you buy as much as you can get your hands on if:

a) Current interest rates seems low, and

b) If you felt that a period of higher inflation was coming?

Making Money 301

We are obviously not looking to acquire more debt, here, but there’s no reason to pay off debt either IF:

1. The interest rate has been locked in at levels lower than current interest rates, and

2. You can’t put the money to work for you in ‘safe’ investments elsewhere, and

3. The properties produce enough ‘spare’ (after mortgage interest, costs, and provisions against future vacancies and repairs/maintenance) cash-flow to satisfy your daily needs.

If the property meets these criteria then it’s probably reasonable to assume that your income (i.e. rents) will keep pace with inflation, as probably will your capital (i.e. the building itself).

Of course, if you haven’t already bought the property by the time that you stop work [AJC: a MUCH better word than ‘retire’ for us 49-years-young-stopper-workerers 😉 ], then I would advise that you look at these alternatives:

i) Real-estate (this time, bought with very high deposit / very low borrowings … if any), and/or

ii) TIPS – Treasury Inflation Protected Securities … although, you will have ideally bought these while inflation was still low(er) as competition for these may have pushed prices up / yields down, and/or

iii) Dare I say it: dividend stocks (or, any portfolio of stocks that you are happy to sell down a portion of each year to create your own ‘dividend’

…. but, avoid cash, or cash-equivalents (CD’s, non-inflation-protected bonds, etc.) as inflation will almost literally gobble these up!

Three … well, four questions to ask when picking a financial adviser …

picture-23I love those articles that the mainstream financial press likes to trot out from time to time, such as this Wall Street Journal piece that offers Seven Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser; you will have to read the article for the full story (literally!) but here is their list:

1. What’s in the adviser’s background?
2. What do the adviser’s clients say?
3. How does the adviser get paid?
4. Where are the adviser’s checks and balances?
5. What’s the adviser’s track record?
6. Can the adviser put it in writing?
7. What do other pros think?

Personally I could care less how an adviser gets paid (as long as I know up front) and whether they can write or not … and, I certainly don’t care what the their clients or peers think, because I am always looking for above-the-herd results. And, track records and supposed checks and balances mean nothing when there is a long line of Madoff-wannabes in this world (so, I ain’t handing over the keys to my check account to anybody!) …

… I only want to know three (actually, four) things:

1. How much is the ‘adviser’ worth today?

I only want to take advice [AJC: commercial, money-making advice … not ‘technical’ advice such as tax codes, appropriate legal entities, contract wording, etc.] from people who are already well ahead of me. When I start to catch up to my adviser’s net worth, it’s time to find a new adviser!

2. What does the adviser invest in?

I only want to take advice [AJC: yadda yadda, yadda … as above] from somebody who has made the bulk of their current net worth in exactly what they are advising me to invest in.

3. Will her advice get me to my Number?

Can the adviser then show me – in a way that I can understand (no smokes and mirrors) – exactly how what she invested in to get to her current net worth will get me to my Number by my Date [AJC: apply this reasonableness test to the investment mix that she is recommending]?

Then there’s a fourth question, but it’s for me to answer, not her:

4. Is it something that I love, understand, and feel comfortable doing?

Because, once the adviser has finished dispensing her advice, and you have handed over your money for her fees/commissions, despite what anybody may tell you to the contrary, it’s all up to you!

15 seconds to say what took me three posts …

Scroll to about the 3.5 minute mark and listen for 30 seconds: that’s all it takes Warren Buffett to tell you what I’ve been trying to tell you in post-after-post about the folly of buying so-called ‘dividend stocks’ …

… why is he so quick?

First of all, Warren Buffett has credibility; secondly, he has a knack for summarizing things very neatly.

Now, Warren didn’t teach me how to think about dividends – to me, it’s just such clear common sense I can’t even understand the “pro-dividend for dividend’s sake lobby” – but, it’s nice to see that “The World’s Greatest Investor” puts his shareholders’ money where his mouth is 🙂

Building a better retirement account …

If I say “retirement account” what do you say?

“401k”?

Or, is there a better way …

MoneyMonk thinks that there may be, but only once you’re a millionaire:

If you can achieve your investment goals, at the same time taking advantage of the legitimate tax-shelters available to you (e.g. 401k, self-directed IRA, etc.), then you would be a fool not to do so

Agree, 401k is the best way I can shelter tax

Once you are a millionaire, I see why a person like yourself Adrian have no need for it.

Essentially, Money Monk is saying two things:

1. You would be a fool not to have a 401k if you can achieve your investment goals, and

2. You probably don’t need one once you are a millionaire

I’ll turn this over to Scott, who addresses both of these issues very nicely:

I think that’s the big point that many people are somehow still missing. The point is that you did not BECOME a multimillionaire by putting money in your retirement accounts. You BECAME a multimillionaire by focusing on building successful businesses(which required you to put all your available cash into developing those business, not stacking it away in 401k’s, Roth IRA’s etc..), as well as buying stocks and real estate.

I think many folks keep forgetting that the purpose here is to learn how to make 7 million in 7 years, not 2 million in 40 years and then get taxed on it anyhow when you withdraw it at ‘government declared’ retirement age.

And, Scott is right: if I had put money away into my 401k instead of investing it back in the businesses and in real-estate (I invested in stocks, at that time, mainly with what little was in my 401k-equivalents, which were self-directed), I’m pretty sure the blog that I would be writing today would be Frugal Living Until You Are Just On Broke … and, I WOULD be advertising: I’d need the extra $4 a week 😛

But, pursuing tax-savings – as part of a Making Money 201 wealth building program – is a noble, worthy …. and MANDATORY … goal if you truly want to become rich(er) quick(er) … it’s just that the 401k is typically not the right vehicle to foster an ‘early retirement strategy’, and the other government-sponsored programs also have their limitations (how long your money is tied up; what you can invest in them; and, more importantly for the BIG Number / SOON Date brigade: how MUCH you can invest in each) …

…  so, by now, we know what NOT to do … but, what should we do to manage our tax expense (after all, if we pay less tax, we have more to invest)?

Well, let’s turn back to Scott who was your typical 35%+ tax bracket high-income earner:

As far as using retirement accounts to shelter tax,just to help the readers understand a little better, after my wife and I did our taxes at the beginning of the year, we realized that after all business deductions, real estate depreciation deductions and rental mortgage interest deductions, we only paid around 25% tax for the year on our income, which is substantial. This was about 10% LESS in taxes than we paid the previous year when we didn’t own such investments. Needless to say, that 10% savings over last year equals approximately the savings we would have made by putting money into a retirement account, but instead, we now have multiple business ownership and extra real estate. This was simply from our first year of dipping our foot into investing and being part of the 7 millionaires in training.

And this is only the beginning. I wonder how much less in tax we’ll pay next year by buying up appreciating assets and/or small business ventures?

No matter how much tax you pay next year, Scott, by investing in income-producing, appreciating assets – and, holding for the long-term in the right types of structures (trusts or companies) – I have absolutely no doubt that you will (a) pay less tax and, (b) return more than the average Doctor on the same salary who doesn’t …

… and, since you are one of the 7 Millionaires … In Training! I will show you exactly how to do it … and, anybody who wants to be a fly on the wall (better yet, participate in the open discussion) will be able to learn some valuable lessons, as well.

And, you can take that to the piggy-bank!

Feel the power, Baby!

muscle-car1

We all know one …

… you know, (usually) the guy who goes out and buys the biggest ‘muscle car’ that he can afford.

His # 1 criteria is the Number of Horses that fit under the hood of the car.

Unfortunately, those cars usually can’t get to/from the corner store as quickly as Little Johnny on his BMX bike (traffic and traffic lights), and they certainly can’t get around the track quicker than that guy from school who was always tinkering with engines and stuff … you know, Tony Romularo in his souped up 80’s bright red Alfa Sud, you know, that little Italian car with the tricked up suspension?!

You see, the muscle car has a a problem: weight.

In order to carry the engine … and, have the BIG/POWERFUL car look that muscle-car-lovers crave … these cars usually have to be big and heavy. That means that they can be slower than the simple measure of horsepower can lead you to believe.

So, you can do what others do … look for results: look at the specs, skim right past the power rating, and go straight to the only kind of performance that really matters – the one that takes into account BOTH Power AND Weight: how fast will the car do the 0 to 60 mph?

That’s the kind of results that I’m after … if it’s under 5.5 seconds, I’m there, Baby!

But, are you?

How do you explain Little Johnny and the trip to the shops? Or Tony and his ‘tricked up’ Alfa?

Of course you can’t unless you take a look at your overall objective first:

– If you want the most powerful car that you can buy, go ahead and buy the Muscle Car (after all, it looks good, sounds great, and you’ll be a hit with your mates at the pub), but

– If you want to get from A to B in the [Insert criteria of choice: fastest time possible, safest means possible, greenest way possible, lowest cost way possible … or, any specific combination thereof] then you have a more complex decision to make that may or may not include buying the biggest engine you can find.

Do you see where this is going?

There are so many financial ‘truths’ out there:

– Buy dividend stocks

– Max your 401k

– Choose only the most ‘tax advantaged’ real-estate

– and, there are many, many more

Each, in its own way, is like just one aspect of a [financial] vehicle: one is like the engine, another like the suspension, and another like the type of fuel you put into it …

… you COULD take on any of these just because it’s there; after all, millions do.

But, wouldn’t it be smarter to first look at your financial destination (your Number), the time that you have available to get there (your Date), and the skills/knowledge/interest/aptitude that you can apply, then look at the range of ‘vehicles’ (i.e. your Growth Engines) available to get you there and select only the most appropriate for you?

I like to think so …

So, how did my wife choose her current car?

She wanted a luxury, SUV Hybrid … that meant the Lexus R400h. Period.

Does it even save money (no … too damned expensive)? Does it even save the environment (uses as much fuel as the non-hybrid R300; and, what happens with the batteries once they need to be disposed of)? And, is it even a good SUV or a real ‘luxury’ vehicle (doesn’t even have keyless entry)?

And, how did I choose my current car:2008_bmw_m3_convertible_in_blue_images_1

– Performance: 0 – 60 sub 5 seconds

– Convenience: 4 ‘real’ seats to carry the kids in the back

– Handling: Had to be ‘nifty’ around a track

– Safety: Had to have a high safety rating; good crash test results; airbags and other safety features

– Convertible: Had to have a metal-folding roof

But, even those are merely a list of features: I wanted a car that I could use all year around (be a true convertible in summer; a true coupe in winter … and able to flip/flop between the two at the drop of a hat); be a lot of fun (but safe), and be fast’n’fun – and safe – both on the road and on the track.

That pretty much meant the BMW M3 … fortunately, price tag (and, fuel consumption) was never on my list of criteria or I may have been ‘forced’ to go for the VW EOS 🙂

The 401k fallacy …

The objective of this blog is not to challenge your thinking on so-called ‘investment truths’ or ‘common investment wisdom’ …

… that’s just a means to an end.

The objective is to help you become rich [AJC: after all the title of this blog IS “How to make $7 Million in 7 Years”], but in doing so we MUST challenge your thinking on so-called ‘investment truths’ or ‘common investment wisdom’!

Do you see how one is the means and the other is the end?

So it is with many of these personal finance ‘myths’ … so many are treated as an end in themselves, rather than the means that they simply are; none more so than the Mighty 401k.

If we are to become rich, we must slay the temptation to lay at the feet of this great Financial Idol and see it not for what it promises (future financial freedom) but for what it really is: simply words written on a piece of paper.

That’s it, the 401k is just a tax-advantaged savings TOOL … it’s not even a scheme, as there is NO guidance as to what you should put in it (other than restrictions to tell you what you MUST NOT put in it).

Therefore, I have NO OPINION on whether a 401k is intrinsically good or bad for YOU … just as I have no opinion as to whether a stone carving is intrinsically good or bad for a pagan civilization … it’s what belief in its purported ‘power’ does for (or against) your [financial] future that concerns me.

It’s not the tool, but how you choose to use it that counts …

Now, I covered the 401k in many posts, but I thought that I would pick up on a great discussion going on over at my other site, where Scott says that he has no use for a 401k:

I can’t utilize many of the retirement accounts because of my income level and the ones that I can, I max so quickly that it just seems moot. For example, right now, I’m saving up cash as fast as I can to purchase the entire building that my practice is located in. This building also has another business next door that will be paying me rent, and in essence, will drop my personal mortgage significantly, while it’s getting paid off in a few short years, then I own the commercial building, not pay rent, AND receive passive income!

So my question to you would be; Should I delay the purchase date to buy this building and all the above said benefits to first max out retirement accounts that I can’t touch for 30+ years, AND get taxed on them when I do.

Which gets me to my Number faster? Purchasing commercial real estate NOW as fast as I can in my 30’s, particularly one’s that I would normally have to pay rent on and actually begin RECEIVING rent on as well, or fund a retirement account to shed some tax now?

After a bit of discussion around the possibility of finding other tax-advantaged investment vehicles, depending upon your financial positions, Jeff summarized the discussion quite soundly:

The only reasons I can come up with right now to not invest in these types of accounts first is either:

1. The amount you want to invest is greater than the annual contribution limits.

Or

2. You don’t like the age restrictions and early withdrawal penalties that go along with these accounts.

Those are both very valid concerns and certainly reasons to not use typical retirement accounts.

Absolutely, Jeff!

If you can achieve your investment goals, at the same time taking advantage of the legitimate tax-shelters available to you (e.g. 401k, self-directed IRA, etc.), then you would be a fool not to do so.

However, if you divert from a financial course that stands a reasonable chance of meeting your financial objectives – the type of course that Scott seems set to take – just so that you can take part in, say, an employer-sponsored 401k, that may not achieve your financial objectives (in the timeframe that you require, not the timeframe that the employer/government offers) then, in my opinion, you are making a huge mistake 🙂

The fallacy of dividend paying stocks – Part III

Today, in a final post in a long series, I show you how to put what you have learned about dividends into inaction 😛

But, to wrap up this important series, first it might be nice to go “all the way way to the beginning” with some history on dividends, courtesy of our friends over at Everything Warren Buffett:

During the first half of the 20th century, dividend income made up all of the 5.3 percent return U.S. stocks delivered to investors, data compiled by the London Business School show.

At the time, companies paid out most of their earnings to shareholders, compelled by a Treasury Department rule that established penalties for “improper accumulation” of income, according to the sixth edition of Benjamin Graham and David L. Dodd’s “Security Analysis.” The book laid out the principles of value investing followed by billionaire Warren Buffett, the chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and the world’s most successful investor.

“The prime purpose of a business corporation is to pay dividends to its owners,” Graham and Dodd wrote.

Between 1980 and 2000, investors increasingly sought price gains as dividends contributed 25 percent of returns. The shift occurred as companies such as Cisco Systems Inc. and WorldCom Inc. increased profits by using excess cash for expansion and acquisitions. In the five-year bull market that ended in 2007, cash to shareholders as a percentage of earnings fell to a record low of 31 percent, based on data compiled by Yale University professor Robert Shiller, as profit growth juiced by borrowed money outstripped dividend increases.

Returning money to shareholders prevents managers from wasting it on investments that may not prove profitable, according to Bahl & Gaynor’s McCormick.

“It forces companies from empire building, stupid acquisitions and nefarious activities,” he said. “You can’t fake the cash.”

The last sentence pretty much summarizes the pro-dividend position: it stops companies from making mistakes with their cash …

… but, my perspective on that is simple: who is better placed to invest my cash? Me (Mr Ordinary Investor) or, say, Warren Buffett (Mr World’s Richest Man)?

In fact, at the 2000 Berkshire Hathaway Annual General Meeting, Warren Buffett was asked about the dividend policy at Berkshire, to which he said:

We will either pay large dividends or none at all if we can’t obtain more money through re-investment (of those funds). There is no logic to regularly paying out 10% or 20% of earnings as dividends every year.

Given my somewhat ambivalent stance on dividends – I can take ’em or leave ’em 🙂 – it was interesting to see this recent and nicely coincidental article in Motley Fool:

… it’s important not to focus on a dividend yield alone, as recent happenings in the stocks below make clear:

Company

Problem With Dividend

General Electric Either must cut dividend or lose AAA rating, according to analysts.
Gramercy Capital Company forwent its fourth quarter dividend.
Education Realty Trust of Memphis Cut its dividend in half.

Even in a bear market, growing companies that pay dividends can be too good to be true — so be sure to do your research.

You see, the decision to pay dividends is a somewhat arbitrary decision of the board of directors … only loosely tied to the actual profit (better yet, cash flow) performance of the underlying business.

Profits are related to the internal performance of the business.

Dividends are related to the external relationship of the company’s management (as represented by it’s board of directors) to its owners (i.e. its shareholders).

So, when you invest in stocks, you should simply remember that you are buying a small share of a big business: and like any other investment, you should make sure that it makes a decent – and, steadily increasing – profit (called ‘earnings’) and produces strong – and, increasing – cashflows that management uses wisely.

This means that you will EVENTUALLY get your money back in some combination of two ways:

1. The share price will eventually rise to reflect increases in profits and/or

2. The board of directors may choose to distribute some of the profits as dividends.

So here are your Buy For Income INVESTING strategies if you do decide to choose stocks as an investment vehicle:

Making Money 101

You will probably be investing in a low-cost Index Fund and holding until you reach your Number; the fund will usually collect any dividends and reinvest them automatically for you. All you will see is a long-term increase in the total value of the fund (appreciation + reinvested dividends) … frankly, this is all you really care about right now.

Making Money 201

If the urge to invest in individual stocks strikes, you will probably purchase 4 or 5 undervalued stocks (i.e. where the current price does not fully reflect the current and/or future earnings of the company … notice, I haven’t mentioned dividends here) and hold them. You will probably reinvest the dividends into buying more of the same stocks as they probably still represent excellent value. You will keep doing this until you reach your Number (or decide to cash out for a ‘better investment’).

Making Money 301

You will talk to your accountant about the tax advantages of withdrawing any dividends v reinvesting v selling a small portion of your portfolio every year to live off … other than that, you won’t care if you make your yearly ‘retirement’ income by selling stock, withdrawing some/all of the dividends, or any combination of the two.

Still confused?

Think of it this way:

Dividends are what you MAY get if you speculate on some stock (i.e. a piece of paper) …

… Profits are what you WILL get if you invest in a solid business.

If you invest well, eventually the stock price PLUS the dividend (it’s not terribly relevant in what proportion) WILL rise to meet the steadily increasing profits … Warren Buffett has averaged a 21%+ annual return by this simple assumption.

Suffice it to say that I have NEVER (yet) bought a stock for (or despite) its dividend … how about you?

Fluctuations? Well, fluc you, too …

I am pleased to say that I have readers from all around the world, which brings up some interesting problems and opportunities that purely US domestic investors may not need to think about too much.

For example, take Arkhom from Thailand who asks:

Just wondering, and this is a very simplistic view, that altho US stocks are definitely cheap in the long term, wouldn’t the value of US dollar also expected to decline sharply also in the long term? The USD view is conventional wisdom, with all that money being pumped/created for rescues and with current strength due to flight to safety in US treasuries. If that’s the case, it would most probably take the edge off the returns for US investment? Otherwise, in your case, wouldn’t it be more prudent to look for long term investments in, say, Australia?

I mentioned that I was having a little argument of sorts with my wife as to the best place to invest the little bit of cash that we received upon the sale of my Maserati in the US. Since we currently maintain two homes: one in the US and one in Australia, we have a unique opportunity to decide where to ‘park’ our money.

Firstly, let me explain why this is usually not a huge consideration for most small investors:

– If you are US-based, then exchange rate movements only matter indirectly.

By that I mean that the value of US businesses – hence stock prices – don’t necessarily jump directly with exchange rate movements (unless the company is primarily invested overseas, or derives the bulk of its revenues from import/export). But, logic tells me that all businesses are eventually affected … they all buy goods, equipment, and/or components, inevitably some of which comes from overseas.

A strong US dollar makes these cheaper and a weak dollar, more expensive … but, the effects on that company’s stock price are generally slower as they must first flow via the company’s profit and loss statement.

– If you are an overseas-based long-term investor then exchange rate movements may have less effect than you at first intuitively expect.

The reason is that your money may flow into the US (if you are in, say, Thailand), but must must eventually flow back out again so that you can spend the money! So, it is really the long-term CHANGE in the exchange rate that affects you.

– For an investor who lives in two economies (like us), then we can earn and spend money wherever we like and move funds as necessary between the two economies … so, we can make earning and spending decisions independently of each other.

For example, to buy the Maserati we moved funds from Australia to the US at roughly 80 cents in the dollar; and now that the vehicle is sold we can move it back at approx. 66% cents to the dollar, or a ‘net gain’ of 15% or so.

The two questions then become:

1. Can we gain more than 15% over the next 12 months by investing in the US instead of moving the funds to Aus and investing there, and

2. Does it really matter? Where do we intend to SPEND the money?

The answers to these questions usually lead me to: it doesn’t much matter!

In theory, yes, but in practice, no …

You see, if you move the money to invest and move it back to spend, then you are not only gambling on the current currency exchange conditions being favorable, but also the future ones being equally favorable. It’s hard enough to make such predictions today, let alone tomorrow!

Now, exchange rate fluctuations ARE very important for a special class of investor … but, not for the average investor unless the exchange rates are totally out of whack … but, who’s to say where the Aus v US dollar really is set to lie over the next 20 years?

Can you tell me with any degree of certainty?

I can’t tell you … so, all I need to really think about right now is where do I really want to spend my money today, tomorrow, and in 20 years time 🙂

My spectacles are still cracked!

On the subject of diversification and rebalancing (you can’t have the latter without the former, although the reverse is certainly NOT true), Rick says:

I don’t expect the market to behave consistently over any significant period of time. The reason I chose an example with no gains was to show that rebalancing can make a profit from volatility even when there is no underlying price appreciation. I suspect that is the mathematical explanation behind the study SiliconPrairie referenced. If a market was continually increasing then 100% stocks should do better- not that that is very realistic either!

I can believe some rebalancing could do better- especially with all of the market volatility we’ve had this year. I really wish I could time the market. I console myself with the fact that no one can really time the market with long term success.

I can rebalance though- as it can be done with a calculator rather than a crystal ball!

What Rick says is true …

… just understand that if you are committed to a diversification / rebalancing strategy, you will most likely:

a) under-perform the market over LONG periods of time (simply because you will have less in the market – on average – than a 100% stock portfolio)

Remember: the market (DJIA) has NEVER returned less than 8% in ANY 30 year period over the past 100+ years – I strongly suspect that if you were 100% invested the day before the market started to crash in October 2007 and simply waited 30 years, the same will hold true – and,

b) have to content yourself with not being able to reach a Rich(er) Quick(er) Number:

http://7million7years.com/2008/09/30/its-the-gradient-of-the-curve/

That’s OK for some … but, the premise under which I write is that it’s not OK for my target audience. That’s all 🙂

Is it OK for you?

… and, loving it!

Monday’s post set out to use a reasonably obscure study on the success of Warren Buffett [hint: it’s NOT due to luck] to ‘prove’ that the efficient market theorists are wrong …

… but, first, what is Efficient Market Theory, anyway?

Well, our trust Wikipedia entry says:

In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are “informationally efficient”, or that prices on traded assets, e.g., stocks, bonds, or property, already reflect all known information. The efficient-market hypothesis states that it is impossible to consistently outperform the market by using any information that the market already knows, except through luck. Information or newsin the EMH is defined as anything that may affect prices that is unknowable in the present and thus appears randomly in the future.

The principle is that there are thousands of stocks to choose from and each company is divided into millions of pieces (i.e. each piece of stock) with millions of individual buyers and sellers (from large institutions to small, individual buyers and sellers) all operating in a regulated, open market that ensures that all information that may affect the current or future share price is published.

Therefore, everybody should be factoring all of the same information to come up with a fair value for each stock, all of the time …

… or, so the theory goes.

But, there are some obvious ‘cracks’ in this theory:

Enron

When a company like Enron misreports its numbers and misrepresents its business prospects and business model, the price of the stock can be widely different to its real (or, intrinsic) value. We know the result of this one 🙂

Martha

When a person has access to special information about a company – that may affect its current or future price – through ‘inside’ contacts … and, that knowledge has not yet been published … then they can purchase (or sell) a stock a a price that may change dramatically once that information does reach the market. Of course, this is not legal; it’s called ‘Insider Trading … and, we know the result of this one, too 😉

Warren

The study that I mentioned yesterday clearly shows that Warren Buffett’s success is NOT the result of luck, or taking additional risks, but clearly and unequivocally due to his “superior stock picking skills” …

… but, how is this possible if Warren is acting legally, ethically, and with the SAME information available to everybody else?

It’s simple: efficient market theory is wrong … SOME of the time. In fact, often enough to allow investors like you and I – and, especially Warren Buffett – to make a killing … IF we are patient in both buying and selling:

Warren Buffett’s mentor, Benjamin Graham, discovered that some stocks were priced less than their current book value and he bought those stocks, typically looking to make a quick (< 2 year) killing and move on … he was successful enough at this that Warren, as his star pupil, took notice.

Warren soon found that he could simply buy and hold such stocks – and, look for ANY stock trading below it’s ‘intrinsic value’ (the discounted value of its future cashflows, as compared to treasury bonds + a suitable ‘risk’ margin).

Needless to say, student eventually outperformed teacher … but, BOTH outperformed the Efficient Market Theorists.

Here’s how YOU can do the same:

Pick up a book such as Rule #1 Investingby Phil Town (which, despite the title, is NOT Warren Buffett’s OR Benjamin Graham’s methods) or any other credible book on Value Investing (which simply means to buy a stock at less than its ‘true’ value).

Use that book to help you find stocks that some Efficient Market Fool is willing to sell to you for current market price, which HE believes is also fair market price (after all, if its that price, efficient market theory says it MUST be fair), but YOU know is a helluva bargain, and …

… wait until time and circumstance reprices that stock dramatically upwards, so that its market price and your estimate of its true/intrinsic value pretty much match.

What should you do then? Simple.

Sell it back to the same (or some other) Efficient Market Fool!

You see, you rely on these few facts:

1. Efficient Market Theory IS correct MOST of the time,

2. But, it is wrong SOME of the time,

3. And, when it is wrong – as long as the business of the underlying stock is sound – the Market will (eventually) correct its mistake!

The trick is simply to have the time and energy – and, the simple tools – to find such stocks, and the patience and discipline to wait for the correction …

… it makes Warren 21% a year; it should make you at least 15%