Category Archives: Investing

Playing the Efficient Market Theorist for a fool …

Posted on by
13

I love it when a scientific study – that cost goodness-knows-how-much – produces a result that is, well, kind’a stating the obvious …

Take this paper as an example; it finds that Warren Buffett’s success with stocks is not due to luck or taking higher risks, rather – surprise, surprise (!) – it’s due to superior stock picking skills:

The stock portfolio of Berkshire Hathaway, comprising primarily of stocks of large-cap companies, has beaten the S&P 500 index in 20 out of 24 years for the time period 1980-2003. In addition, the average annual return of Berkshire Hathaway’s stock portfolio exceeds the average annual return of the S&P 500 by 12.24% over this time period.

We examined various potential explanations for Berkshire Hathaway’s investment performance. We first explored the explanation that Berkshire Hathaway’s performance may be due to pure luck. We find that while beating the market in 20 out of 24 years is possible due to luck at a 5% significance level, incorporating the magnitude by which Berkshire beats the market makes the “luck” explanation unlikely.

After employing sophisticated adjustments for risk, we find that Berkshire’s high returns can not be explained by high risk.

Ruling out the major alternate explanations to Berkshire’s investment performance leaves us with the potential explanation that Warren Buffett is an investor with superior stock-picking skills that allows him to identify undervalued securities and thus obtain risk-adjusted positive abnormal returns.

Well, d’ah …

So, let me tell you – and, I’ll accept a $1 Mill. federal government grant to write the obvious up as a paper, if you like – that Warren Buffett makes his money essentially in two ways:

As Businesses

Contrary to popular belief that Warren Buffett is a vulture who swoops in when there is carnage all around to pick up businesses at bargain prices, Warren actually patiently waits to buy sound businesses at fair prices.

These are usually private/family businesses that need to be sold for reasons other than the soundness of the business itself … for example, the largest family business in Australia was split up to avoid squabbling by the ‘next generation’ … succession is usually the major issue facing such private/family businesses. Warren did not buy this Aussie business, but you get my point …

Warren, to the best of my knowledge, rarely bargains on the price of a business and has even been known to overpay; for example, when the Sees family wanted $30 Million for the Sees Candy business, Warren nearly walked away, thinking it was worth only $25 Million …

… Warren is glad that he bought it anyway, as the business returned Warren’s $30 Million in only a few, short years and is worth over $1 billion today.

You see, a business grows and produces continuing cashflows – even if you never sell (and, Warren NEVER sells!), so the price you pay is secondary, IF the business produces outstanding returns. That’s why Warren says:

It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.

In Defiance

So, Warren Buffett wears two hats, with his first hat (surprisingly) being business owner … but, it’s his second hat as the World’s Greatest Stock Investor seems to be the most fascinating to most people.

Well, I’ll let you in on a ‘secret’ … there is no great secret here, at all: Warren simply makes a ton of money by proving that the so-called Efficient Market Theorists are fools … time and time again!

Given that luck and all the other explanations have been rigorously and scientifically ruled out, what the study has ‘proved’ – at great expense, I might add – is not that Warren Buffett is right …

… but, that Efficient Market Theory is wrong!

Now, THAT is a breakthrough of gargantuan proportions, and tomorrow, I’ll tell you how you can exploit it 😉

The true cost of debt …

Posted on by
Reply

deal-case-yes

Have you cast your vote yet?

Deal or No Deal … YOU DECIDE

Click here to vote!

_______________________________

In my post about debt, I said that it is not always correct to simply pay down old debt … in this post, you will see that it’s rarely ever correct.

First, let’s look at Jeff’s comments, which summarize the traditional view that it’s all about interest rate comparisons:

My opinion is to still compare your debt interest to prevailing debt rates (is it cheap money compared to what else is available?), how does inflation affect the rate (cheaper future dollars point again) and can I out perform the debt rates with the investment opportunity that is competing for this money.

Without the tax advantage, I’m more inclined to pay off the debt, i.e. lower tolerance for high debt interest.

I haven’t done any math on it…yet, but my gut feel is that 6% or higher on the debt and I’d be giving serious thought to paying off the loans.

This may be true, Jeff, if all else is equal …

… but in the ‘real world’ of investing, you will find that all else is rarely equal!

You see, I don’t look at interest rate and cost anywhere near as much as I look at utility – a concept that I introduced in this post: if I am serious about investing, I am struggling to find a scenario where putting my money INTO reducing leverage (by paying down existing loans) returns more than taking on new ‘good’ debt …

…. or, leaving old ‘bad’ debt in place, as long as it is cheap’ish and, much more importantly, available!

I’m sure that our resident real-estate experts (e.g. Shafer Financial) could point you to 1,000 examples where it is still viable to maintain debt of 8% – 15%+ as long as you could find cash-flow positive real-estate that appreciates at not much more than inflation.

It doesn’t even need to be real-estate, but it does depend on what you are prepared to invest into; e.g. assuming Michael Masterson’s numbers:

  • CD’s return 4%, so I would pay down the 6%+ debt
  • Index Funds return 8%, therefore, I would be inclined to keep the debt if it were very close to 6%; anything above and we would have a more difficult decision
  • Individual Stocks return 15%; I would buy the stocks (and, probably margin borrow into them as well), but that’s just me … Warren Buffett would say ‘never borrow to buy stocks’, so you have a ‘philosophical’ decision to make
  • Real-estate (together with stocks) returns 30%; @ 6% I would keep the loan (for as long as possible!) and buy the real-estate
  • Businesses return 50%+, so I would keep the loan in place (again) and use the ‘repayment money’ to help start up

Besides the obvious tax implications (e.g. CD’s and Index Funds – depending upon whether they are inside or outside a 401k – could become ‘line ball’ with paying off the 6%+ debt (IF it were pretty close to the 6% mark) …

BUT, you have highlighted a more important flaw in my argument: this table only looks at the use of the money; what if I could get a cheaper source of funds by paying down the old debt then acquiring new?

Great argument, in theory, but let’s see how it stacks up in the ‘real world’ … the simple question is: can we refinance or otherwise acquire cheap, new debt (thus allowing us to pay down the expensive, old debt) as Jeff suggests?

Let’s see:

CD’s: I don’t see any easy way to finance except with personal loans, credit cards, a refi or HELOC over our home, so I would say let the debt ride. But, the list above suggests that this would a recipe for losing money, anyway, because of the low returns.

Index Funds: possible to borrow on margin (i.e. finance) through a brokerage account (but, not in your 401k) but only to a max. of approx. 50% so you would still need to come up with the other 50% elsewhere.

Individual Stocks: same as with Index Funds (e.g. I am 100% financed in the US market through a combination of HELOC and margin loans).

Real-Estate: usually able to refinance, so I would agree with you to “compare your debt interest to prevailing debt rates”; other than right now, 6% is extraordinarily low historically … 8% – 10% would be closer to my refinance decision-point.

Small Businesses: very hard to finance except with personal loans and credit cards, so I would say let the debt ride if you were highly enthused and confident of success.

In other words, finance is simply not readily available on most investment choices available to us.

So, the questions that you need to answer – probably in this order, Jeff – are these:

1. Do I want to get rich(er) quick(er)?

2. If so, am I prepared to increase – or, at least maintain – leverage by borrowing for investments?

3. If so, am I prepared to make the mental leap of moving to the concept of ‘pools of debt’ and ‘pools of equity’ by not actually having the debt entirely on the asset that I am acquiring?

And, more importantly:

4. Is new debt available to make the investment/purchase (if so, is it cheaper than my current debt)?

5. Does the investment/asset that I am considering acquiring return more than my current (or new) debt?

If you don’t get past Question 1. then paying down debt is the only Making Money 101 strategy that you need to be concerned with … otherwise, I don’t really see this going half-way 😉

Advice for a small investor …

Posted on by
1

Glossary asks:

With limited funds at ones disposal, say in the 10K to 40K range, what are the arguments for and against buying outright low price stocks to accumulate more shares than would be possible with higher priced stocks. Or, alternately, of using call or put options to purchase stocks of any share price?

To which the ‘common wisdom’ response was:

Whether you are a “big investor” or a “small investor” doesn’t matter as much as you think, IMHO. Nobody likes to lose their money. Everybody needs the same general principles when it comes to investing.

Figure out your risk tolerance. The market is volatile. If your investment drops 10% will you be up nights puking your guts out into the porcelin throne?

Never put all your eggs in one basket. This means only 2%-4% in any one investment AND make your individual investments in different types of investments such as large cap value and medium cap growth.

But, you know my take on this by now: if you diversify your investments, then expect to get ‘market returns’ or less …

LESS to the extent of fees and the losses that you can expect from mis-timing the market … which the Dalbar Study shows will be often and the cost of these mistakes will be very, very, expensive:

Fees: Of these, the fees are the reason why even the most disciplined investors (even 75% of Mutual Funds) perform worse than the market.

Market Timing: But, it is the second – the market timing risks – that mostly affect smaller/individual investors: it’s the reason why the Dalbar Study found that during a long period where the S&P 500 grew at an average rate of 11.9% ‘smaller investors’ only managed a paltry 3.9% return … they would have been better off in CD’s!

So, here is my suggestion:

A. If you want ‘passive investments’ and are satisfied with market returns (circa 9% AFTER inflation … current market aside) then plonk your money in a low-cost S&P 500 Index Fund and let it sit until you retire … add to this investment as much and as often as you can.

OR

B. If you want (need?) ‘above average’ market returns – and, are prepared to ‘gamble while you learn’ (the price of an investment education) – then pick an investment that you can study up on and DO NOT diversify into that asset class; instead, put all of your eggs into no more than 4 or 5 baskets (i.e. stocks and/or real-estate holdings) … but, recognize that you ARE gambling-while-learning, so that you can get the higher returns that you crave.

OR

C. If B. is not for you – or it simply doesn’t work out for you when you are still only ‘gambling’ with small amounts, then it’s not for you at all! Quit while you are not too far behind and then refer to A.

That’s it! 🙂

… the fallacy of dividend paying stocks!

Posted on by
19

billboard2

When I’m not writing posts here, I’m hanging around the Share Your Number Community Site, talking to the other members.We launched this site in 2008, and in 2009 we are planning a major expansion so please join now … it’s FREE and easy!

Remember, helping others get to their Number is the best way to get to yours …

________________________

I have been itching to write this post for some time now, and yesterday’s post about investing in income-producing real-estate v speculating in (hopefully) appreciating RE should have provided the necessary comments/questions …

… but, it didn’t 🙁

However, Steve chose this particular day to finally complete his comment on a post that goes back 6 months … a comment that is right ‘on topic’ for me … and, is a question that all of us should be asking … so, thanks Steve!

Here’s what Steve had to say:

I don’t purport that he is write [sic] in his article but would really love to hear your views on [this] story…

http://seekingalpha.com/article/84850-investing-in-dividend-paying-companies?source=d_email

what i liked about it is the dividend paying stock situation. certainly i wouldn’t consider as an only avenue to wealth, but do you feel dividend paying stocks are a better choice than non dividend paying stocks?

The article promotes a method of investing that the author claims returns “a little over 8.68% annually … while not earth shattering by any means, compare[s] very favorably with the market’s performance over the same period. From July 1988 to now, the S&P 500 has advanced … around 7.86% annually.”

The ‘now’ is actually July 2008, so only reflects some of the recent stock market losses, but the principle is clear, at least according to the author: invest in dividend-paying stocks …

… and, this is certainly ONE (of many) Making Money 301 tactics that I recommend when you have made your Number and are trying to preserve your wealth. However, it is just that – a tactic – and, certainly not the best one there is.

Given this, and my strong recommendation that you invest in RE for income, you might be a little surprised to hear me say:

As a Making Money 101 or 201 strategy, seeking out dividend-paying stocks is almost irrelevent!

Why?

Well, let’s take a look:

Stocks return in TWO main ways, just like real-estate:

1. Capital Appreciation

2. Dividends

Capital Appreciation

Just like real-estate, the price of a stock tends to go up according to the profits of the company. When I say “just like real-estate”, I mean just like commercial real-estate … residential real-estate has other, less tangible drivers of future value. So commercial real-estate tends to rise in value as rents rise, and stocks tend to rise in value as the company’s profits rise.

Naturally, inflation is a key driver (forcing rents/profits up, hence the price of the real-estate/stock) but there are plenty of other ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ factors as well e.g. for real-estate it could be job growth, for companies it could be competitive pressures, etc.

This is what I would call the Investment Factor that tends to drive up the value of such investments, and you can generally be confident that prices will increase according to this factor – over the long-haul.

An equally important factor is ‘market demand’ for that type of investment, which is reflected in ‘capitalization rates’ for real-estate and ‘Price-Earning (PE) Ratios’ for stocks … this is essentially a measure of how long somebody who buys that investment is willing to wait to get their money back via future rents/profits.

This is what I would call the Speculation Factor that tends to drive up or down the value of such investments, and you can never be sure which way this will drive prices – over the short-haul.

Unfortunately, as recent market events in both real-estate and then stocks have very clearly shown – the Speculation Factor has a much greater effect on pricing than the Investment Factor … unless your time horizon is very long, indeed.

This is why it is much better to look for the underlying investment returns, unfortunately often mistakenly confused with …

Dividends

Because Real-estate produces rents – and, hopefully positive cashflow after mortgage and holding costs are taken into account (which, should be your main criteria for investing ), people often confuse dividends paid on stocks with returns on real-estate investments.

This is not the case:

Whereas real-estate returns are simply the rents that you receive less the costs (e.g. mortgage, repairs and maintenance, etc.), stock dividends do NOT directly reflect the profits of the underlying business.

Commercial real-estate usually provides an investment return set by a ‘free market’ (for things like competitive rents, competitive interest rates, etc.) …

… but, the dividends on most stocks are simply set by a board of directors according to whatever criteria makes sense to them at the time.

People who invest in dividend-paying stocks are confusing dividends with company profits … but they are NOT directly aligned: a company may make super profits and not pay a dividend at all (for example, Warren Buffett’s own Berkshire Hathaway has NEVER paid a dividend).

A company that makes NO profit may still choose to pay a dividend (perhaps from cash or even borrowings) … just to keep their shareholders happy (for example, in 2004 Regal Cinemas paid a $5 per share dividend; “to make the $718 million payout, Regal first had to borrow from its banks”).

Is it a sound financial strategy TO invest in Regal Cinemas because they DO pay a dividend, or NOT TO invest in Berkshire Hathaway because they DON’T?

I’d love to hear your views …

___________________

You can also find us at the latest Money Hacks Carnival, hosted this week by Money Beagle …

The allure of diversification …

Posted on by
Reply

There is a certain appeal to diversification, particularly when seen as a risk-minimization strategy.

Rick sums this ‘certain something’ up nicely in this recommended twist to how he would set up his own Perpetual Money Machine:

Nothing in life is without risk- but you can minimize risks by diversifying- use multiple types of wealth capacitors some properties, some stocks, even some bonds. You can further diversify with a mixture of commercial and residential properties, properties in different locations, etc.

Similarly you can diversify stocks through buying small cap, large cap, mid cap, and foreign stocks.

If you diversify you can be fairly sure that one bad event doesn’t ruin everything. Of course if the sun goes supernova all bets are off but barring that you should do fine.

And, this is certainly appealing …

… don’t forget that I have been well diversified in almost every area that Rick mentions: multiple businesses; multiple RE investments in different classes (residential; commercial; single condos / houses; multifamily; retail; office; etc.); stocks (but, no mutual funds of any kind … and, I intend to keep it that way!) … but, I don’t recommend it!

Why?

I see two problems with this:

1. You spread yourself pretty thinly – you risk becoming a Jack of All Investments But Master of None … this lack of specialized expertise (which you can, of course, try and ‘buy in’) and focus can actually INCREASE your investment risk, hence DECREASE your investment returns, and

2. You automatically consign your returns to the mean/average – not all of your investments can perform as well as your best investment …. if you are comfortable with this ‘best’ investment (or, at least one of your ‘above average’ ones) surely you would put more effort into doing more of those?

The usually arguments FOR diversification then say things like “well, look at the sub-prime and what that’s done to [Investment Class A], therefore you should also do [Investment Class B]” …

… but, they conveniently forget that [Investment Class B] tanked 5 years ago, and will probably tank even worse 5 years hence, whilst [Investment Class A] recovers.

If you diversify you run the risk of averaging your returns down.

In other words, if you can choose your investments wisely your best hedge against risk are a combination of:

a. Time: make sure you can hold the damn thing for 10 to 30 years … if you have a short investment horizon, no amount of diversification will protect you.

b. Higher Returns: if you can hold long enough, every investment worth its salt will recover – and, then some; and, isn’t a ton of cashflow a great ‘insurance’ against risk?

Of course, if you can’t choose your investments wisely, then a ‘regression to the mean’ becomes a GOOD thing … just don’t expect to get rich if you can’t develop any special expertise 🙂

Nope, Rick, my Perpetual Money Machine – which asks me to generate my active income one way (e.g. my job or business), and then create passive income in another way (e.g. stocks or real-estate)  gives me all the diversification that I need!

Accumulating 7 million dollars worth of property in 7 years?

Posted on by
4

I wrote a series of posts about how to build a Perpetual Money Machine, and Caprica asks:

I thought the title of this blog was called 7 million in 7 years, not 1 million in 20 years?

How do you go about accumulating 7 million dollars worth of property in 7 years and be in a net cash flow positive position by the end of 7 years?

Here’s how I made it to $7million net worth in just 7 years, Caprica:

http://7million7years.com/2008/04/25/my-7-million-dollar-journey/

But that’s not the question that you actually asked; you asked how to build up $7 Million dollars worth of PROPERTY (i.e. real-estate) in 7 years, and that’s another matter entirely.

For example, you will notice that I didn’t reach my 7m7y from real-estate alone (and, you’re not likely to be able to, either): my ‘energy source’ was a business (actually, more than one), but my ‘capacitor’ was (largely) real-estate.

If you are asking if you could build a $7 Million real-estate portfolio in 7 years, using just your income from a job (even a pretty high paying job) I would have to say “not bloody likely, mate” …

… your income just can’t ‘fuel’ enough real-estate deals to produce the annual compound growth rate that’s required!

To see what energy source and compound growth rate combination that YOU need, FIRST you must start with knowing your Number / Date:

If you need, say, “1 million in 20 years’ (and, let’s assume that you’re starting from, say, $10,000 in the bank instead of my $30k in the hole), a job (as your ‘energy source’) + real-estate together with stocks (as your ‘capacitor’) should do the trick.

But, if it’s “7 million in 7 years” you want (starting with the same $10k), then you’ll be needing a more aggressive set of ‘energy sources’ and ‘capacitors’ for your perpetual Money Machine, i.e.:

Your own business (excess cashflow) + real-estate.

It’s all in your required annual compound growth rate … find yours, and work backwards from there …

… but, Caprica – as I suspect do many of my readers, after all of this time – already understands this:

I realized after I posted my response I already knew the answer …, which was to start one or more businesses to help you generate enough money to buy your passive income source.

Increase your return per unit of risk?

Posted on by
12

Why bother?

I wrote a post about an insidiously appealing – yet flawed – approach to investing promoted by the financial services industry (I wonder if high turnover helps them or hinders them?) called ‘re-balancing’ …

… even if it were sensible (it’s not), it requires an even more flawed base to sit upon: a diversified portfolio. Now that is something that the financial services industry makes money from! 🙂

That post inspired a discussion with Jeff, who provides some useful number-crunching to support his ultimate argument for rebalancing:

Consider two cases in the first you rebalance in the second you don’t:

Rebalancing:

Stocks Bonds Total Comment
50K 50K 100K Initial conditions
25K 50K 75K right after market crash
37.5K 37.5K 75K After rebalancing
75K 37.5K 112.5K Right after market recovery
56.25K 56.25K 112.5K After rebalancing

No Rebalancing:

Stocks Bonds Total Comment
50K 50K 100K Initial conditions
25K 50K 75K right after market crash
50K 50K 100K Right after market recovery

Note rebalancing earned an extra $12.5K over doing nothing, it doesn’t compare to perfect market timing but there was no crystal ball required! Jeff pointed out rebalancing maintains the risk level. Was it less risky to hold half stocks half bonds? Yes, in the 50% market crash there was only 25K in losses rather than a 50K loss.

What if the order was different?

Rebalancing:
Stocks Bonds Total Comment
50K 50K 100K Initial conditions
75K 50K 125K Market rises 50%
62.5K 62.5K 125K Rebalance
31.25K 62.5K 93.75K Market drops 50%
46.9K 46.9K 125K Rebalance

No Rebalancing:
Stocks Bonds Total Comment
50K 50K 100K Initial conditions
75K 50K 125K Market rises 50%
37.5K 50K 87.5K Market drops 50%

Again rebalancing helps prevent losses over doing nothing. If you are invested in more than one asset class you should rebalance.

So, it seems that rebalancing is inexorably tied to diversification: do one and you should do the other, but what of the reverse?

Let’s turn again to Jeff [AJC: I cut/pasted a couple of Jeff’s comments … you can read the entire thread in its original form here] , who says:

If you have elected to diversify your portfolio I would argue that you should rebalance to maintain your initial asset class mix.

You add bonds to your portfolio to reduce risk. Failing to rebalance increases the your risk as time goes on…which is typically the opposite of what most investors desire. The reason you do this is not to maximize return, but to maintain the same risk that you had when you started.

The real reason people diversify into higher risk asset classes is to increase their return per unit of risk. Even when a higher risk asset class increases the overall risk of your portfolio, the excess return is disproportionately large when compared to the excess risk. Thus, overall the return per unit of risk increases, helping you to maximize the amount of return you receive for the risk that you take on.

Rather than focusing on return per unit of risk, shouldn’t we look at risk per unit of required return?

Surely we should:

1. FIRST look at what RETURN we need in order to achieve a required financial goal, and

2. THEN compare the risk-profile of the various choices that can produce the desired return or better (hence, required annual compound growth rate) NEEDED to get us there, and

3. USE THAT menu of qualifying investments to make our investment selection from?

If your financial goal – e.g. Your Number – is sufficiently large and/or your desired timeline – e.g Your Date – sufficiently soon, diversifying/rebalancing may be among the highest risk options available, along with any other investment strategy that fails to meet your required annual compound growth rate!

Diversification/Rebalancing simply may not return a high enough amount to fuel the annual compound growth rate required to get you there!

In which case, you only have some combination of the following three choices:

i) Reduce your Number, and/or

ii) Extend your Date, and/or

iii) Accept a higher level of technical risk in your investment choice/s

But, is there a point in life when it makes sense to switch to a risk-above-return strategy?

Yes!

As Jeff says:

As I get older I will be increasing the % of bonds that I hold and will be rebalancing.

But, I would not (first) look at my age … again, I would first tie this to my financial goal i.e. my Number:

When I reach my Number (or, if I fail and am within 7 years of my latest retirement age), I would shift to a Making Money 301 Wealth Preservation Strategy, such as:

1. That promoted by Prof. Zvi Bodie (Worry Free Investing) – putting 95% – 100% of my Investment Net Worth into Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) and the remainder (0% – 5%) into call Options over the S&P 500, or

2. That promoted by Paul Grangaard (The Grangaard Strategy) – putting 70% of my Investment Net Worth into a low cost S&P 500 Stock Index Fund and 30% into a bond-laddering strategy to cover my anticipated spending for the next 5 years (then ‘repeat’ every 5 years), or

3. Putting 80% of my Investment Net Worth into positive cashflow (before tax) real-estate (I would ‘jiggle’ my deposit amount to ensure at least a 6.5% return p.a.) and keeping 20% in cash and CD’s as a buffer against vacancies, repairs and maintenance, taxes, etc.

4. If all else failed, or as a ‘last ditch’ effort to avoid leaving too much in cash/bonds, a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds … possibly to be rebalanced each year.

But, the last word goes to Jeff:

This, of course, doesn’t mean anything unless the new return is something that you desire.

Indeed 😉

Keep an eye on the Investment Clock …

Posted on by
1


You probably wear a watch … it tells you where you are (time-wise) and hints as to where you should be (running late for an appointment, of course!).

But, did you know that there’s also an Investment Clock?

The investment clock is one of the best indicators on the movement and condition of the finance, property and equities markets. It was first published in London’s Evening Standard in 1937 and showed the movement of markets within a decade cycle. Many people, however did not readily accept the probability of events turning out in a cyclical fashion so it took a while for some to warm to this new area of thought.

As late as last year, I was reading articles that said that we were at One O’Clock on the Investment Clock: rising interest rates and fear that stocks were on the verge of falling (and, fall they did) …

… then, something surprising happened: the clock did a ‘fast-forward’ to where I think we are today:

At the bottom of the cycle when fear and bankruptcy are abounding and interest rates are down, remember that this is the time to be positive. It is the time when there are bargains galore, ready for the taking.

The driving factor behind the business cycle is the capitalist system itself. Recessions are a way of ridding itself of excesses. Things like speculative lending by banks, high risk real estate trading and inflation. Society simply starts going a bit faster than the economy and places a lot of strain on resources. This means we are left with inflation and high interest rates. The bank then imposes a credit squeeze for a period, long enough for those excesses from the system to force inflation down.

Always remember that during a slump the price of most things will fall, but the value of cash does not. In fact, the value of cash goes up because it is measured by its increased ability to buy things more cheaply. This is the best time to hold cash and come out of those holdings when the economy is in the doldrums.

Nobody knows how long we will languish in the ‘doldrums’, and if you count the recent stock market rally as a ‘good news’ indicator it may be almost over, but it’s clear – at least to me’ … we are already in the cycle where assets are cheap … both stocks and real-estate with the added bonus that interest rates are also cheap …

… Bargain Hunter’s Heaven.

Here’s what to do:

1. Start looking for good quality companies with a strong history of earnings growth that are undervalued (did you know that GE has produced 10 years of 10%+ year-over-year earnings growth?) that are selling for low P/E (that’s the price compared to earnings … if you can pick up GE at P/E’s of 13 and hold for a long time, you have a sure-fire winner!) and HOLD. Don’t feel obligated to borrow to buy these, but increasingly, this will be a good strategy as stocks will be the first to rebound.

2. Start looking for good quality income-producing real-estate that you can afford to HOLD … these will be the last to recover (could be a 7 to 10 year cycle to fully recover) but, prices will begin to steadily increase. So, buy soon to lock in these yummy low interest rates before they, too, start to rise. The combination of low prices and low interest rates is equally a sure-fire winner.

3. Start a service business that helps large corporates – as they recover, they will need to outsource more and more services. It can be tough (corporates can be tough to deal with) but they can also pay off big and provide a ready exit strategy (as the outsourcing ‘fashion’ begins to swing back to ‘insourcing’ and your largest customers fight to buy you out).

Just don’t forget to always keep an eye on the clock …

Buffett's motivations questioned?

Posted on by
Reply

Last month, as a reader service, I published one of the most important financial statements made in recent years, but it wasn’t made by the Treasury, the Feds, or even the Banks (!)  …

… it was made by Warren Buffett – to give the average US investor confidence by sharing his personal financial strategies for today’s ‘crisis’ market.

Naturally, there were cynics: isn’t it amazing that people who usually have nothing (like one particular financial journalist) like nothing better than to criticize those who have everything (like one particular multi-billionaire investor)?

It’s the same counter-intuitive, yet all-too-human, failing that sees us buy when the market is high and panic/sell when it is low. Sad … but, true.

Here are some comments by Marketwatch.com, where “David Weidner penned an article about Warren Buffett” that Motley Fool thinks is “equal parts sad and stupid”; Motley Fool says:

Weidner responded to Buffett’s article by making the following points/accusations:

  • That because Buffett can get better terms than you, his advice does not apply to you.
  • That Buffett wrote the Times article to talk up shares because his recent investments in General Electric (NYSE: GE) and Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) preferred shares were underwater, and he needed to “stir up some buying” to get their prices back up.
  • That the stocks Buffett’s buying for his personal account are irrelevant, since he made his fame with his gains at Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-A) (NYSE: BRK-B).

    • I am not going to report here all the reasons why this is short-sighted bunkum, when Motley Fool have already done such a good job for me 🙂

    How to build a conglomerate …

    Posted on by
    1

    I wrote a post a while ago, in response to a reader question, that questioned the sanity of an entrepreur following my path and owning multiple concurrent businesses.

    I said: bad idea!

    However, Diane points to a number of conglomerates (a collection of related or unrelated businesses under common corporate control) that make money because they diversify into multiple businesses and sectors:

    Most conglomerates are good examples of diversified businesses (GE comes to mind). One could also buy complementary businesses. Your risk level is affected the same way as it would be with diversifying any investment.

    Your example of multiplying the management teams (and thereby increasing risk to each business) is interesting, Adrian. This is precisely one a buyer of companies is looking for (like your friend Brad) – inefficient management with an underlying fairly decent business. You buy and consolidate, combining the common management (HR, Acctg, IT) that runs across each company, combine anything else you can “leverage” (logistic chains, purchasing power, for examples), and save money, thereby reducing costs and making it even more attractive to investors (depending on which kind you want).

    And, it’s true: a conglomerate can diversify a company’s risks, just like diversifying a stock portfolio … the problem is – just like any other diversification strategy – you equally ‘wash out’ your successes with your failures.

    My issue is that this may work as a ‘risk mitigation strategy for large companies, but it’s too risky for smaller (e.g. sole, or family) operators.

    Large conglomerates build up over time, usually using one successful business to fund the rest. The key is having good management in each … the risk (for a small player, like you and I) is trying to BE that management.

    A great example is Warren Buffett: he started Berkshire Hathaway by buying a controlling interest in a mediocre textile company and raised cash simply by stopping the dividend stream to the shareholders …

    … he used that cash to buy an insurance company, and used policyholder cash from the insurance company to buy more companies.

    The interesting thing is that he does NOT look for companies with poor management; rather he buys GOOD companies with GREAT management and keeps them in place, doing what they do best: creating more cash for his next company purchase … and, so on goes Warren’s $40 Billion – $60 Billion (his personal net worth in Berkshire Hathaway) ‘cash machine’ that owns more than 75 companies!

    The problem is that Warren only got to this point because he couldn’t find one company that ‘did the trick’ … he would, however, put 60% to 80% of his entire net worth in just one investment/business, if he could find it!