Another way to mitigate risk?

riskquadrant

Say that you’re a venture capitalist who has found some semi-reliable way of categorizing entrepreneurs on their capacity to undertake action with / without first doing a lot of research … which group in the above matrix would you be most likely to back (assuming that they all come to you with equally good ideas, etc., etc.)?

Before I share my views, I want to quickly talk about risk: you see, we have some readers who, I believe, are overly concerned with risk …

… as it happens, I am (by nature) one of them, struggling to overcome my own ‘addiction to fear‘. I’ve done OK, but not without some personal psychological ‘cost’ along the way … nothing serious, just a few extra grey hairs … maybe 10 or 20 years off my life … the usual 😉

One of the ways to avoid risk, course, is to do some research before you take irrevocable action; it’s the old proverb:

Look before you leap!

newcokeComing from my famous 20/20 hindsight, though, I can say that this an overblown theory. The reality is that too much research is just as dangerous as not enough … perhaps more so.

Let me explain …

Let’s say you take on a project and despite years of research before you plunge into it, it fails!

Can’t happen?

I have only two words for you: New Coke 😛

So, you’re out …

Now, let’s look at somebody a bit more ‘gung ho’ … they jump into one project after another, fail early and failing often … but, in just about the time that it took for you to jump into (and crash back out of) your Well Researched Project they have finally struck gold (after failing 4 times) … 5 times lucky 🙂

Contrived example?

Perhaps not as much as you might think …

… you see, venture capitalists work on the Power of 10 Formula; for every 10 businesses that they fund:

  • 7 Fail, causing them to lose their entire investment
  • 2 return their initial investment, nothing more
  • 1 makes it all worthwhile

Despite all their research, VC’s can’t tell in advance which of these businesses would succeed (or, they wouldn’t bother investing in the other nine, d’oh!). What ‘saves’ the VC is action … they act/fail/act/fail …. act/succeed.

So, if we look at people on a scale (in the chart above) of how much  research they tend to do in advance of action (or, otherwise), I would much rather back the guys in II over the guys in III; I would almost be prepared to back the guys in II over the guys in IV simply because of their capacity to implement more ideas sooner … in my book, trial and error in the real world produces faster results than any form of theoretical research.

What’s the takeaway?

Get started in something that has a low set-up cost and you can get into the market (and, out of again) quickly … if it succeeds, more power to you. If it fails (as it probably will) you can dust yourself off and try/try again.

Internet businesses are ideal ….

A strange conjunction of posts …

I was skimming through the alltop.com listings of personal finance blog titles as I do from time to time, when I came across these two posts  on Ranjan Varma’s blog:

Timing the Market is Nonsense

and

Quantum Gold Fund Gives 29.7% Return

I don’t know about you, but I rolled on the floor laughing … if you don’t see anything ‘wrong’ with the juxtaposition of these two headlines you’re wasting your time reading my blog 😛

But, it’s the first article – on market timing – that I want to talk about … because there’s an interesting (and very short) ‘slide show’ embedded in it that I want you to see:

http://www.slideshare.net/thinkingcarl/average-is-not-normal-presentation?type=presentation

There are two points that the slideshow ‘author’ makes that I want to discuss here …

Average is Not Normal

The creator of the slide show suggests that in the last 80 years the stock market has “averaged” a 10% return, but in only 2 of those years has it actually returned anywhere near 10%

picture-11

Timing is Everything

The slide show creator then uses that data to (erroneously, in my opinion) reason that timing in the stock market is actually critical … for example, would you want to start investing here?

picture-12

or, here?

picture-2

So, where would you rather invest? Come on, be honest?

Before I tell you where I would invest, let me tell you where the real big bucks are to be made …

… the real money is to be made in the second chart; investing at the peak of the market!

But, it only works if you can recognize the peak:

Jesse Livermore, the legendary trader of the 20’s and 30’s reportedly made and lost a fortune 4 times before he (understandably) blew his own head off. One of his greatest profits came when he SHORTED the market on the day of the famous stock market crash that heralded the beginning of the Great Depression. We’re talking so much money that the President of the USA called him to beg him to stop because he was singlehandedly making the market crash worse!

Given that I’m not Jesse (and, neither are you) my answer is:

I don’t care …

… you see, whether the curve is up in the beginning, smooth all the way, ziggy zaggy every which way in the middle, I only care what my starting and ending numbers are. And, what I do know is that, over a 30 year period (based upon ANY continuous 30 year period starting on any day that you care to name in the past 75 or so years … INCLUDING purchasing on the day before the greatest stock market crash in history … the one that saw the beginning of the Great Depression), the stock market will NOT give me less than an 8.5% return.

So, I will only buy stocks for 30 years as an investment (or less, if I feel like gambling) … or 20 years, if I only need a ‘guaranteed’ 4% return …

If the market happens to ziggy zaggy up in the right ways, and I’m lucky enough to get somewhere near the averages, well, there’ll be some extremely happy charities and surviving family when I die 😉

The Frugal Billionaire

scrooge-35232scrooge1I just love people who pursue frugality for frugality’s sake … like it’s an end, rather than a means to an end.

For example, take this really interesting post on Grad Money Matters where he points to a bunch of rich old men who live like misers:

Some of the world’s wealthiest people … also happen to be some of the most frugal.

  • Despite having a net worth of $62 billion and being the world’s richest man, famously frugal investor Warren Buffett still lives in the same home he bought for nearly $31,500 some 50 years ago.
  • John Caudwell used to ride his bike 14 miles to work everyday and cut his own hair because he didn’t want to be bothered going to the barber despite having amassed a fortune of over $2.2 billion. Caudwell also purchased all of his clothing off the rack at British retailer Marks & Spencer.
  • Jim Walton, member of America’s richest family and Wal-Mart scion, reportedly drives a 14-year-old Dodge Dakota despite having a net worth of $16.4 billion.
  • Retail Tycoon Frederik Meijer, worth $2 billion is known to drive cars with very high MPG and prefers to only stay in budget motels.
  • Gene Burd, a 76-year-old journalism professor at the University of Texas has donated over a million dollars to financial foundations but walks 6 miles to work everyday, lives in a very tiny apartment, picks up pennies on the ground, and wears shoes that he found in the trash.
  • Ingvar Kamprad built a $33 billion fortune after founding Ikea but the Swedish tycoon drives a 15-year-old Volvo, tries to avoid wearing suits, and flies coach. It’s also said (surprise, surprise) that Kamprad furnishes his home entirely with affordable Ikea furniture.
  • Indian billionaire Azim Premji worth upwards of $17.1 billion drives a Toyota Corolla and stays in the company guesthouse rather than 5-star hotels when he’s traveling on business. At a lunch honoring his son’s wedding he even served the food on paper plates.
  • We would be amiss to not mention some of the highest earning dead celebrities who are perhaps the most frugal of this list due to their inability to spend 🙂 For example, top earning dead musician, Kurt Cobain made about $50 million last year. Elvis Presley made $42 million despite having died in 1977 and, in third place, Peanuts creator Charles M. Schulz earnings were about $35 million.

*About the author: This list was compiled by Lewis Bennett, writer for an Individual Voluntary Arrangement (IVA) site.

I have a word to describe this kind of behavior: sick.

You need to ask yourself two questions:

1. Did these people become rich solely because they were frugal?

2. Is their current level of frugality sensible, given their net worth?

There’s no doubt in my mind that you will NOT become rich unless you learn how to delay gratification, but that is not the same as NO gratification. If you can afford to spend on a reasonable lifestyle and you choose not to, you MAY be just as ‘sick’ as the person who lives beyond their means and spends uncontrollably.

On the other hand, if you simply have no interest in the ‘trappings’ of life, that’s entirely a different matter … but, one then wonders why you bother with the whole “let’s get rich” thing, anyway?

But, here’s what I suspect really happens:

1. Some rich people are so driven by the process of making money that they never know when to stop … some take one step, one chance, one risk too many and lose their money, while others just keep going on and on and on, driving themselves – and, their families – to an early grave. There are exceptions of course: those like Warren Buffett who so enjoy what they are doing that they would be doing it even if they were not paid.

The ‘antidote’ is to work out your Life’s Purpose and if it’s to make money … then go until you drop! If not, pursue the financial path until you have acquired enough money to live your Life’s TRUE Purpose, then stop … and, live!

2. Some learn the lesson early that you need to delay gratification and live frugally if you want to avoid spending all the fruits of your labor (rather than reinvesting in your future) but become so driven by the process of saving money that they never know when to stop …

… in my opinion, there’s NO lesson to be learned from a multi-millionaire or billionaire who lives like a miser … other than they are great counterpoint to those billionaires who live overly and ridiculously flamboyantly.

To me the ‘right’ path is simple: live comfortably within your means … whether that is a $50k a year lifestyle or a $50 million a year sustainable one.

Tax implications of converting your home to a rental …

layformula

This is your last chance to take part in a foolproof money-making scheme … even if you have NEVER bet on a horse in your life, I personally GUARANTEE that this System (previously known as ‘Lay Formula’) WILL work for you! If you do want to take part in this once in a lifetime opportunity, read yesterday’s post here and register your interest NOW.

Expressions of interest close in 24 Hours!
___________________________________________
deathtaxes

Despite the length of this title, today’s post will be really short … because I have NOTHING to add on the subject of taxes. They are something to be paid – or not paid – depending on the advice of a QUALIFIED tax practitioner (accountant and/or attorney) in the area that you are interested.

Personally, I have only a slight hiccup in signing tax checks for over $1 Million (as I have for the last 2 tax years in a row) because it means that I have made a TON more money 🙂

… and, I rely totally on good advice; but, I pay for conservative, specialist opinion where necessary.

However, I have noticed that I number of my readers (and contributors) have recently converted their own residences into rentals, so I thought that I should perform a Reader Service by pointing you directly towards the excellent Tax Tips Blog so that you can read some excellent advice, straight from the “horse’s mouth”:

http://glgcpa.com/blog/2009/02/18/convert-personal-residence-to-rental/

Disclaimer: I have NO IDEA whether this is good, bad or indifferent advice … that’s what your accountant is for! 🙂

But, I would like your opinion

Exciting Money Making Opportunity!

I’m taking a break from my normal postings today to announce a ‘secret’ project that I have been working on with my close friend, and horse racing phenom, Derren Brown.

A few months ago, he unveiled in the United Kingdom a foolproof horse-racing system that has been making him … and subscribers … millions of pounds. This is absolutely on the level as the above video shows [if clicking on the above embedded video doesn’t work, click this link instead] … the video has not been ‘tweaked’ and all horses WERE selected in advance using The System.

I am excited to be able to say that I have acquired SOLE RIGHTS to the package WORLDWIDE (outside of the USA) and am looking for a limited number of Partners to put up $2,500 capital each to test the system in various jurisdictions (including the USA) … preliminary tests have shown The System to be as FOOLPROOF here as it has been in the UK.

__________________________

If you are interested in joining me in this LEGITIMATE OPPORTUNITY … please watch the above video, then register your interest in the comments section below (I can pick up your e-mail address from there). YOU MUST DO THIS WITHIN 48 HOURS.

This IS the only ‘get rich quick’ scheme that I know that is PROVEN to work, which is why I am not only endorsing it, but financially backing all of those smart enough and brave enough to put up a small part of their own cash ….

__________________________

Here’s what the experts are saying about The System:

The Astonishing, Simple, Ingenious, AND PROVEN Fast-Cash Secret Of An Inspired Betting and Gaming Entrepreneur.


“Punters look for winners, not fancy colour adverts endorsed by famous racing personalities. The System© may come with modest presentation, but has proved to be an explosive winner-finding system that leaves its flashy competitors far behind. The System is definitely an investment and not an expense.”
Odds On Magazine

“After researching the past 8 years results, we found winning runs of 1 x 18; 4 x 11; 13 x 7; 27 x 8 and over 50 winning runs of 9. Prepare yourself to be truly astonished – The System is worth its weight in £20 notes, and really puts the punter in the financial comfort zone! In our test, The System© wins with its ears pricked and plenty in hand. Good VFM and no ongoing costs!”
Business Opportunity Magazine

“I have found The System© to be a truly remarkable winner-finding system. On receipt of your system I had 4 losers on the trot, and thought here we go again another system that fails to deliver! However, I persevered and had 7 winners on the bounce – NOT ONE LOSER – then another 4 winners – magic! Also, I believe I am one of the first to pilot your new Premium Version. Well, last month (January), I had 18 winning days, 5 overall losing days, and 2 days with no qualifiers – Brilliant! “I sometimes wondered whether it was possible to break-even when betting, never mind make a profit, and was on the merry go round for many years! My search is now over, and I have closed the door on receiving any more offers by taking my name off all gambling mailing lists. Many thanks.”
A. Burns, Hereford, UK

The System is currently the only Step-By-Step FOOL-PROOF Automated Betting System GUARANTEED TO SELECT THE WINNER EVERY TIME to be made available on the Internet, and that could increase your income by up to 1,000% month after month… without lifting a finger, regardless of whether you are a professional gambler or have never placed a bet in your life

You see, horse betting is more of a mathematical formula based on the right staking plan than anything else. and if as well as having the right staking plan and selection plan you can also have it all automated for you, then it becomes child’s play.

They fully understand that due to the many “bogus” betting systems out there many people would be skeptical when they hear about the great results being achieved with this program, that is why they offer every new member the option of an introductory one week Trial. For proof, watch this incredible video …

________________________

That’s it … expressions of interest close in 48 hours. I personally stand behind the effectiveness of The System!

AJC.

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 🙂

Spending your Net Worth

Currently, over at the 7 Millionaires … In Training! ‘grand experiment’ we have been looking at the 7MIT’s cars and their attitudes, thereof.

I introduced them to the 5% Cars + Other Possessions Rule, which Jeff seems to have forgotten covers all of your possessions outside of your home … not just your car:

It seems like all you’d need to do is wait a bit and eventually your car will depreciate enough to be under 5%.

Does anyone really count their cars as part of their net worth? I view them more as a disposable item and not something that I try and calculate my net worth with.

But, Jeff does touch on an interesting ‘quirk’ of cars and other possessions that is different to what generally happens with houses and investments: they go DOWN in value over time.

This depreciation is something that we can take advantage of …

… you see, we can use the fact that our Net Worth should be increasing – while these other items are probably decreasing – to allow us to go shopping every few years or so!

[AJC: But, don’t forget to always pay CASH!]

Think about it, if 75% of our Net Worth is in investments (this is called your Investment Net Worth … it does NOT include your house, cars, and other cr*p that you may have lying around) and 20% is in your house and 5% in your cars/possessions, then you may have a Net Worth IQ asset column that looks like this:

Investments: $75,000 (75%)

House Equity: $20,000 (20%)

Cars: $2,500 (2.5%)

Other Possessions: $2,500 (2.5%)

But, in 3 years time – assuming a ‘normal’ market (and, who can really assume anything these days?!), it might look something like this:

Investments: $105,000 (80%)

House Equity: $25,000 (18%)

Cars: $1,250 (1%)

Other Possessions: $1,250 (1%)

Which allows you a number of options:

a) Pay down some of your mortgage (up to $2,500) to bring your house back to the maximum equity that these rules ‘allow’, or

b) Buy a newer car or some more cr*p (up to $2,500) to reward yourself for your good work, or

c) Decide to become rich(er), quick(er) by realizing that the rules were designed to have a MINIMUM of 75% of your Net Worth in investments … but, there’s nothing wrong with investing more 🙂

d) Some sensible combination of any/all of the above

I like (d) … to be totally honest, I don’t go for the overly-frugal nonsense: once I reach a financial milestone, I see nothing wrong with allowing myself a little enjoyment … that’s why I’m sitting back on my hammock right now with a Pina Colada and enjoying the Aussie sunshine ….

… regardless of how YOU choose to look at it, when you have a set of guidelines that you can follow, doesn’t it make it easy to at least see what the choices are?

Car or curse? 7 case studies …

fred-flintstone-barney-rubble-carWe all have a car … otherwise, we’d be cycling to work. But how much car? Do you buy new/old or somewhere in-between? After all, our car is one of our largest purchases … if not, largest purchase outside of our own home.

So, here’s 7 case studies from our 7 Millionaires … In Training! ‘grand experiment’.

Let me know what you think …

Scott – like so many of the 7MITs featured here – loves his BMW’s … in fact, even AJC happens to have one, at the moment! The best thing, for Scott, is that his employer provided his current BMW for ‘free’ … but, is there really such a thing as a ‘free lunch’? We explore that very issue …

Ryan also likes BMW’s, which cause Josh to recommend buying a new one because it means NO “maintenance bill for 4 years, 50,000 miles” … is this a good deal?

Josh is obviously the other BMW-fan; we use his post to re-introduce the 5% Rule for cars and other possessions; should Josh have broken the rule to get int his first car? You might be surprised by the answer (it’s in the comments)!

Lee sure knows how to run a truck into the ground! Take a look at his attitude towards financing vehicles and how long you should hold on to your truck for …

Mark – the savvy investor – shows the other BMW-lovers how to buy a good used one off e-Bay and negotiate the price lower AFTER you have already ‘bought it’ … nice!

Diane and I have a discussion around what comes first, the “debt or the car”? It’s moot … Diane know what she needs to do!

Jeff has the cars the boat and the airplane (well, the airplane is supplied by the Navy!) … but, at what point is it better chartering a boat than owning one?!

… oh, and I finally come clean on my own car-related successes and failures, here

Let me know about yours!?

… 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%

Playing the Efficient Market Theorist for a fool …

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 😉