Yearly Archives: 2012

Investment Skills Quiz: Go Long and Go Short for Five Years

 

YOUR MISSION

You are tired of reading all the theory on growth investing and Wall Street is in a perpetual down cycle. What to do? You sign on for a five-year mission to kidnap the Pope from the Vatican and replace him with Madonna dressed as the Pope. Yes, THAT Madonna http://youtu.be/tYkwziTrv5o. Times are desperate.

As payment, Mission Control will allow you to short $10 million worth of Company A or B while simultaneously buying $10 million of either Company A or B. You choose. The paymaster will total up your profits or losses at the end of your five-year mission. Once you make your choice, you will have to wait upon your return (assuming you live) to close out your positions.  Good luck and state the reasons for your choice.

Click on this http://youtu.be/qq9R65fXDKQ to see how you receive your instructions and then this paper Investing Quiz Go Long and Go Short to choose which company you will buy and which company you will short.

The actual 10-Ks will be posted in a day or so, and we will learn the results of your choices.

 

 

Breaking into Money Management

BREAKING INTO MONEY MANAGEMENT

Info from Whitney Tilson on how to break into Money Management–common sense advice.

1-22-03-Breaking_Into_Money_Management

—————-

If You Want A Job With Whitney Tilson, Don’t Send Him A Resume — Try Something Much More Aggressive

Julia La Roche| Oct. 9, 2012, 3:11 PM| 3,802| 9

 

Like most big name hedge fund managers, Whitney Tilson, the founder of T2 Partners, gets a lot of emails and resumes from people seeking a job at his fund.

The thing is Tilson doesn’t want a resume.

If you want a job at T2 Partners, you’ve got to be much more aggressive than that.

“I would tell anyone, when somebody emails me, I get lots of emails from people looking for a job and anyone who attaches a resume, I’m not interested because everybody’s got a resume. Send me a short write-up of your best investment idea,” Tilson told Business Insider at the Value Investing Congress last week.

He’s giving some really good advice here.

In this environment, you’ve really got to find a way to stand out from the crowd.

This reminds us of the scene in Oliver Stone’s “Wall Street” when young stockbroker Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) really wanted to work for Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas). During a brief interview, Fox pitched a bunch of stock ideas to Gekko.

Of course, we’re not saying give inside information like Fox did in the film, but you get the point: Pitching an idea is the way to stand out.

Take 27-year-old analyst at New York-based hedge fund LionEye Capital Management, Ryan Fusaro, for instance.

Fusaro told Business Insider last week that he would put together investment presentations and send them out to people he respected in the industry.

That definitely shows gumption on his part and people do notice.

He was hired at Lion Eye Capital from a fund of funds about five weeks ago.

SEE ALSO: 27-Year-Old Analyst Ryan Fusaro Wowed Everyone At The Value Investing Congress With His Investment Idea >

 

The 15% (Growth) Delusion

 

Always make decisions based on what you have learned and act on the facts that you have gathered. Even if you turn out to be wrong, at least you can learn from your own mistakes.” Mark Mobius, Templeton Global Fund.

Previously I posted on the Petersburg Paradox of using high, perpetual growth rates in financial models like Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) here: http://wp.me/p2OaYY-1p6.

If next year’s owner earnings will be $1 per share or a total dividend payout of $1 with a cost of capital of 10% for the business, then we will theoretically pay $10 per share for the company. If the company will grow forever more at 5%, then we will pay $20 (10% cost of capital minus perpetual growth rate per year of 5%) divided into $1 = $20 per share. If the growth rate is 10% then we will pay “any” price. Of course, common sense should stop you right there.

Nevertheless, you often see high growth rates of 12% or 15% or more predicted by analysts. What are the probabilities of a company growing its earnings at 15% per year for decades? The article below discusses the snare of earnings management, but the article includes a study of how few (2%) of all major companies have grown their earnings at a 15% rate. This is another warning to be careful of forecasting or expecting rapid growth.

 The 15% Delusion

……That’s the problem for big companies: The growing gets hard, and we have two studies to prove it. The first was done a few years ago by Wharton School professor Jeremy Siegel for his book Stocks for the Long Run. Siegel’s primary purpose was to examine how the Nifty Fifty of 1972 would have treated investors who paid the sky-high prices then being asked for them and held on for 25 years–and the answer was “not badly.” But a secondary part of the study looked at the group’s annual growth rates in earnings per share. And only three companies out of the 50 beat 15%. They were Philip Morris, at 17.9%; McDonald’s, at 17.5%; and Merck, at 15.1%.

The second study is one FORTUNE, working with Value Line, did for this article. For three different periods–1960-80, 1970-90, and 1980-99–we examined earnings-per-share growth for 150 large companies. In our sample were the 150 publicly owned companies that (a) at the start of each period were the biggest in the FORTUNE 500 or were in the very top of the “Fifties” lists that we used to do for certain industries, such as commercial banks; and (b) were still independent beings at the end of the period being studied. The fact that we threw out any company that did not last the period (because it was acquired, perhaps, or subjected to a leveraged buyout) gives the results an upward, “survivorship” bias. Beyond that, we know retrospectively that there was no shortage of business opportunity in the years we studied: Though the companies looked big to the world as each period began, they still had plenty of room to grow.

And yet the number that managed to increase their earnings per share over the periods by 15% annually was very small, even when you include the companies that hit the mark because of an oddball situation. For example, Boeing beat 15% in two periods (1960-80 and 1970-90) because it moved from hard times in the base years to prosperity in the later years. Similarly, Fannie Mae had an extraordinary 32% growth rate for the 1980-99 years because it began the period in a near-bankrupt condition, brought on by sky-high interest rates, and later got rich.

Read more: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/02/05/296141/index.htm or for a PDF of the article: The 15 Percent Delusion by Carol Loomis

More articles to make you think about the investment requirements (and risks) to drive growth.

Fallacy of Growth_Goupon

Asset Growth can lead to lower stock returns_Research Darden School

Growth Illusion

Higgily Piggly Growth and Low PEs

For the next post we will read about what Graham has to say about growth investing.

Ben Graham, the Growth Stock Investor

Every investor would like to select the stocks of companies that will do better than the average over a period of year. A growth stock may be defined as one that has done this in the past and is expected to do so in the future.[1] Thus it seems only logical that the intelligent investor should concentrate upon the selection of growth stocks. Actually the matter is more complicated, as we shall try to show.

It is a mere statistical chore to identify companies that have “outperformed the averages” in the past. The investor can obtain a list of 50 or 100 such enterprises from his broker. Why, then, should he not merely pick out the 15 or 20 most likely looking issues of this group and lo! He has a guaranteed-successful stock portfolio?

There are two catches to this simple idea. The first is that common stocks with good records and apparently good prospect sell at correspondingly high prices. The investor may be right in his judgment of their prospects and still not fare particularly well merely because he has paid in full and perhaps overpaid for the expected prosperity. The second is that his judgment as to the future may prove wrong. Unusually rapid growth cannot keep up forever; when a company has already registered a brilliant expansion, its very increase in size makes a repetition of its achievement more difficult. At some point the growth curve flattens out, and in many cases it turns downward.

…to be continued



[1] A company with an ordinary record cannot , without confusing the term, be called a growth company or a “growth stock” merely because its proponent expects it to do better than the average in the future. It is just a “promising company.” Graham is making a subtle but important point: If the definition of a growth stock is a company that will thrive in the future, then that is not a definition at all, but wishful thinking. It is like calling a sports team “the champions” before the results are in.  This wishful thinking persists today, among mutual funds, “growth: portfolios describe their holdings as companies with ‘above-average growth potential” or “favorable prospects for earnings growth.” A better definition might be companies whose net earnings per share have increased by an annual average of at least 15% for at least five years running. (Meeting this definition in does not ensure that a company will meet it in the future.)

 

How the Stock Market and Economy Really Work

Readings: Munger-Talk-at-Harvard-Westlake and don’t forget to subscribe to kessler@robotti.com and www.santangelsreview.com to be up to date on all news related to investing.

How the Market Really Works

Editor: The author argues that GDP growth, as measured in money and stock market values as reflected by broad indices like the S&P 500 and the DJIA, rises as a result of the increase in money caused by the expansion of bank credit.  Note that the DJIA went from 809 on Jan 2, 1970 to 12,800.18 on January 4, 2008, a gain of 1,582 percent, even greater than the increase in the (m-2) money supply in that period.

If money supply was held constant or grew slowly (as would be typical under a classical gold standard), then capital gains could be made only by stock picking–by investing in companies that are expanding market share, bringing to market new products, etc., thus truly gaining proportionately more revenues and profits at the expense of these companies that are less innovative and efficient.

The stock prices of the gaining companies would rise while others fell. Since the average stock would not actually increase in value, most of the gains made by investors from stocks would be in the form of dividend payments. By contrast, in our world today, most stocks–good and bad ones–rise during inflationary bull markets and decline during bear markets. The good companies simply rise faster than the bad.

An interesting, important read: http://mises.org/daily/4654

In fact, the only real force that ultimately makes the stock market or any market rise (and, to a large extent, fall) over the longer term is simply changes in the quantity of money and the volume of spending in the economy. Stocks rise when there is inflation of the money supply (i.e., more money in the economy and in the markets). This truth has many consequences that should be considered.

Since stock markets can fall — and fall often — to various degrees for numerous reasons (including a decline in the quantity of money and spending), our focus here will be only on why they are able to rise in a sustained fashion over the longer term.

The Fundamental Source of All Rising Prices

For perspective, let’s put stock prices aside for a moment and make sure first to understand how aggregate consumer prices rise. In short, overall prices can rise only if the quantity of money in the economy increases faster than the quantity of goods and services. (In economically retrogressing countries, prices can rise when the supply of goods diminishes while the supply of money remains the same, or even rises.)

When the supply of goods and services rises faster than the supply of money — as happened during most of the 1800s — the unit price of each good or service falls, since a given supply of money has to buy, or “cover,” an increasing supply of goods or services. George Reisman offers us the critical formula for the derivation of economy-wide prices: [1]

In this formula, price (P) is determined by demand (D) divided by supply (S). The formula shows us that it is mathematically impossible for aggregate prices to rise by any means other than (1) increasing demand, or (2) decreasing supply; i.e., by either more money being spent to buy goods, or fewer goods being sold in the economy.

In our developed economy, the supply of goods is not decreasing, or at least not at enough of a pace to raise prices at the usual rate of 3–4 percent per year; prices are rising due to more money entering the marketplace.

The same price formula noted above can equally be applied to asset prices — stocks, bonds, commodities, houses, oil, fine art, etc. It also pertains to corporate revenues and profits. As Fritz Machlup states:

It is impossible for the profits of all or of the majority of enterprises to rise without an increase in the effective monetary circulation (through the creation of new credit or dishoarding).[2]

…….

The Link between the Economy and the Stock Market

The primary link between the stock market and the economy — in the aggregate — is that an increase in money and credit pushes up both GDP and the stock market simultaneously.

A progressing economy is one in which more goods are being produced over time. It is real “stuff,” not money per se, which represents real wealth. The more cars, refrigerators, food, clothes, medicines, and hammocks we have, the better off our lives. We saw above that, if goods are produced at a faster rate than money, prices will fall. With a constant supply of money, wages would remain the same while prices fell, because the supply of goods would increase while the supply of workers would not. But even when prices rise due to money being created faster than goods, prices still fall in real terms, because wages rise faster than prices. In either scenario, if productivity and output are increasing, goods get cheaper in real terms.

Obviously, then, a growing economy consists of prices falling, not rising. No matter how many goods are produced, if the quantity of money remains constant, the only money that can be spent in an economy is the particular amount of money existing in it (and velocity, or the number of times each dollar is spent, could not change very much if the money supply remained unchanged).

This alone reveals that GDP does not necessarily tell us much about the number of actual goods and services being produced; it only tells us that if (even real) GDP is rising, the money supply must be increasing, since a rise in GDP is mathematically possible only if the money price of individual goods produced is increasing to some degree. Otherwise, with a constant supply of money and spending, the total amount of money companies earn — the total selling prices of all goods produced — and thus GDP itself would all necessarily remain constant year after year.

Valuation: Valuing Growth and the Petersburg Paradox

Growth and value investing are joined at the hip. –Warren Buffett

The one and absolute truth I have learned about investing–and it is the only one–is that long-range success comes not from any simple rule or rules that can be followed by everyone but only from the most rigorous pursuit of disciplines designed to neutralize the emotional pressures that inevitably descent from time to time upon anyone who is responsible for investing other people’s money.

Those disciplines must be self-evolved because we all have different strengths and weaknesses. the things they have in common are (1) defining precisely what we are trying to do; (2) clearly understanding the reasons for the strategy; (3) recognizing in advance what problems will sooner or later accompany the strategy–for there will always be such problems’ and (4) developing the strength to “stay the course” given during troubled times. Successful investing requires constant inquisitiveness about the new and everlasting, open-minded re-examination of the old. The latter process is more difficult than the former. Not many of us are willing and able to accept the tough disciplines that are involved and not many achieve long-term investment success.  –Robert R. Barker, an investor who compounded capital at about a 25% annual rate during the 1950s and 1960s. (1979 Speech)

A Journey to Learn Valuation

I will first focus on how to value growth stocks. There is no promise that we will discover an answer, but we will study the investing greats and their original comments to find our way. Many “great” or famous investors have floundered on the shoals of growth investing. Like Bill Miller: http://executivesuite.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/bill-millers-really-bad-bet/. 

Humbly, we begin by studying the problem of using high and PERPETUAL growth rates when valuing a business.  When g is = to r, the result is an absurdity.

 The Dividend Discount Model

Where:

D1 (Estimate of next year’s dividend) = Current annual dividend * (1 + g)
r (Required Rate of Return for the Stock) = Real Risk Free Rate + (Market Return – Real Risk Free Rate) * Beta of Stock
Real Risk Free Rate = 52-Week T-Bill Yield**
Market Return = Estimate for the stock market’s return in the next year
g (Dividend Growth Rate) = Estimate for the stock’s dividend growth rate (you may calculate g by using the growth of the dividend in the past)

** 52-Week T-Bill Yield – You can find the yield by going to the U.S. Treasury Direct website, selecting the most recent year under auction date > 52-week bills > PDF of the latest auction results.

The Petersburg Complex

This paper by David Durand is a famous article that Ben Graham refers often to in his writings. Growth Stocks and the Petersburg Paradox  If you read only one article from this post, read that. To emphasize the importance of the above article, here is where others have analyzed the article St Petersburg Paradox and Tech Stocks 2000 and St Petersburg Paradox.

Then articles discussing how investors fool themselves: The_Importance_of_Expectations_–_August_2012 and Bubbles and Growth

Growth what is it good for and ROIC

The Dangers of Applying Discounted Cash Flow Models

Ben_Graham_and_the_Growth_Investor_Bryant_College_041008

Dangers of DCF_Mortier and CommonErrors

………….NEXT I will post Graham’s discussion on valuing growth stocks.

 

Just Show ME the Money

For those readers who lack the patience to study theory and who say, http://youtu.be/mBS0OWGUidc?t=37s There are other blogs for you to read: http://www.oldschoolvalue.com/blog/

52 Techniques for Accounting Fraud _ Jae Jun

One of my favorite blogs: www.greenbackd.com

 

The Death of the PC and Intel (INTC)

In the case of specific industries, for instance in the airline industry, it’s absolutely true that a young analyst, looking at things fresh–if he is as hardworking as I was and in really willing to dig in–has a tremendous advantage over me. I will always believe, by the way , that in hiring analysts, the best guys are the ones with two or three years’ experience. Probably from a poor background–hungry, cynical, skeptical, taking nothing for granted. As concerns an industry, it is absolutely true.

However, as concerns the big issues–interest rates, what I call the universal issues–I won’t defer to anybody, because knowledge of history is so important. You have to an historian, not a ‘quant.’ Really, in those issues, there is nothing new under the sun. –Joe Rosenberg (Interview Grant’s Pub. April 6, 1987)

Intel

Yes, the news is out–there is weaker than expected demand in the Personal Computer unit as the global economy and Tablet sales depress Intel’s business, for now.

But with these financials INTC_VL Oct 2012 and the current price and INTC_35 Yr, I will take a look. I pray for a negative earnings report to send the price lower, but you should first value the entire company. What are you getting for your dollar?  The strong balance sheet (excess cash), return on total capital of 18%, 4% dividend yield (the company is paying out about 40% of its profits to its shareholders) and earnings yield of about 10% are what interest me.  I bet the PC industry will not disappear at the rate the market may be projecting, but do I really know that?

Update on Oct. 23rd, 2012: Death of the PC Articles

 

Fraud, GM’s TARP WARRANTS

Fraud Study

Readers shared this

GOLD.… A lot of people dumped their life savings into this Genneva Scheme.  Quite a number of them are so pissed off with our (Malaysia) Central Bank that they’re planning to hold protests.

http://jeenhao.com/precious-metal-investment/genneva-gold-investment-scheme-legit-or-scam/

http://www.financetwitter.com/2012/10/genneva-gold-another-collapsing-ponzi-scam.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Financetwitter+%28FinanceTwitter%29

The Mad Max of Wall Street or Tony Elgindy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Elgindy at (Greed Alert) http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/166191. The video is a documentary on pump and dumps. There are lessons here.

If you expect help from the SEC, then guess again. A farce:Case Study in Ineptitude_SEC investigation into Madoff

 

TARP Warrants (Pabrai’s Third Qtr. 2012 Letter)

In the fall on 2008, in the wake of the greatest financial crisis in over three quarters of a century, the United States Congress approved and President Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program. TARP allowed the US Treasury to invest $700 billion in “troubled assets”. Treasury Secretary Paulson used to program to inject equity into troubled banks.

In return for the much-needed equity infusion, the banks issued preferred stock to the US Treasury and supplemented them with warrants as an additional kicker. As warrants go, these TARP Warrants are highly unusual and heavily favor the investor (over the issuer).

Over the last few quarters, the US Treasury has been a seller of these warrants and many of them trade like stocks. In addition TARP-­like warrants were issued by the likes of AIG and General Motors as part of their bailouts. It is clear from reading the fine print on the TARP warrants that the documents were prepared by treasury staff. The institutions were pretty much told where to sign.

Take the example of the GM Class B Warrants. Besides the US Government, GM creditors got some of these warrants in lieu of their claims in bankruptcy court. A single GM Class B Warrant gives one the right to acquire one share of GM stock at a price of $18.33 anytime until July 10, 2019. In addition, the exercise price gets adjusted downward if there are dividends or stock splits. The dividend adjustment is an unusual feature and very much pro-­investor. These warrants were issued with a ten-­year life  which is also unusual.

GM stock (which Pabrai Funds owns) is presently changing hands at around $24.45/share. The Class B Warrants are also publicly traded and can be bought for about $9.40/warrant. The warrant is $6.12 in the money. If one has a view that GM is significantly undervalued, the warrant is likely to yield a higher return.

For example, if GM were to trade at $50, $75 or $100 in 2019, an investor in GM stock would end up with a gross return of 105%, 207% or 309%, respectively. An investor in the warrant would end up with a return of 137%, 503% and 770%, respectively. Once GM gets past $30, the warrant delivers a higher return. Of course, should GM languish below $29, holding the stock would be a better bet.

http://www.gm.com/company/investors/FAQs/Warrants.html

https://www.mlcguctrust.com/Page.aspx?Name=Home

Comments from csinvestor.org

GM is not a franchise nor a good business—no competitive advantages, high capital intensity, variable demand, and intense competition.  However, for those who seek cheap assets, you might study this.

GM has emerged from bankruptcy with $79 million less debt and about $47.2 billion of deferred tax assets before valuation allowances.  The market is unhappy with GM’s exposure (18% of sales) to Europe and thus prices GM at 5 or 6 times the 2013 earnings estimate, and at 2 times EV to EBITDA.  Last year GM reported sales of 150.3 billion, adjusted EBIT of $8.3 billion and $4.58 billion of diluted earnings per share of 1.8 billion fully diluted shares (conversion of the convertible preferred).

Grants (August 10, 2012, www.grantspub.com) estimates an enterprise value of $21.66 (try to figure this out by subtracting net operating losses, GM Financial, Chinese joint ventures, $28.6 billion in cash and the stake in Ally Financial. “Core” operating GM produces $12 billion in EBITDA so compare this to 3.5 times EV-to-EBITDA of Magna International and Delphi.

Those figures may be off, but these post bankruptcies may be interesting if priced for bad news.  Be aware that his is a mediocre business with a much better balance sheet and a tax sheltered income stream. 2 times EV to EBITDA may seem cheap but GM has huge maintenance capex needs and low return on assets based on its past historical performance—pre-bankruptcy.

See more here: GM_VL

 

Value Vault for Books; A More Focused Blog on Investing

“We human beings always seek happiness,” says Mr. Zhang. “Now there are two ways. You make yourself happy by making other people unhappy–I call that the logic of robbery. The other way, you make yourself happy by making other people happy-that’s the logic of the market. Which do you prefer?” (http://bastiat.mises.org/2012/10/austrian-influence-china-and-the-wsj/)

The Blog is now www.csinvesting.org, a self-hosted site.

This blog has been moved to a self-hosting site so I can have more control over content and presentation. Slowly I am regaining my energy from surgery, so the blog will be back to normal shortly.

I will focus more on investing case studies and different investing problems than before. No one has complained, but political commentary detracts from the mission here which is to become a better investor through thinking critically and independently. I believe an effective way to learn is through understanding the principles and theory of investing then applying those principles to case studies. Finally, the investor must use his/her principles and investing methods to the opportunities available. As investors, we need a coherent investment philosophy and process that fits with our personality and skills. Only YOU can know yourself, but you can learn about investing here. Investing is simple but not easy.

VALUE VAULT for BOOKS

Below is a link for the Value Vault for BOOKS that contains or will contain hundreds of books. Think of this as a way to visit an investing library.  There will other Value Vaults (posted links) for cases studies, videos, and articles. Each value vault is limited to 2 Gigs. Firefox’s browser can view the content but other browsers (I am told) show empty folders.   Periodically new material will be added to each folder, so check back.

Books
(You can only download contents from this folder)
View this folder
 Do you have anything to share?

More to follow…….

Greenwald Videos (11-15)

More Greenwald Videos

File 11: http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhVblFOOW50d0djZDhUQw

File 12: http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhVblFEVEh0TW5Ld01UQw

File 13: http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhVblFEVEhlaFJ3SGNUQw

File 14: http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhVblFFQXBCMTQwTWRVag

File 15: http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhVblFFQXBsUjlvZE1UQw

More videos

http://www.bengrahaminvesting.ca/Resources/videos.htm

Sign up for value investing news at www.santangelsreview.com

Value Vault

My recovery is a bit slow but I hope to have the Value Vault up again early next week. All those who emailed me for keys will receive them along with prior key holders.

Greenwald 2010 Lectures (6 through 10)

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. –W.B. Yeats

Greenwald 2010 (6-10) Videos

Here’s the link to file 6:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhWZFhsSWhnYU9Ga2NUQw

Here’s the link to file 7:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhWZFhsSWgwMEZ1a3NUQw

Here’s the link to file 8:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhWZFhuTmE4Q1JvZE1UQw

Here’s the link to file 9:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhWZFh0WkJqY3FVbDhUQw

Here’s the link to this file 10:
http://www.yousendit.com/download/TEhWZFh0WkJtMElUWThUQw

More videos to follow……….

Enjoy your weekend