Category Archives: Investing Gurus

Beat the Market and the Dealer; Swindles; Is the Fed Printing Money?

XYZPerfGraphs0003.jpg.w300h228

Above is the great Ed Thorp’s Princeton Partners performance graph. Learn more BEAT the Dealer AND the Market.

Black Swan Protection (Over my head but perhaps not over yours)


My Encounters With Madoff’s Scheme and Other Swindles

Uncovering Madoff Fraud by Thorp

By Edward O. Thorp

Excerpt:

“On the afternoon of Thursday, December 11, 2008, I got the news I had been expecting for more than seventeen years.  Calling from New York, my son Jeff said Bernie Madoff has confessed to defrauding investors of $50 billion in the greatest Ponzi scheme in history.  “It’s what you predicted in … 1991!” he said.

“It began on a balmy Monday morning in New York in the spring of 1991, when I arrived at the office of a well-known international company.  The investment committee, reviewing their hedge fund investments, decided at this time to add due diligence by hiring me as a consultant.  I spent a few days listening to summaries of track records, analyses of the business structures of the hedge funds, the backgrounds of their managers, and making on-site visits.  One of the fund managers was so paranoid when I interviewed him at his office that he wouldn’t tell me what kind of personal computers they used.  When I went to the restroom he escorted me for fear that I might acquire some valuable crumb of information. 

“With one exception, I approved the investments.  The story from Bernard Madoff Investments did not add up.  My client had been getting steady monthly profits ranging from 1% to more than 2% for more than two years.  Moreover, they knew other Madoff investors who had been winning every month for more than ten years.”

(Editor: How did the SEC’s examiners miss the swindle? All they had to do was check the OPPOSITE party on the Madoff’s trading tickets.  So if Madoff had a purchase of 1000 options on Coke, the examiner would check the counter-party’s back office to verify the transaction–a sale of 1,000 coke options to Madoff’s firm. A few more random checks would take 20 minutes.  DID the SEC EVEN DO THIS? If not, then why wouldn’t the government be liable for the fraud?)

Thorp’s website  (Excellent!)

MonetaryBase AndM2AndMZM

Is the Federal Reserve “Printing” Money? This is a question YOU must answer BEFORE you invest. 

POP QUIZ:  If the Fed can buy government debt by paying with electronic credits (purchase debt with money created out of thin air) then shouldn’t that mean a new paradise on earth?  The government can provide ALL goods and services to the American people by issuing unlimited bonds and not worry about who will buy and at what price the government can sell their debt, that is incurred to pay for the goods and services purchased for ALL Americans, because the Fed can purchase the bonds in unlimited quantities and forever. Therefore, there is no need for Americans to work or pay for services. We have perpetual wealth. Does ANYONE disagree with that “analysis?”

From http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/as-reminder-fed-is-not-printing-money.html

Keep in mind that my argument here is not the true nature of excess reserves, but rather, is the Fed ‘printing money’ by expanding its Balance Sheet.

Normally the Fed does not have to print money.  The Federal Reserve Banks do that for themselves under their charters with the consent and oversight of the Fed, and subject to the prevailing capital requirements.

But when the real economy, as typified in the recent collapse and the continuing plunge of the velocity of money indicators, the Fed picks up the ball and prints money for the benefit of the economy.  They use this to ‘lower interest rates’ except in a liquidity trap wherein that is like pushing a rope.

I think what some of these helpful pundits are trying to say is that the Fed is not ‘printing money’ so that it is becoming an inflationary problem.  They are giving that ‘money’ to the Banks, and they hold it for safekeeping.  And for their gambling stash. And for credit cards and food stamp distributions and other fee generating activities.  And for loans to pay dividends, and fund share buybacks, and the occasional industrial activity.

And among other things it involves the payments on excess reserves that they are paying to the Banks to sit on that money.  And the gaming of the financial markets to which they turn a blind eye.  And the enormous abuses in the financial system which have still not been reformed.

And keep in mind that the purpose of my writing this is not to argue about ‘excess reserves’ but rather with regard to the question of whether the Fed is ‘printing money.’  Yes they are.  The quibble is what is being done with that money, which the Fed is providing in its function as the lender of last resort by buying Treasuries, and sometimes dodgy paper at non-market prices, and providing a subsidy to the Banks in the process.

That the Banks are NOT getting that money to the real economy in sufficient amounts is another matter perhaps.  There is a difference between liquidity and risk.

And I think that there is a strong indication that the interest rate policy mechanism of the Fed has broken down because Banks, or at least those holding those Reserves, are not making the bulk of their profits from conventional lending any longer.

They are making their profits through various forms of private investment and the many permutations of prop trading.  And their lending preferences tend towards further financialization of the economy.  This is the downside of the lack of serious reform.

Click on the subject link ‘Excess Reserves’ below for more on these Tales from the Vienna Woods (the play, not the waltz) from our financial sophisticates, and sophists, who like to argue what the meaning of is,is.    And there are some related articles and essays at the end that might be useful.

Or just start by clicking here.

More on the Fed creating chaos. http://www.mises.org/daily/6429/FDR-Sowing-the-Seeds-of-Chaos

Bitcoin Bust

Nixon

 

The Stock Market Is Expensive? So What’s A Value Investor To Do? Buffett Videos

NO LOSE

Is the Market Expensive?

Profit Margins

Margin Debt

Q Ratio

fear

Where The Cheap Stocks Are—Come Hell Or High Water

Is “value investing” dead? Far from it, says Jon Shayne, whose bargain-hunting style will likely endure no matter who wins the presidential election or what horrors Mother Nature might whip up.

If you follow the stock market, Jon Shayne is worth a good, long listen. Especially now. (Also, check out his blog: http://www.jonshayne.com/2013_04_01_archive.html)

A disciplined buy-and-hold guy, Shayne manages $180 million for high-net-worth individuals, corporations and foundations, mainly in Tennessee. Like all value investors, he thrills at unearthing solid companies trading at below-average prices. The kind of companies that, as Warren Buffett said, would still be around if the market were to shut down for 10 years—let alone for two days after a devastating hurricane.

This game takes patience, and Shayne’s has served him well. Since his firm’s inception in March 1995, his stock picks have returned a smidgeon over 13% a year (net of a modest 1% annual management fee), versus 8.4% for the S&P 500 index. Including cash and Treasury bonds, Shayne has clocked a net 10.2% annualized return, with less than half the volatility of the broader stock market.

Trouble is, truly good values have been increasingly hard to find. While the market retreated a tad after a rash of weak corporate earnings reports and ominous pronouncements by the International Monetary Fund, stocks are still very expensive by historical measures. And as for finding safety on the sidelines, the Federal Reserve’s tireless printing presses have done to Treasury yields what Hurricane Sandy just did to the northeastern coastline.

Shayne’s dilemma and ours: Get in the game—even if you have to pay up for the privilege—or watch your capital get gnawed by inflation. “There are periods when it’s easy to find stuff, and periods when it gets pretty hard,” says Shayne. “The environment is more difficult than it has been because it is more uncomfortable to hold cash.”

Read More…….Where the Cheap Stocks Are

Top 5 Videos on Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett is primary shareholder, chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and ranks amongst the world’s wealthiest people. Warren Buffett made much of his billions through applying his keen business sense and his value oriented investment style – he sees his core talent as being a skilled allocator of capital; and owes much of his investment success to picking skilled managers and letting them get on with running the business. Clearly as one of the world’s most successful investors, his methods and path to success have been closely studied by many aspiring investors around the world, and in a game where knowledge is power it makes sense to learn from this master of investing. The following 5 documentaries provide an insight into the life of Warren Buffett, how he made his money, what he thinks about, and how he invests. 1.
Warren Buffett Revealed This Bloomberg documentary provides an interesting look at this legendary investor, telling how he became interested in stocks early in his life and became a disciple of the ‘father of value investing‘, Benjamin Graham (author of the book “Securities Analysis”). Buffett mastered the style of value investing and with instincts and gumption made a strong start, but he really took things to the next level when he orchestrated the takeover of Berkshire Hathaway; later focusing the business on insurance – allowing him access to a sizeable pool of investable assets.
2. The World’s Greatest Money Maker This BBC documentary offers an intimate look at the life of Warren Buffett, how he made his money, how he operates, how he came to operate in the way he does, and how he thinks about his wealth. It also takes you on a tour of his office and the annual shareholders meeting of Berkshire Hathaway, not to mention a peak at his many eccentricities.
3. Biography – Warren Buffett This biographical documentary takes you through the life of Warren Buffett; how he developed his value investing philosophy, how he came to be majority owner and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, his frugality, his upbringing, his key choices in life, his mentors, the turning points and defining moments.
4. Warren Buffett – Going Global This video is more about an applied look at how Warren Buffett operates, the CNBC show follows Warren on one of his rare trips overseas, including a look at one of his first offshore acquisitions – ISCAR. This video shows how folksy, old fashioned, and down to earth the billionaire investor is, but it also shows how he is quick to realise a good deal and his talent for allocating capital. It also shows his brilliance for identifying great companies and strong capable management teams and letting them get on with the business for him.
5. Warren Buffett MBA Talk Finally we get a talk from the man himself, with some key messages for the MBA students he is addressing on the importance of integrity, intelligence, and energy for success; but that there is more to it than intelligence and energy – without integrity a person can become dumb and lazy. He also opens the floor to some interesting and thought provoking questions, providing an eye opening look into how the man thinks and what he sees as the key issues in business and investing.
Thanks to www.financedocumentaries.com for finding all these documentaries (and others!) Source: http://www.alleconomists.com/2012/10/top-5-videos-on-warren-buffett.html

Fiat Currencies vs. Gold; Paul Singer on Current Conditions; Readings

Fiat Currencies

Curiously, many people argue this would be a good time to abandon gold. We don’t think so – we rather think that faith in central banks will eventually crumble, and then it will be well and truly ‘game over’ for these perpetual bubble machines. As a friend of ours frequently remarks: at that point the question of how to price gold will be akin to asking what the last functioning parachute on an airplane that is going down should be worth. http://www.acting-man.com/?p=23082

Hedge fund “friend” upon hearing that I own gold, “If you were a lot smarter, we could call you stupid.”

Why Gold?

No, I am not actually doing what I posted here:http://wp.me/p2OaYY-1Vv. I own gold bullion and several precious metals miners, so yesterday when the stock market is up 1/2% while my portfolio drops 1%+, I take comfort when I review why I own gold:

“In a speech in Rome, ECB President Mario Draghi said the bank would monitor incoming data closely and be ready to cut rates further, including the deposit rate currently at zero.

For southern European countries, a euro above $1.30 would be too high for their economy. Among major central banks, the ECB has been the only bank that is not expanding its balance sheet. But It will likely consider such a step,” said Minori Uchida, chief FX analyst at the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ.”

Meanwhile, sentiment in gold and precious metals miners is at historic (20 year) lows: http://thetsitrader.blogspot.com/2013/05/gold-and-silver-sentiment-reversal-is.html and Short Side of Long

While……..China and other Asian countries buy on dips.China Gold Imports

China_official_20gold holdings

I don’t buy the gold bugs premise that central banks will back their currencies with gold unless forced to by the market/the public. However, central bankers buying may indicate the lack of trust in their colleagues’ fiat currencies.  Also, gold “flowing” East represents a wealth transfer from West to East.

Print, print: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-08/germany-under-pressure-create-money

In The Wilderness by Paul Singer

[T]he financial system (including the institutions themselves, products traded, and risks taken) has “gotten away from” the Fed’s ability to comprehend. The Fed is primarily responsible for that state of affairs, and it is out of its depth. Former Chairman Greenspan created — and reveled in — a cult of personality centered on himself, and in the process created a tremendous and growing moral hazard. By successive bailouts and purporting to understand (to a higher and higher level of expressed confidence) a quickly changing financial system of growing complexity and leverage, he cultivated an ever-increasing (but unjustified) faith in the Fed’s apparent ability to fine-tune the American (and, by extension, the world’s) economy. Ironically, this development was occurring at the very time that financial innovations and leverage were making the system more brittle and less safe. He extolled the virtues of derivatives and minimized the danger of leverage and risky securities and dot-com stocks, all while he should have been putting on the brakes. It was not just the disappearance of vast swaths of the American financial system into unregulated subsidiaries of financial institutions, nor was it just government policies that encouraged the creation and syndication of “no-documentation” mortgages to people who could not afford them. It was also the low interest rates from 2002 to 2005, the failure to see the expanding real estate bubble caused by an unprecedented increase in leverage and risk, and the general failure to understand the financial conditions of the world’s major institutions.

Under Chairman Bernanke, the combination of ZIRP and QE completed the passage of the Fed from sober protector of a fiat currency to ineffective collection of frantically-flailing, over-educated, posturing bureaucrats engaged in ever more-astounding experiments in monetary extremism.

If you look at the history of Fed policy from Greenspan to Bernanke,you see two broad and destructive paths quite clearly. One path is the cult of central banking, in which the central bank gradually acquired the mantle of all-knowing guru and maestro, capable of fine-tuning the global economy and financial system, despite their infinite complexity. On this path traveled arrogance, carelessness and a rigid and narrow orthodoxy substituting for an open-minded quest to understand exactly what the modern financial system actually is and how it really works. The second path is one of lower and lower discipline, less and less conservative stewardship of the precious confidence that is all that stands between fiat currency and monetary ruin.

Monetary debasement in its chronic form erodes people’s savings. In its acute and later stages, it can destroy the social cohesion of a society as wealth is stolen and/or created not by ideas, effort and leadership, but rather by the wild swings of asset prices engendered by the loss of any anchor to enduring value. In that phase, wealth and credit assets (debt) are confiscated or devalued by various means, including inflation and taxation, or by changes to laws relating to the rights of asset holders. Speculators win, savers are destroyed, and the ties that bind either fray or rip. We see no signs that our leaders possess the understanding, courage or discipline to avoid this.

It is true that the CEOs of the world’s major financial institutions lost their bearings and were mostly oblivious to their own risks in the years leading up to the crash. However, as the 2007 minutes make clear, the Fed was clueless about how vulnerable, interconnected and subject to contagion the system was. It is not the case that the Fed completely ignored risk; indeed, several Fed folks made “fig leaf” statements about the risks of the mortgage securitization markets, as well as other indications that they appreciated the possibility of multiple outcomes. But nobody at the Fed understood the big picture or had the courage to shift into emergency mode and make hard decisions. In the run-up to the crisis the Fed was a group of highly educated folks who lacked an understanding of modern finance. After convincing the nation for decades of their exquisite grasp of complexities and their wise stewardship of the financial system, they didn’t understand what was actually going on when it really counted.

Ultimately, of course, as the system was collapsing and on the verge of freezing up completely, the Fed shifted into the (more comfortable and much less difficult) role of emergency provider of liquidity and guarantees.

All this background presents an interesting framework in which to think about what the Fed is doing now. QE is a very high-risk policy, seemingly devoid of immediate negative consequences but ripe with real chances of causing severe inflation, sharp drops in stock and bond prices, the collapse of financial institutions and/or abrupt changes in currency rates and economic conditions at some point in the unpredictable future. However, the lack of large increases in consumer price inflation so far, plus the demonstrable “benefits” of rising stock and bond markets, have reinforced the merits of money-printing, which is now in full swing across the world. In the absence of meaningful reforms to tax, labor, regulatory, trade, educational and other policies that could generate sustainable growth, “money-printing growth” is unsound.We believe that the global central bankers, led by the Fed as “thought leader,” have no idea how much pain the world’s economy may endure when they begin the still-undetermined and never-before attempted process of ending this gigantic experimental policy. If they follow the paths of the worst central banks in history, they will adopt the “tiger by the tail” approach (keep printing even as inflation accelerates) and ultimately destroy the value of money and savings while uprooting the basic stability of their societies. Read the 2007 Fed minutes and you will understand how disquieting is the possibility of such outcomes and how prosaic and limited are the people in whom we have all put our trust regarding the management of the financial system and the plumbing of the world’s economy.

Printing money by the trillions of dollars has had the predictable effect of raising the prices of stocks and bonds and thus reducing the cost of servicing government debt. It also has produced second-order effects, such as inflating the prices of commodities, art and other high-end assets purchased by financiers and investors. But it is like an addictive drug, and we have a hard time imagining the slowing or stopping of QE without large adverse impacts on the prices of stocks and bonds and the performance of the economy. If the economy does not shift into sustainable high-growth mode as a result of QE, then the exit from QE is somewhere on the continuum between problematic and impossible.

Central banks facing high inflation and/or sluggish growth after sustained money-printing frequently are paralyzed by the enormity of their mistake, or they are deranged by the thought that the difficult and complicated conditions in a more advanced stage of a period of monetary debasement are due to just not printing enough. At some stage, central banks inevitably realize, regardless of whether they admit the catastrophic nature of their own failings, that the cessation of money-printing will cause an instant depression. Even though at that point the cessation of money-printing may be the only action capable of saving society, that becomes a secondary consideration compared to the desire to avoid immediate pain and blame. The world’s central banks are in very deep with QE at present, and the risks continue to build with every new purchase of stocks and bonds with newly-printed money.

* * *

[And, as an added bonus, here are Singer's views on gold:]

There are many current theories as to why the price of gold had been drifting down and then collapsed in mid-April. We are trying to sort out various possible explanations, but we urge investors to be cautious in their thinking about what circumstances would likely cause gold to rise or fall sharply. The correlations with other assets in various scenarios (risk on or off, economic normalization, inflation, the rise and fall of interest rates, euro collapse) may shift abruptly as the macro picture evolves. Many people think that if stock markets continue rising, and/or if the U.S. and Europe restore normal levels of growth and employment, then the rationale for owning gold is weakened or destroyed. This perception may be correct, and it is certainly a topic that is currently much discussed, but ultimately another set of considerations is likely to dominate.

The world is on a seemingly one-way trip to monetary debasement as the catchall economic policy, and there is only one store of value and medium of exchange that has stood the test of time as “real money”: gold. We expect this dynamic to assert itself in a large way at some point. In the meantime, it is quite frustrating to watch the price of gold fall as the conditions that should cause it to appreciate seem more and more prevalent. Gold may not exactly be a “safe haven” in the sense of an asset whose value is precisely known and stable. But it surely is an asset that, in a particular set of circumstances, becomes a unique and irreplaceable “must-have.” In those circumstances (loss of confidence in governments and paper money), there are no substitutes, and the price of gold may reflect that characteristic at some point.

Disprove Your Opinions on Gold

Gold BubblePure nonsense, April 24, 2012

By Bobnoxy

This review is from: Gold Bubble: Profiting From Gold’s Impending Collapse (Hardcover)

This book will no doubt go into the proverbial dustbin of history along with Dow 36,000. Ask yourself some honest questions and then compare your answers to this book’s entire premise.

Is gold in a bubble? Well, what do bubbles look like? Luckily, we have two recent examples, the housing bubble, and the tech stock bubble in the late 90′s. What did those look like?

To me, they looked like everyone was getting rich in techs stocks and flipping houses. Regular people were quitting their jobs and day trading or flipping houses full time. The average guy, the little guy, sometimes referred to as the ”dumb money” was making an easy fortune.

Now, how many of your friends own any gold and talk about it with you? How much do you own? The writer points to all the publicity around gold, like those ads telling people to sell their gold. And ever since gold hit $1,000, people were doing just that, selling their gold.

In a bubble, those people would be loading up, but they’re selling! The world’s central banks, the smartest people in the world when it comes to money, are the big buyers. This would be the first bubble in history that the dumb money was selling into and the smartest money on the planet was buying. Do you really think that the people with the least knowledge about money are getting this right?

It would also be the first bubble to happen with almost no participation from the general public. This could be the weakest analytical book written this year. Just because the price of something is up does not mean it’s in a bubble.

If you look at the average selling price of gold in the year it peaked for the last bull cycle, 1980, or $660 an ounce, and look at today’s price, the average annual gain for that 32 years is about 3%. If stocks had risen by 3% annually for that long, would anyone be calling it a bubble?

Then look at our trillion dollar deficits and the growth in the Fed’s balance sheet, total government debt of $18.5 trillion when you include state and local debt that as taxpayers, we’re all on the hook for, and there’s your bubble, and the best reason to defend yourself by owning gold.

Readings:

Thanks to a reader’s contribution: Here is a good article attached on bureaucracy and leading to misguided incentives. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/12/magazine/the-food-truck-business-stinks.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=print

Another reader:

I came across your website via your interview with Classic Value Investors. I like the way you try to help people learn the craft. Value investing is in principle not that difficult, as long as you have a good teacher. So well done!

On my own value investing blog (http://www.valuespreadsheet.com/value-investing-blog). I try to share my knowledge on the subject as well, but not per sé with case studies like you do. However, your approach is very informative for readers, so maybe I should try that some more.

I’ve also written a free eBook which explains three valuation models in simple words. Feel free to add it to your value investing resources if you like it:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/137908826/How-to-Value-Stocks-By-Value-Spreadsheet

Kind regards, Nick Kraakman, www.valuespreadsheet.com

—-

Thanks for the above contributions.

 

Update on a Reader’s Question About Investing; Greenblatt Offers Advice

Junk Food

A reader asks what to do with his $150,000: http://wp.me/p2OaYY-1TE. This post is a follow-up.

First, I would do nothing until you know what you are doing. As Jim Rogers said, “Don’t do anything until you see money laying in the street.” WAIT. You can’t ask other people to value companies for you. You either learn to do that yourself within your circle of competence (The Goal of CSinvesting.org) or you find a low-cost way to be in equities.

My advice: avoid high fees. That nixes most mutual funds, hedge funds and managed money. Read more:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-29/wall-street-rentier-rip-index-funds-beat-996-managers-over-ten-years

Keep it simple.  There are four asset classes (Read The Permanent Portfolio)41f5oFGYTqL__SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_Equities, Bonds, Cash, and Gold

I love finding undervalued businesses, but we live in a world of monetary distortion of fiat currency wars (Japan), suppressed interest rates, hidden risks and massive debasement so I would have 5% up to 25% in gold as an insurance policy to maintain the purchasing power of my savings. Gold coins from a reputable dealer should be part of that.  Buying CEF at a discount would be another low cost way to own bullion. Gold is just a commodity money that holds its value over centuries and it can’t be printed nor does it have liabilities (counter-party risk) like fiat currencies.  Another way to approach it might be avoid oversupply (dollars) and buy undersupply (money that can’t be printed).  Don’t take my word for it. What did an oz of gold purchased 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago and 20 years ago? Choose a man’s suit, a night at a decent hotel and a meal as items to consider.  Learn more here: http://www.garynorth.com/public/department32.cfm Follow the links to the free books and reports on gold, you will learn alot. 

Now, I own some gold coins but I don’t count investments like Seabridge Gold (SA) as an insurance policy, but as an investment in gold. I can own an oz in the ground for $10 in enterprise value per share. Of course, there are plenty of risks to get an oz of gold out of the ground, but I think there is some margin of error.  But I don’t recommend this strategy for others due to the need to diversify highly, know the industry, and the tremendous volatility.

Government bonds are a mass distortion on the short end and as long as other governments will hold our dollars this game can continue a long time. I would stay within a laddered bond portfolio of no more than seven years so WHEN interest rates rise, you can roll into higher yields. I would do this if you have to have cash in three to four years, and you are hedging your portfolio with this different asset class.  But I think of government bonds as return-free risk.  You take on risk for tiny returns. Welcome to financial repression. The Fed is punishing savers to fund the government. Corporate bonds require you to be able to read balance sheets so you are adequately paid for th credit risk.

If you are willing to do some work and have the temperament, then here is one way to invest in equities besides an index fund as Buffett has suggested:

The Eternal Secret of Successful Investing

A Little Wonderful Advice from Where Are The Customer’s Yachts? by Fred Schwed, Jr., 1940 (pages 180-182)

For no fee at all I am prepared to offer to any wealthy person an investment program which will last a lifetime and will not only preserve the estate but greatly increase it. Like other great ideas, this one is simple:

When there is a stock-market boom, and everyone is scrambling for common stocks, take all your common stocks and sell them. Take the proceeds and buy conservative bonds. No doubt the stocks you sold will go higher. Pay no attention to this—just wait for the depression which will come sooner or later. When this depression—or panic—becomes a national catastrophe, sell out the bonds (perhaps at a loss) and buy back the stocks. No doubt the stocks will go still lower. Again pay no attention. Wait for the next boom. Continue to repeat this operation as long as you live, and you will have the pleasure of dying rich.

A glance at financial history will show that there never was a generation for whom this advice would not have worked splendidly. But it distresses me to report that I have never enjoyed the social acquaintance of anyone who managed to do it. It looks as easy as rolling off a log, but it isn’t. The chief difficulties, of course, are psychological. It requires buying bonds when bonds are generally unpopular, and buying stocks when stocks are universally detested.

I suspect that there are actually a few people who do something like this, even though I have never had the pleasure of meeting them. I suspect it because someone must buy the stock that the suckers sell at those awful prices—a fact usually outside the consciousness of the public and of financial reporters.   An experienced reporter’s poetic account in the paper following a day of terrible panic reads this way:

Large selling was in evidence at the opening bell and gained steadily in volume and violence throughout the morning session. At noon a rally, dishearteningly brief, took place as a result of short covering. But a new selling wave soon threw the market into utter chaos, and during the final hour equities were thrown overboard in huge lots, without regard for price or value.

The public reads the papers, and reading the foregoing, it gets the impression that on that catastrophic day everyone sold and nobody bought, except that little band of shorts (who most likely didn’t exist).   Of course, there is just no truth in that at all. If on that day the terrific “selling” amounted to seven million, three hundred and sixty-five thousand shares, the volume of the buying can also be calculated.   In this case it was 7,365,000 shares.

CASE STUDY

How Mr. Womack Made a Killing by John Train (1978)

The man never had a loss on balance in 60 years.

His technique was the ultimate in simplicity. When during a bear market he would read in the papers that the market was down to new lows and the experts were predicting that it was sure to drop another 200 points in the Dow, the farmer would look through a S&P Stock Guide and select around 30 stocks that had fallen in price below $10—solid, profit making, unheard of companies (pecan growers, home furnishings, etc.) and paid dividends. He would come to Houston and buy a $25,000 “package” of them.

And then, one, two, three or four years later, when the stock market was bubbling and the prophets were talking about the Dow hitting 1500, he would come to town and sell his whole package. It was as simple as that.

He equated buying stocks with buying a truckload of pigs. The lower he could buy the pigs, when the pork market was depressed, the more profit he would make when the next seller’s market would come along. He claimed that he would rather buy stocks under such conditions than pigs because pigs did not pay a dividend. You must feed pigs.

He took “a farming” approach to the stock market in general. In rice farming, there is a planting season and a harvesting season, in his stock purchases and sales he strictly observed the seasons.

Mr. Womack never seemed to buy stock at its bottom or sell it at its top. He seemed happy to buy or sell in the bottom or top range of its fluctuations. He had no regard whatsoever for the cliché’—Never send Good Money After Bad—when he was buying. For example, when the bottom fell out of the market of 1970, he added another $25,000 to his previous bargain price positions and made a virtual killing on the whole package.

I suppose that a modern stock market technician could have found a lot of alphas, betas, contrary opinions and other theories in Mr. Womack’s simple approach to buying and selling stocks.   But none I know put the emphasis on “buy price” that he did.

I realize that many things determine if a stock is a wise buy. But I have learned that during a depressed stock market, if you can get a cost position in a stock’s bottom price range it will forgive a multitude of misjudgments later.

During a market rise, you can sell too soon and make a profit, sell at the top and make a very good profit. So, with so many profit probabilities in your favor, the best cost price possible is worth waiting for.

Knowing this is always comforting during a depressed market, when a “chartist” looks at you with alarm after you buy on his latest “sell signal.”

In sum, Mr. Womack didn’t make anything complicated out of the stock market.   He taught me that you can’t be buying stocks every day, week or month of the year and make a profit, any more than you could plant rice every day, week or month and make a crop. He changed my investing lifestyle and I have made a profit ever since.

Keep this a secret!

Of course after reading those pieces, you realize there is no secret to investing.   All the principles are laid out in Security Analysis and The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. The application and evolution of value investing principles are laid out each year in Mr. Buffett’s shareholder letters. The study, application and discipline are up to you, but then who would want it any other way?

JOEL GREENGreenblatt Offers Advice

The BIG SECRET for the Small Investor: A New Route to Long-Term Investment Success by Joel Greenblatt (2011)

When investors decide to invest in the stock market they can:

  1. Do it themselves
  2. Give it to professionals to invest.
  3. They can invest in traditional index fund
  4. Or they can invest in fundamentally constructed indexes (recommended)

If brains, dedication and MBA degrees won’t help you beat the market, what will?

The secret to beating the market is in learning just a few simple concepts that almost anyone can master. These concepts serve as a road map that most investors simply don’t have.

Most people CAN do it. It is just that most people won’t. Why?

Understand where the value of a business comes from, how markets work and what really happens on Wall Street will provide important conclusions.

The BIG SECRET to INVESTING:  Figure out the value of something—and then pay a lot less. Graham called this “investing with a margin of safety.”

In short, if we invest without understanding the value of what we are buying, we will have little chyance of making an intelligent investment.  The value of an investment comes from how much that business can earn over its entire lifetime. Discounted back to a value in today’s dollars.  Earnings over the next twenty or thirty years are where most of this value comes from. Earnings from next quarter or next year represent only a tiny portion of this value. Small changes in growth rates or our discount rate will lead to large swings in value.

Then there is relative value. What business is the company in? How much are other companies in similar businesses selling for? Looking at relative value makes complete sense and is an important and useful way to help value businesses. Unfortunately, there are times when this method doesn’t work well. The Internet bubble of the late 1990s, when almost any company associated with the Internet traded at incredibly high and unjustifiable prices. Comparing one Internet company to another wasn’t very helpful.

In the stock market this kind of relative mispricing happens. An entire industry, like oil or construction, may be in favor because prospects look particularly good over the near term.  Yet when an entire industry is misprices (like the capital goods sector during a boom), even the cheapest oil company or the least expensive construction company may bge massively overpriced!

There are other methods such as acquisition value, liquidation value, and sum of the parts, can also be used to help calculate a fair value.

By now you know it is not so easy to figure out the value of a company.  How in the world do we gho about estimating the next thirty-plus years of earnings and, on top of that, try to figure out what those earnings are worth today? The answer is actually simple: We don’t.

We start with the assumption that there are other alternatives for our money.   Say we can get 6%[1] for ten years from a government bond compared to a company paying a 10% earnings yield. One is guaranteed and the other is variable—which do we choose? That depends upon how confident we are in our estimates of future earnings from the company we valued or what other companies can offer us in return.

We first compare a potential investment against what we coulde earn risk-free with our money. If we have high confidence in our estimates and our investment appears to offer a significantly higher annual return over the long term than the risk free rate, we have passed the first hurdle. Next we compare our investment with our other investment alternatives.

If you can’t value a company or do not feel confident about your estimates, then skip that company and find an easier one to value.

In the stock market no one forces you to invest. Focus on those companies you can evaluate.

One way to win in the stock market game is to fly a little below the radar, to buy share in smaller companies where the big boys dimply can’t play.  So investing in smaller capitalization stocks is a game involving thousands of companies worldwide, and most institutions are too big to play.

So not having billions of dollars to invest is a great way to gain an edge over the big Wall Street firms. Also, find 6 to 10 companies where you have a high degree of condidence in the prospects for future earnings, growth rates, and new industry developments.

According to Buffett, “We believe that a policy of portfolio concentration may well decrease risk if it raises, as it should, both the intensity with which an investor thinks about a business and the comfort level he must feel with its economic characteristics before buying into it.”

Besides going small (small-cap), go off the beaten path. Special situations is a anrea where knowing where to look, rather than extraordinary talent, is the most important part of finding bargains in some of these less well followed areas.

Spinoffs.  The lack of research and following creates an even greater potential for mispricing of the new shares.

Stocks emerging from bankruptcy.  Again, unwanted and unanalyzed stocks create a greater chance for mispriced bargains.

Restructings, mergers, liquidations, asset sales, distributions, rights offerings, recapitalizations, options, smaller foreign securities, complex securities, and many more.

Investors who are willing to do a little work have plenty of ways to gain an advantage by simply changing the game.

If you can’t do it yourself then you can choose:

Actively or passively managed mutual funds.

Most actively managed mutual funds charge fees and expenses based on the size fo the fund, usually 1 to 2 percent of the total assets under management.

Invest in index funds. However, there are problems with index investing, and
congratulations to Greenblatt for developing and explaining these problems in
terms that most investors understand. As you read this book, you will come to
appreciate the difference between market-weighted (“capitalization” weighted)
funds, equally-weighted funds and “fundamentally-weighted” funds. The
differences are not trivial, yet most investors are unaware of them.

Use Greenblatt’s approach, developed and explained in his book. However, I will say that his “value-weighted” approach, which amounts to giving more weight to investments that appear more attractively priced (lower price/earnings ratios, etc.), makes sense for many investors.

Two stand-out ideas from the book: 1) value-weighted index investing and
2)always have a core position invested at all times, which based on your market
outlook you can add or subtract to it by a given amount on rare occasions (if
you have no idea what I’m talking about–Get This Book). If retail investors
were to follow this advice to the letter, they would see their returns and peace
of mind increase dramatically, the latter being more important to overall
well-being.   (Amazon reviews)


[1] Using 6 percent as a minimum threshold to beat, regardless of how low government rates go, should give us added confidence that we are making a good long term investment. (This should protect us if low government bond rates are not a permanent condition.)

END

 

Analysis of Salesforce.com (CRM); Austrian Blog; Jim Grant on Inflation

Canyon de chelly

The art of contrary thinking consists in training your mind to ruminate in directions opposite to general public opinions; and to weigh your conclusions in the light of current events and current manifestations of human behavior.

The purpose of contrary opinions is to avoid the predictions that go wrong, notably in the stock market.

It is axiomatic if you stop to think about it, that when everyone is bearish, or bullish, the first of the price momentum is broken.

Be a nonconformist when using your mind; when everyone thinks alike, everybody is likely to be wrong.  Imitation and contagion are the two culprits most responsible of conformity and sameness of thinking. Preconceived opinions leave little room in our minds for contrary viewpoints. –H. Neill, The Ruminator

Analyzing CRM

We spoke about CRM here:  http://wp.me/p2OaYY-1PV.

Here is what CRM does:

Charlie Munger once said, “A thing not worth doing is not worth doing well.” When I look at CRM, I immediately see that it is not worth much time analyzing except if you wanted to go short perhaps. The company seems grossly overpriced. But let’s quickly go through the numbers. I also use ORACLE as comparison–ORCL and CRM Value-Lines.

images

If I buy CRM today at $169 per share and expect my required rate of return of 10% (Many value investors expect 15%) so.

3.8 bil. in sales ($27 per share (2013 E) times 20% growth for 10 years (which is extremely rare) =

$23.4 bil. in  sales

then 0.3%

Net profit margin rate the same as powerhouse/franchise:Oracle/successful software franchise

$7 bil.

In net profits at the end of 10 years

228 mm

Outstanding shares at 5% growth for 10 years

$31  eps

15x

Multiple = However, many big cap tech franchises have multiples of 10 to 12 like MSFT, AAPL, INTC

$465

per share

$169 CAGR 10% for 10 years = $438.  So CRM would have to grow 20% per year at least and then obtain industry leading profit margins even though it has yet to show a profit after 11 years in its quest to build market share.   I was curious if management would bother to tell shareholders when profits may be expected to arrive so I downloaded the annual report:CRM 2012 Annual Report, but the one page letter was just a cheering session. An F for shareholder disclosure.

The main reason I would pass is the difficulty to even maintain a high growth rate in terms of profits. If CRM is not a franchise (able to earn above average profits on each dollar of sales above its cost of capital) then growth doesn’t matter. However, growth is extremely difficult over ten years beyond 15% each year as this article describes: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2001/02/05/296141/index.htm

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.

 Below are several comments from investors who are skeptical of CRM’s valuation:

Hi Albert,

I’m short the stock, so perhaps am biased, but have tried to do the same blue-sky valuation analysis you have done above. I believe there are a few places where your assumptions are off.

In the essence, it is impossible for Salesforce to lower its R&D or Marketing and Sales (“M&S”) expenditures to levels similar to Oracle or SAP. If you think about the value proposition of CRM, this includes a lower TOC for users. If that is true, then that means lower revenues per customer, and a higher cost per unit of revenue to deliver the goods. Thus, CRM will never be able to do operating profits close to that earned by SAP or ORCL.

There is also the more sinister argument that the firm will do anything to show the Street growth in revenues and deferred revenue, and given that the market seems to be giving them a free pass for now on profitability, they are out there spending several dollars in costs (on their marketers) just to generate one dollar of sales.

For what it’s worth, I see them at $6.6 billion of revenues in Fiscal 2018 (still astounding growth) but they will struggle to do markedly better pro-forma operating margins than they are already doing now (and GAAP margins will still only be in the low single digits). Even in a blue-sky scenario, where they could approach $9 billion in sales that year, and generate 15% pro-forma operating margins, I still only get to a shade over $4 in EPS (and that’s five years away). Generating $9 billion in a single year would be quite a feat by the way: in the past three full fiscal years, they’ve only generated $8.1 billion, in total.

But let’s say that the blue-sky will prevail and that investors will pay 35x that blue-sky EPS number five years from now, that gets you to a future value of about $150/share. Given the corporate governance issues, the exorbitant insider compensation, the acquisitive growth, and the legion of current fans on the sell-side, there is a lot of risk between here and there, so I’d need to earn at least 12% a year on an investment that I thought was going to be worth $150 five years from now. That gets me to $85 today, and again this is in the rosiest of scenarios – and one which I think is extremely unlikely.

I agree by the way that there seems to be scope for the company to play games with revenue recognition. The disclosure in the 10-K regarding their policy is labryrinth of verbosity.

Finally, management is voting with their feet–a continuous sale of their stock.  CRM seems like a transfer scheme between public investors and management. Investors buy and management sells.

Salesforce.com, Inc. (CRM) Vice Chairman Veenendaal Frank Van sells 1,000 Shares

Salesforce.com, Inc. (CRM) Vice Chairman Veenendaal Frank Van sells 2,000 Shares

Salesforce.com, Inc. (CRM) Vice Chairman Veenendaal Frank Van sells 2,000 Shares

CSInvesting Editor: Note how he uses a reverse-engineering type of valuation analysis–using Sun-microsystems as an example.

Voting & Salesforce.com – A Question of Probabilities

November 20, 2012 | About: CRM -0.59% MSFT +0.37% ORCL -1.04%

The Science of Hitting

There was an interesting article in The Economist this past week about the numbers behind voting to draw the 2012 U.S. presidential election to a close. Economists (and as we known, academics in the finance department at institutions worldwide) love to lean on a simple premise that materially influences what they ultimately conclude about the world around us: Human beings are rational and keenly focused on utility-maximization. With that as a given, the obvious question is asked – why do people bother voting when the probability that their single vote will actually have any impact is zero? As they note, you are more likely to get struck by lightning on the way to the polling station than to be the deciding vote in the U.S. presidential election.

They quickly address and dismiss a few common responses as to why one could still justify voting, including “what if everyone else didn’t vote either” (the smart money for the last 57 elections in the U.S. has been that some people will go to the polls), the importance of “preserving democracy” (one skipped vote is unlikely to result in the country’s demise), and the good feeling that comes from performing a “civic duty” – an often cited argument and hardly a surprising one: people tend to do what’s in their self-interest (to make them feel good about themselves), and the investment of one’s time is a small price to avoid any personal shame. While these responses (particularly the third) each have their place in the discussion, there’s one argument from the piece that I personally agree with: “some academics reckon that voters are simply bad at calculating probabilities.”

In connection with equity investments, that statement alone doesn’t do justice – absurd valuations aren’t solely built upon the fact that people are poor at calculating probabilities; instead, it appears that people have a way of always convincing themselves that this time truly is different (much like our voter who has convinced themselves their voice counts, even though they don’t need a calculator to figure out that 1 divided by 123 million – the number of votes in the 2008 general election – is a percentage of microscopic proportions). They end up believing that by a miracle of sorts, the company will justify this valuation – and a much higher one – over time.

A great example of this is from the tech boom at the turn of the century; in a Business Week article written in April of 2002, Scott McNealy, CEO of Microsystems, was quoted as saying the following about his company’s stock, which had previously traded at 10x revenues:

“At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no tax on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock for $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don’t need transparency. You don’t need footnotes. What were you thinking?”

We don’t need to search very far to find a comparable example in today’s market: Salesforce.com (CRM) has traded at more than 10x revenue a couple of times over the past twenty-four months; according to Marketwatch, the analyst community (calculating probabilities must surely be in their job description) currently has a Buy-to-Sell ratio of fifteen-to-one, essentially saying that they uniformly agree that CRM is a strong buy.

As I noted in an article a few months ago, CRM would need to attain annualized revenue of growth of 25% over the next decade (ahead of Microsoft’s 20.8% annualized growth rate in the decade after the release of Windows 95), as well as reach a mid-twenties net margin in line with the current average for computer software firms – likely the company’s closest comparable industry (remember, they compete with giants like Microsoft, Oracle, etc, and have struggled to report positive earnings for some time now). If all this were to happen, and the company was given an earnings multiple in the mid-teens (in-line with the current large cap tech companies), the annualized return to shareholders would be in the high single digits (assuming a starting price in the low-mid $150’s per share).

Again, that’s in the scenario where things work (by any reasonable measure) perfectly. What is the probability that CRM is able to attain a revenue CAGR of 25% over the next ten years, and will be able to handily dominant its peers in the space despite their considerable share of mind among CIO’s at the largest companies in the world? More importantly, assuming that this scenario is considered to be a 100% certainty, what are these analysts modeling in the bear case scenario? At this valuation, and to continue to pushing CRM as a buy, one has to wonder – is there even a bear case scenario in these analyst projections?

Whether or not Salesforce ends up justifying this valuation over time is to be seen (CEO Mark Benioff certainly seems convinced that this company will change the world); personally, I would try my luck at voting before I considered going anywhere near CRM common stock.

About the author:

I’m a value investor, with a focus on patience; my sweet spot is great companies that are suffering from short term issues, and load up when those opportunities become present.

—–

 A blog about Austrian Economics and Investing:

http://www.wallstformainst.com/austrian-school-of-economics/

Jim Grant on Inflationhttp://www.gurufocus.com/news/213668/jim-grant-expects-immense-inflation

 

All About CARL ICAHN–Book, Lecture, Research, and Articles

Icahn  I hope you grasp how Carl’s methods fit his personality perfectly. I strongly suggest you view the video, then the research report by Lazard and finally tackle the book.

Seven years ago, activist investor Carl Icahn spelled out a blueprint for breaking up media conglomerate Time Warner (TWX) into four separate entities.

See Lazard’s 2006 Analysis on Time Warner for Icahn here (Good research example): lazard_twx 

With this week’s decision by CNNMoney’s parent company to spin off Time Inc., Icahn’s prediction is finally coming true. But he won’t be able capitalize on it. By late 2008, Icahn had completely sold his stake.

In 2006, Icahn pushed for Time Warner to essentially split itself into a content company, a publishing company, a cable services company and an Internet company.

Time Warner’s Time Inc. spin-off will mark the final step in turning the company into exactly what Icahn and a consortium of other activist investors wanted.

Back then, many questioned Icahn’s case for breaking up Time Warner. Icahn’s main foe at the time, former Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, won that battle. Parsons refused to break up Time Warner, but he agreed to buy back more stock to get Icahn to stop pushing for a breakup (and a new CEO). Icahn wanted to bring in former Viacom (VIA) CEO Frank Biondi to replace Parsons, who eventually stepped down as CEO in late 2007.

Under CEO Jeff Bewkes, who succeeded Parsons, Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable (TWC) and AOL (AOL) in 2009. Shares of all three companies have solidly outperformed the broader market since those spin-offs.

Related: Is Time Inc. better on its own?

While the two central characters in the Icahn vs. Time Warner showdown have stepped away from the battlefield, analysts and investors cheered this week’s spin-off announcement. Time Warner’s stock has gained nearly 3% since the spin-off was announced late Wednesday and is up nearly 19% so far this year.

Several analysts upgraded the stock and increased their price targets. “The announcement measurably improves Time Warner’s growth profile, margin profile, and rids the mother company of a business which has been under secular siege for quite some time,” B. Riley Caris analyst David Miller wrote in a research note.

Back in 2006, Lazard, working on behalf of Icahn and other shareholders, estimated the content side of Time Warner could be worth as much as $61 billion, while the publishing unit could be worth $14.1 billion.

Today, Credit Suisse analysts estimate that, post-spinoff, Time Warner’s content divisions could be worth as much as $75 billion, while Time Inc. would be worth about $4.1 billion.

Lecture by Icahn at Yale (He recommends reading Aristotle)

60 minutes video: http://youtu.be/wZjms7rRAQw

Articles on Icahn: Icahn Articles130307124234-time-warner-carl-icahn-614xa

Book on Carl Icahn View this folder

plus two other goodies……….just click on View this folder above and download.

Use firefox browser if you have problems.

Danny Devito as Carl Icahn:

Shark Attack! EXCELLENT Notes on Security Analysis (1940 Ed.)

Shark

Go for it! All is good. http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-case-for-optimism.html
Or

The Hook?  http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc130325.htm

Q Chart

Both q and CAPE include data for the year ending 31st December, 2012. At that date the S&P 500 was at 1426 and US non-financials were overvalued by 44% according to q and quoted shares, including financials, were overvalued by 52% according to CAPE. (It should be noted that we use geometric rather than arithmetic means in our calculations.)

As at 12th March, 2013 with the S&P 500 at 1552 the overvaluation by the relevant measures was 57% for non-financials and 65% for quoted shares.

Although the overvaluation of the stock market is well short of the extremes reached at the year ends of 1929 and 1999, it has reached the other previous peaks of 1906, 1936 and 1968. http://www.smithers.co.uk/

Creeping Danger Zone:

http://www.gurufocus.com/news/214210/warren-buffett-and-john-hussman-on-the-stock-market

Don’t worry about Cyprus; it is country specific.

http://money.msn.com/bill-fleckenstein/post.aspx?post=d3bfc9ba-8d01-40c8-a120-5827c480bd3f

Security Analysis (1940) Notes

Thanks to a GENEROUS reader: Security_Analysis_2nd_Edition_Notes (70 pages)

The Banana Dow

DOW

Yeah, another RECORD high in the Dow. Can you hear the cheers? But what can the Dow buy you in Bananas vs. the past? What is the real Dow in Bananas1

bananas-vs-dow

Based on the wholesale price of bananas, the Dow currently buys you a whopping 15.35 tons of the tropical fruit. But this is exactly the same amount of bananas the Dow would buy back in February 2008, when the Dow was just 12,266. And it’s a massive 60% drop from June 1999 when the Dow bought 38.51 tons of bananas.  While investors are cheering the new nominal high in the Dow or S&P 500, they fail to grasp what is happening to their purchasing power. Buffett always said THE goal of an investor is to maintain his or her purchasing power. At the end of your investing period will the dollars obtained after selling your investment bring you the same amount of “bananas” as your dollars would have obtained at the beginning of your investment period.

Bear Market Dow in Gasoline

gasoline-vs-dow

Read more: http://www.sovereignman.com/finance/reality-check-the-dow-jones-industrial-average-vs-bananas-11112/

All investors should understand the effects of inflation on their equity investments. Read, memorize, and sleep with the following:

Buffett & Inflation Highlighted and Buffett inflation file and for beginners: Buffett Inflation depreciation and capex

Buffett Lecturing on Inflation

Don’t believe the lies:

shadow-stats-alternative-inflation-data-as-of-nov-15-2012-source-shadowstatscom

CPI Year-to-Year Growth

The CPI-U (consumer price index) is the broadest measure of consumer price inflation for goods and services published by the U.S. Government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

While the headline number usually is the seasonally-adjusted month-to-month change, the formal CPI is reported on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis, with annual inflation measured in terms of year-to-year percent change in the price index.

The chart below shows the Shadow Government Stats -Alternate CPI estimate. It figures inflation based on our own government’s official methodology for computing the CPI-U in the years through 1980.

Under the old rules US inflation has been in the double-digits for much of the preceding five years. The ‘new’ BLS numbers want you to believe price increases since 2008 have been quite mild.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses a technique called ‘substitution’ to hold down their reported inflation figures. If an item in their index goes up in price they can assume consumer would simply trade down to something cheaper instead.

If your favorite rib-eye steak went from $7.99 to $12.99 per pound you’d simply eat hamburger instead. Have those organic bananas gotten too expensive. Try prunes. Need a replacement for your Lexus? Buy a Kia instead. Presto, there’s no inflation evident in any of those situations according to the BLS.

All these changes in the way CPI is calculated have been duly disclosed to the public. That doesn’t make them any less dishonest when viewed the way most people gauge changes in their real cost of living.  See http://www.beatingbuffett.com/?tag=inflation

http://www.beatingbuffett.com/?p=4436   Individual investors making poor decisions.

http://marketshadows.com/2012/12/31/covered-calls-the-hidden-risk-for-2013-and-beyond/ The danger of selling covered calls now.

More discussion about Buffett and inflation here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/buffett-on-inflation-and-stocks-%28part-1%29/40/

You’re warned! Now plan.

Inspiration from Jim Rogers

inspiration

Update: 11:15 AM March 11, 2013–I was hacked so if you received and email from me, please delete and ignore.

I apologize. Please take the time, though, to understand this:

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc130311.htm

Investing: Find Your Own Way

“Everybody’s got to find their own way. Listening to me, maybe it’s fun, maybe it’s boring, who knows, you’re not going to succeed until you find your own way. I mean if you’re a musician you’ve got to find your own sound, your own way. Great musicians through history were the people who had their own madness, and were proud of their madness, especially if it was not what everybody else is doing. Well, the same is true of art, literature, politics, finance…especially finance. Yeah, you can copy other people, and many people do, that’s why everybody invests in the same thing, and that’s why it winds up being a bad investment. No, you’ve got to figure out your own way, no matter how absurd your way may sound, especially if your own way sounds absurd to others, you should pursue it even harder. You can learn from other people, but don’t try to be like Joe or Sally, try to be like yourself.”in Investor Guide

People Really Need To Invest In Only What They Know A Lot About

“Well, nobody should invest in anything that they themselves don’t understand. So if I sat here and said you should do x, y, z, and people don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, they should probably ignore what I say or even what you say. Nobody should invest in something that they don’t understand. If you know nothing about gold except that it’s supposedly valuable, you shouldn’t buy it, or invest in anything you don’t know about. But once you know a lot about something, you will probably figure out some ways to protect yourself. I mean if you have your own business, like you, usually the best thing to invest in is your own business, because you know more about that than anything else. I have various ways that I’m trying to protect myself, but even if I told you I’m doing x, I might change my mind tomorrow afternoon, and then you would be stuck doing x because I said it. I’m not going to call you and tell you I changed my mind on that position. So people really need to invest in only what they themselves know a lot about.” – in a recent interview with Investor Guide

My Success Came From Homework

“To the extent that I had any success, it was from homework. I was willing and able to work harder than other people, but I was also willing and able to think differently from other people.” - in Smart Planet

http://jimrogers-investments.blogspot.com/2013/03/travel-few-fantastic-places-to-visit.html

Learning from Money Managers – VALUE VAULT Folder

 

Divert

Human beings are subject to wild swings
in their levels of fear, risk tolerance and
greed. That won’t change. I base my
whole approach on buying when others
are fearful and selling when others are
greedy. The reason Shakespeare is so relevant
still today is that his plays were all
about human nature, and human nature
never changes.
Mark Sellers, 6.19.05

In the folder below there are interviews with hundreds of money managers. Try to find ideas that are relevant to your style.