Category Archives: Investing Gurus

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.

 

 

Jim Rogers on Getting An MBA; Andrew Weiss–One of the Best

 

CAR on Hwy

Jim Rogers taught an investing class back in the late 1980s at Columbia Business School so he could play squash there. He had the students take a market cycle and study everything they could surrounding what made the market go up and down. Why did cotton boom and bust from 1860 to 1865? Railway shares in 1856? Soybeans in the 1970s?  He taught case studies.

Discovering more of Jim Rogers. 1987-1993 by a Jim Rogers Fan

Rich
Dallas, Texas

After I discovered Jim Rogers, through an incredible night lecture, while a student at Columbia University, I never expected to bump in to this guy again. I graduated in 1987, and began working as an architect in NY. My interest in the stock market was there, but I had very little training, little money, and nothing to go on, other than a few dull books, watching NPR, and an occasional effort to get my hands on some Value Lines. And I had the memory of Roger’s lecture, where he gave a lot of basic tips and advice, not all unlike the kinds of simple tips I would read about in Peter Lynch’s first book, One Up on Wall Street.

One day, probably around 1989 or 1990, as I walked past a newstand in the Union Square subway, I happened to look down at a stack of Barrons’, and I saw the words “Barrons Round Table” and “with Jim Rogers.” After a doubletake, I jumped on that copy. My buddy Rogers has showed up in my life again. And so began my worship of the Barrons Round Table. Not only was Jim Rogers there, but a few other names I had begun to get acquainted with over the years. . including Peter Lynch, John Neff and others. This was great for me – an education in the stock market by watching these guys predict the year. I had never heard of the Barrons Round Table before. Had I not seen Roger’s name, I might never had noticed it.

From that day on, my own investment strategy worked like this. I read the Barron’s Round Table, every January, during it’s 3 weeks of publication, to determine how the year would go. Then I would pick my favorite 3 or 4 ideas from the group, and invest. I was too busy with other things in my life to worry with stock analysis every day, or every month. And since I invested long term, this was good enough for me. To this very day, I wait patiently for the third week of January to roll around, so I can read what the famous group has to say about the coming year. It’s become a ritual that I can’t stop doing. I love it. And I’ve learned a lot just listening to these guys, observing how they think, and checking their results the following year.

And of course, I have to go with what fits my own senses. I never like the whole group. Not every idea appeals to me personally. Not every idea I can understand. Since my attitude is very black sheep, I quite naturally cozy up to the black sheep like Rogers. To Lynch’s credit, who is less black, his ideas often paid me well. I still remember his recommendation on British Steel. Good one. And Rogers’ ideas were often so weird, or foreign, I had no way to buy what he was recommending. I could not buy Botswana’s stock market. I couldn’t buy apple farms in New Zealand. But once I did buy a CD’s from a New Zealand bank and a Danish bank, indirectly following his advice on the currency — paid back nicely after 6 months. Roger’s pick on silver back then did not do me well at all. Big loser. One of my worst buys of all time. As he readily admits, he ain’t perfect. Couer D Alene Mines – what a haunting story that stock has been over the past 15 years. Of course, if you use this technique of annual buying, you are on your own in terms of figuring out when to sell.

This was all before Rogers showed up on cable TV. Before his books came out. Eventually, he disappeared from the Round Table for a while so he could travel the world on a motorcycle. But upon hearing that, it did force me to recall his words from back in 1987 at Columbia. He told the audience, which was 99% MBA students, that the biggest waste of time and money was getting an MBA. They all laughed, of course, since they were paying a fortune to be there, and Rogers was being paid to teach them. He said if they wanted to be successful, they would be better off traveling the world, working abroad, and getting to know another country. When I heard Rogers was circling the globe on a motorcycle, I figured he was practicing what he preached.

Note: We welcome our visitors to share with us stories related to Jim Rogers. Please email your stories to JimRogers.NoOffence@gmail.com

http://www.autopenhosting.org/futuresoptions/Jim-Rogers-experience-2.html

 

Andrew Weiss (economist)

From Wikipedia

Early Years and Education

Weiss was born in New York in 1947. He graduated with Honors from Williams College in 1968 with a BA in Political Economy. In 1977, he received his PhD in Economics from Stanford University.

Academic career

Weiss began his career in 1976 as an Assistant Professor at Columbia University, as well as a Research Economist in the Mathematics Center at Bell Laboratories. He has served as a consultant to the World Bank and the United States National Research Council, the research arm of the United States National Academy of Sciences. In 1989, Weiss was elected a Fellow[3] of the Econometric Society. The Nobel Prize in Economics to Joseph Stiglitz in 2001 cited Weiss’ research with Stiglitz as having had “a substantial impact in the domains of corporate finance, monetary theory and macroeconomics.”[4] As of October 2008, Weiss was ranked in the top 2 percent of published economists by the number of citations to his papers.[5]

Professional career

Andrew Weiss is the Founder and current Chief Executive Officer of Weiss Asset Management, a Boston-based investment firm. Weiss and the investment strategies of Weiss Asset Management have been the subject of numerous U.S. and European newspaper and magazine articles, including features in Forbes, Outstanding Investor Digest, Micropal, and The Motley Fool.[6]

In the Press

During a CNBC program, Michael Metz, the Chief Investment Strategist for Oppenheimer Holdings, proclaimed Weiss to be “one of the most brilliant money managers that I know.” Bruce Greenwald, the Robert Heilbrunn Professor of Finance and Asset Management at Columbia University and author of Value Investing, said of Weiss in an interview with The Motley Fool, “If I had one person to pick and one guy to put the money in, I would pick him.”[6] Robert Solow, a Nobel Prize Laureate in Economics and an Institute Professor at MIT, said at a press conference on March 15, 2005 “[Weiss] is a significant person among US economists. I have known him personally for 30 years and I have the highest respect for him.” Laurence Kotlikoff, Professor of Economics at Boston University, was quoted in The Boston Globe article Nighmare in Prague as saying Weiss is “a brilliant economist, and he’s an outstanding investor. He’s scrupulously honest, and I’d trust him with anything”.[7]

References

External links

Portfolio: http://whalewisdom.com/filer/weiss-capital-llc

Wow, he has some cheap mining stocks (THM and RIC)

 

 

Dr. Henry Singleton, The SULTAN of Buybacks

singletonAny student of investing would do well to supplement his study of Buffett with the below case study on Henry Singleton. Guess who learned and copied Singleton in how he managed Berkshire Hathaway?

One investor, Leon Cooperman, helped his career enormously by investing and staying with his Teledyne investment.

Case Studies:

PS: A reader delved in the book on Teledyne’s history by interlibrary loan. The book, A Distant Force recounts a manager’s experience with Teledyne.

 A reader writes, “I came across this website in a recent HBR entry discussing the Mittlesland which was really thought provoking and adds a tilt to our competitive analysis studies…”
They use case studies!
Thanks for that reader’s generous sharing of ideas and links.

Have a Great Weekend!

Hitler’s SS and Investing; Jim Rogers’ Interview; What Is Inside Banks?

Snowman

Daniel Kahneman on Life and Investing (Interview)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2013/01/24/nobel-prize-winner-daniel-kahneman-lessons-from-hitlers-ss-and-the-danger-in-trusting-your-gut/

Buffett’s Favorite Valuation Metric:

http://pragcap.com/buffetts-favorite-valuation-metric-surges-over-the-100-level

Quant. Value: http://abnormalreturns.com/qa-with-wesley-gray-co-author-of-quantitative-value/

 

What is Inside Banks? What is inside Americas Banks

An excellent article by The Atlantic. The article explains why some banks trade under tangible book value. Investors do not trust the balance sheets of the banks and therefore do not trust the reported earnings.  If the banks had truly cleansed themselves of rotten loans and assets, our economy would be growing faster but thanks to intervention, we slog on.

Yet, don’t let that stop you from studying WFC: Wells Fargo Notes

and visit The Brooklyn Investor

Legendary Jim Rogers: Brokers Going Broke, Farmers Will Become Rich – Very Rich!

Jim Rogers is a renowned international investor. In 1973, he co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros. After a fantastically successful decade, he retired to travel the world. He is the author of Investment Biker: On The Road With Jim Rogers and A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World’s Greatest Market, among other books. He also runs the Rogers Global Resources Equity Index. Recently Rogers sat down with Steve Forbes to talk about why the global economy is moving to Asia, where he’s putting his money and what the U.S. can do to right the ship. Video and a transcript of their conversation follows.

Steve Forbes: Jim Rogers, thank you for joining us.

CSInvesting Editor: I like his cantankerous, contrary nature.

Jim Rogers: My pleasure.

Forbes: Let’s go through a little bit of history. You teamed up in the early 1970s with George Soros. Had a great fund, got out in the early 1980s. Quickly recapture what you did and how you did it at such a young age.

Rogers: Well, we had a successful ten years. I didn’t want to wake up at 75 and still be looking at a computer screen. I’d always wanted to have more than one life, so off I set to have more than one life. And I’ve had more than one life. I retired. I was 37. And set off to have more than one life.

Forbes: Any motorcycle trips in the offing? Any more books on the exotic places of the world?

Rogers: No. I went around the world in a car, 1999 to 2001, and I really haven’t been on a motorcycle much since then. It grieves me that you ask, because some of the finest times of my life were on motorcycles, including the trip around the world on the motorcycle. But now I’m doing other things. I’ve got two little girls. I’m living in Singapore, which is not a great motorcycle place. Now I’m doing other things.

Forbes: I can’t imagine you speeding there.

Rogers: No, no. I mean, the speed limit is 90 kilometers an hour! It’s not a great motorcycle place.

Forbes: Not to be negotiated.

Rogers: Right, and not negotiable. You’re right. Exactly.

Forbes: Talking about Singapore, when you moved there you decided to have three dates:  1807, you’d move to London. 1907, you’ve got to go to New York. 2007, you’re in Asia, specifically Singapore. Why?

Rogers: Well, the 20th century was the century of the U.S. The 19th century was the century of the U.K. The 21st century will be the century of Asia, and it’s becoming more and more evident. And especially of China. I wanted my children to grow up knowing Asia and speaking Mandarin. I think the best skills that I can give two girls born in 2003 and 2008 is to know Asia and to know Mandarin. So there we are. I couldn’t do it in New York. I tried. I tried doing it in New York. But it was not possible. So there we are.

Forbes: What do you see as the problem with the U.S.?

Rogers: The main problem is the staggering debt. We are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world, Steve, as you undoubtedly know, because you probably read Forbes. It’s amazing how high the debt is, and it’s going up by leaps and bounds. It’s just mind boggling how fast it’s going up. Nobody seems to understand or care what the significance and the consequences will be. It’s not good. It’s not good news.

Forbes: In the past, we’ve had some rough periods – I remember the malaise of the 1970s – and the U.S. has come back. You don’t see that happening again? Are we just digging the hole so deep we’re not going to be able to get ourselves out?

Rogers: There will be rallies. The U.K. in 1918 was the richest, most powerful country in the world. There was no number two. In three generations, they were bankrupt. Now in that period of time, they had some rallies, as you well know. They won the Second World War, for instance. So they had some big rallies. But basically, they were in decline.

I would like to think that there’s something which is going to save us. I can think of some things which will give us rallies. But I cannot see anything – I mean, look at Japan. Japan has staggering internal debt. They still are externally a creditor nation. They still have a balance of trade surplus. We’re the largest external debtor nation in history and the largest internal debtor nation in history. We’ll have rallies. But Steve, I don’t see what can cause us to repeat, perhaps, the ’70s. We’re in relative decline. Maybe you would like to debate that. I don’t think so. I don’t see that that relative decline will stop.

Forbes: Now in terms of investing, commodities. You have the Rogers Global Resources Equity Index. You don’t see the dollar eventually getting strong again? Do you think commodities replace –

Rogers: I actually own the dollar. I actually own the dollar, as we stand here. I bought the dollar 15-16 months ago. 17.

Forbes: That’s just a bear market rally?

Rogers: It’s a bear market rally, yes, in my view. Although when I walk out of here, I may buy more. No, I don’t see it as anything more than a bear market rally. But I own several currencies around the world. There may be a time, Steve, in the foreseeable future, when all of us are going to be getting rid of our paper money, because it’s being debased all over the world. One reason I own the dollar is because everybody’s panicked about the debasement of these other currencies. Paper money is suspect.

Forbes: So it’s just the best house in a bad neighborhood?

Rogers: I’m not even sure it’s the best house in a bad neighborhood. But it’s a good house in the bad neighborhood, for the moment.

Forbes: Getting back to commodities, what makes you bullish on commodities?

Rogers: Well, there’s been a huge dearth of investment in productive capacity for 30 years now. The last lead smelter built in America was built in 1969. No gigantic elephant oil fields discovered since the 1960s. I could go to agriculture. Steve, you should start an agriculture magazine. Because the profits in agriculture –

Forbes: Share with us the observation you made about somebody majoring in public relations and agriculture.

Rogers: Well done. More people in America study public relations than study farming. We have no farmers. You went to Princeton; nobody you went to school with became a farmer. I went to Yale; nobody I went to Yale with became a farmer. The average age of farmers in America is 58 years old. In Japan, the average age is 66. In Australia, it’s 58. Hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers commit suicide every year. It’s a disastrous business. In the U.K., the highest rate of suicide is in agriculture. It’s been a horrible business for 30 years. Prices have to go up – have go to up a lot – or we’re not going to have any food at any price.

Unless you’re going to become a farmer.

Forbes: Then we truly starve. But you pointed out we have 200,000 PR graduates, 20,000 farmers coming out of our schools. And you have a wonderful phrase, “You can’t eat press releases.”

Rogers: That’s exactly right. You cannot eat press releases. It was actually 200,000 M.B.A.’s we have coming out. That’s even worse. We have more people doing M.B.A.’s than doing PR.

There’s going to be a huge shift in American society, American culture, in the places where one is going to get rich. The stock brokers are going to be driving taxis. The smart ones will learn to drive tractors so they can work for the smart farmers. The farmers are going to be driving Lamborghinis. I’m telling you. You should start Forbes Farming.

Forbes: In the 1970s, we heard the same thing, and it didn’t happen. Why?

Rogers: Well, farmers did make a lot of money in the 1970s.

Forbes: And then lost it all in the ’80s.

Rogers: Yeah, but it actually started before. That’s my point. These things go in cycles. There has never been any bull market which has lasted forever. No bull market in the history of the world has lasted forever. These commodity cycles come and go. On average, they’ve lasted 18 to 20 years in the past. I have no idea how long this will last. But it’s not over yet.

Forbes: Thoughts on gold? You were suspicious in the late 2011, not without reason. Where does that go from here?

Rogers: Well, I own gold. I’m not selling my gold. I’m not even hedging my gold, at the moment, although I’m thinking about it. Gold’s up 11 years in a row, which is extremely unusual, as you know, for any asset class. It’s correcting right now. I would suspect it’s going to continue to correct.

There are some things going on in the world. The Indians are coming down hard on gold, and they’re the largest consumer of gold in the world. So it may continue to correct. If so – if it goes down further – I hope I’m smart enough to buy more. To buy a lot more. The bull market in gold is not over yet, Steve.

Forbes: Now going back to Asia, China. You have not been a big fan of stocks. You are of the currency. How do you play China now?

Rogers: The best way to play China is commodities, because they have to buy commodities. If you’ve got cotton, they will take you to dinner, they will pay for your dinner and they’ll pay you on time. You don’t have to worry about corporate governance or any of that kind of stuff. They don’t care who the head of The Federal Reserve is if you have cotton. Because cotton is its own world. And many other commodities, as well.

I own the Renminbi, as well. It’s a good way to play China. I don’t buy Chinese shares, except when they collapse. They collapsed last in November of 2008. I bought more Chinese shares. If and when they collapse again, I’ll buy more. My Chinese shares are for my children. They’re not for me.

Forbes: Now looking at China itself, can they become (as the U.S. has been) an innovative economy instead of a catch up economy? Are they going to do the real value added stuff? Do you see the changes coming on that?

Rogers: The first time I went to China, 25 or 30 years ago, there was one radio, one TV, one newspaper, one way to dress, one everything. That’s changed dramatically, as you know. In China now, they produce something like, I don’t know, 20 times as many engineers every year as we do. They didn’t in the past. It was a very closed and traumatic society and autocratic society. That’s changing rapidly.

I suspect, yes, some of these engineers are going to turn out to be hotshot engineers. I don’t know when. I don’t know where. But China has a long history of entrepreneurship and capitalism. They’ve been disastrous, at times, in their history. But they’ve also been spectacularly successful, at some times in their history. So teach your children Mandarin, teach your grandchildren Mandarin.

Forbes: You’re not a fan of India?

Rogers: No, no, no. I’m short India as a matter of fact. I love to go there. If you can only visit one country in your life, Steve, for whatever reason, I would urge you to go to India. There’s nothing quite like it from a tourist point of view. But as far as a bureaucratic maze, it’s the worst bureaucracy in the world. They don’t like foreigners. They don’t like capitalists. They don’t like people making money. It’s a fabulous country to visit, but I wouldn’t try to do business there.

Forbes: So what’s happening in high tech is just an outlier?

Rogers: Yeah, very much so. You can probably name four or five companies – I doubt if you could name four or five, I could probably name two or three high technology companies. Steve, there are a billion people in India. We hope that somebody’s successful. And most of the outlying outliers that are the successful Indians that you know live in Europe or America. There are very few great success stories in India itself. There are. They exist. Out of a billion people, of course.

Forbes: Japan? Are they ever going to get out of this rut?

Rogers: I own the currency. And when they had the tsunami, I bought shares, as a matter of fact, as they collapsed. It’s always been a good thing to do when there’s a huge natural disaster. It’s usually a good thing to do, to buy into the market. I doubt in five years I will own them. I doubt if I’ll own the currency or the shares. Japan’s got staggering problems. They’ve got the highest internal debt in the world and they’ve got a declining population. They’ve got serious problems.

Forbes: Talking about debt, India’s piling on debt, too.

Rogers: I know. That’s why I’m short India. That’s one reason I’m short India – because they’ve got this huge debt. For some reason there are all these bulls walking around that don’t seem to understand that India has a debt to GDP ratio of 90%. They’re still bullish. They don’t do their homework.

Forbes: You going into Myanmar?

Rogers: I’m extremely optimistic. If I could put all of my money into Myanmar, I would. I cannot, because you and I are citizens of the land of the free. In the land of the free, we cannot invest in Myanmar. Everybody else can. The Japanese, everybody’s pouring into Myanmar, except all of us from the land of the free.

It is so exciting. It is like going to China in 1978; it’s exactly the same place. It might be more exciting, because it’s been such a disaster for 50 years and now they’re opening up. They’re right between India on the left, China on the right – huge natural resources, 60 million people, disciplined, hard work, educated. Oh my gosh, it’s such an exciting opportunity. But all you and I can do is I can read about it in Forbes. I can’t do anything.

Forbes: Where else are you doing things?

Rogers: Well, the other place that I see wildly exciting things is North Korea, but we can’t do anything there. There’s no market in North Korea either. But there’s going to be a merger soon of North and South Korea and that’s going to be a very, very exciting place. Then you’ll have a country of 75 million people, right on the border of China, huge labor pool, lots of natural resources in North Korea. They’re going to run circles around the Japanese. The reasons the Japanese don’t want it to happen is because they don’t want a huge new competitor. They got their own problems.

North Korea, I wish I could find – I’m looking for ways to invest. I have a couple of ways. But they’re not of great interest. These are the places that I find the most exciting. But as far as stocks, for the most part I’m short stocks. I don’t own many stocks in the world. I own commodities. I own currencies.

Forbes: Vineyards?

Rogers: Not in vineyards. No, that’s a good idea. I don’t own any. No, I don’t own any vineyards. No, I drink the stuff, I don’t grow it. It takes too long to grow it, so I’d rather drink it.

Forbes: So to sum up, the U.S. – long term, secular decline.

Rogers: Certainly relative secular decline. There’s no question about that. We may have a lot of oil. When the U.K. had a big rally, went bankrupt in the ’70s, it had a big rally because the North Sea oil started flowing. I know Margaret Thatcher takes credit for it – it was the North Sea. North Sea oil started flowing in 1979, the same year Margaret Thatcher came to power.

If you give me the largest oil field in the world, I’ll show you an extremely good time, as you can imagine. We may have the largest oilfield in the world, with all this oil shale and natural gas, shale gas if they can solve the environmental problems. That would cause a huge rally in the U.S. We’re very good at agriculture or have been. That could cause a big rally in the U.S.

So don’t give up on the U.S. I own the dollar. I’m a U.S. taxpayer, U.S. citizen. So don’t give up on the U.S. But I’m afraid it’s nothing more than a secular rally, because we’re the largest debtor nation in the world and nobody cares, except me and you. I know you care. But other than the two of us, nobody seems to care.

Forbes: So why aren’t you running for president?

Rogers: No, no, no.

Forbes: Might do better than I did.

Rogers: No, that’s why I’m not. Because I know I wouldn’t. And second of all, you think I want to spend my time being nice to people I don’t want to be nice to? You tried that. I can’t imagine it’s a lot of fun, going out day to day being nice to people you don’t want to be nice to. I don’t want to do that.

Forbes: Jimmy, thank you.

Rogers: Thank you, Steve. Good fun, as usual.