Category Archives: Investing Gurus

Video on Ken Shubin’s Investing Course at CBS; Winn Dixie Test; Blog Recommendation

Booms do not merely precede busts. In some important sense, they cause them. This idea, on which so much of the analysis of these pages rests, is borrowed from the Austrian School of economics. It was the Austrians who observed that people in markets periodically miscalculate together. One important source of misjudgment is the interest rates that the central banks impose. A too-low rate provides high spirits and speculation; a too-high rate induces morbidity and contraction. Thus, the ultra-low money-market rates of 1993 not only strengthened balance sheets and reduced mortgage-interest costs, as policymaker intended. They also cause an outpouring of capital investment, as policymakers might or might not have intended. If precedent holds, these projects will be carried to extreme lengths. Like the Manhattan skyscrapers of the 1920s and the Texas oil rigs of the 1980s, the white elephants of the 1990s (coffee bars and semiconductor fabricating plants are the top candidates at this moment) will bring grief to their sponsors and drama to the next recession. Overbuilding and underbuilding constitute opposite sides of the same cyclical coin. James Grant in The Trouble with Prosperity (1997)

Ken Shubin Discusses his Advanced Value Investing Course At Columbia’s GBS

http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/02/ken-shubin-stein-on-value-investing-at-columbia-business-school/

Ken mentioned the CIA Manual for Intelligence Analysis (120 pages): https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/PsychofIntelNew.pdf

Even Value Investing Professors struggle with understanding how to grasp the critical aspects of a business and its industry. We are trying to avoid such a misunderstanding by our diligent study of competitive advantages.

QUIZ

Ken Shubin is Spence774 here: http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/2998. Here he recommends Winn Dixie Stores(WINN) – $18.61 on Nov 29, 2007

Shubin’s Summary: WINN is less than a 50 cent dollar.  It is a post-bankruptcy supermarket chain located in the Southeast in the midst of a multi-year turnaround.  WINN’s margins are currently 1/6 of industry average.  WINN has temporary, fixable problems with no structural impediments to the achievement of industry average operating metrics.  With a strong balance sheet, excellent management, and strategic assets with great potential, we believe WINN shares have the potential to more than double over three years, with little risk of capital loss.

The price dropped 50% from his recommended price before the company was bought in December 2011 by another Supermarket chain.

QUESTION: What key question must you ask about Winn-Dixie (Winn)? Where might Winn have any chance of a competitive advantage? How would you analyze this industry? Your studies of Wal-Mart and competitive advantage should give you the understanding to answer this quiz.  An answer will be posted in the comments section by tomorrow.  What does the “Professor” neglect in his analysis?

Short Idea on Winn: http://www.valueinvestorsclub.com/value2/Idea/ViewIdea/28593

Recommended Blog: http://www.oddballstocks.com/2012/03/adams-golf-gets-buyout-and-other-net.html  An investor on the journey of learning how to invest.

 The Results of My Aptitude Test

I recently had an extensive aptitude test to prepare me for a career upgrade. Video of my results: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV5OAfKhe34&feature=related

Opportunities in Life Insurance Stocks–Research from the Great Shelby Cullom Davis

And what I’m interested in is investing in people.– Arthur Rock

As a bull market continues, almost anything you buy goes up. It makes you feel that investing in stocks is a very easy and safe and that you’re a financial genius. –Ron Chernow

We discussed the relatively unknown, great investor, Shelby Davis, who compounded his capital by over 23% for 47 years in the insurance sector here: http://wp.me/p1PgpH-zM. I was able to dig out one of his research reports from Jastor (A scholarly Research Database). This 1957 report is worth reading because it shows you how a great investing mind thinks about an industry. Also, Mr. Davis goes back 30 to 50 years in his research–showing you his respect for understanding the history of the industry. Lessons for today.

Opportunities in Life Insurance Stocks by Shelby Cullom Davis

The present (August 1957) opportunity in life insurance stocks stems from three factors: (1) They are desirable long-term growth investments. (2) They are attractively priced at 10-12 times estimated 1956 adjusted earnings. (3) They have undergone a price correction for 18 months which has carried many issues as much as 30% to 40% below their highs. Yet earnings this year will be at an all-time high and the fundamentals on which earnings rest  (sales, improved mortality, high interest rates) appear favorable for the foreseeable future. The present opportunity exists largely because of market congestion.

The research report is here:https://rcpt.yousendit.com/1422135444/8aea00fbe09e0b2b58586a585283b49a  And this will be in the Value Vault Investor folder under Davis.

Great Investor Series: Shelby Cullom Davis 23.18% CAGR over 47 Years in Insurance Stocks

One day the Nouns were clustered in the street.

An Adjective walked by, with her dark beauty.

The Nouns were struck, moved, changed.

The next day a Verb drove up, and created the Sentence.

–Kenneth Koch, “Permanently”

Shelby Davis: An Unknown, Great Value Investor

February 23, 2011

http://www.valuewalk.com A more up-to-date blog–highly recommended.

http://intelligentinvestors.org/blog.php (good blog with interesting reading links)

We can’t be Shelby Davis, but we can be inspired to push ourselves to become the best we can be as investors. Note his late start as an investor, those of you who are a few years out of school.  Another lesson: anyone can learn accounting but few realize the value of studying history like Davis.

In the pantheon of investing greats one of the least talked about, but most successful investors, is Shelby Davis. Starting at age 38, he took $50,000, provided by his wife Kathyrn, and amassed it into a $900 million fortune in 47 years (or 23.18% CAGR over 47 years!) This amounts to an annual compounded rate of return of over 23% during that time span. While his investing process can be summed up as growth-at-a-reasonable-price, he hardly wrote anything down as to not waste money on paper (he often wrote on the back of envelopes and scraps of paper which were tossed away). His extreme frugality helped him to save every penny he could to invest in “compounding machines,” as he called them. When he died he left his money in a charitable trust and left little to nothing for his two children; he was the epitome of a penny-pincher.

Shelby Davis received his bachelor’s in Russian history at Princeton (1930), his master’s degree at Columbia (1931), and his doctorate in political science at the University of Geneva (1934). Before starting his investment firm, Shelby Cullom Davis & Company in 1947, he worked odd jobs as a European correspondent with CBS in Geneva, as a “statistician” (before “stock analyst” was invented) for his brother-in-law’s Delaware fund, as a speechwriter and economic advisor for Thomas E. Dewey (then Governor of New York), a freelance writer, and author. He also worked for the War Production Board in Washington in 1942. A year prior to this he bought a seat on the New York Stock Exchange merely because it was cheap, having no use for it himself. He paid $33,000 for the seat which had fetched $625,000 in 1929. By the time Davis died in May of 1994 his seat was worth $830,000. His last job before he started his working on his investment portfolio was as First Deputy Superintendent of Insurance where he worked from 1944 to 1947.

Davis’ work analyzing insurance gave him an upper hand by the time he started his portfolio. He saw clear advantages in the insurance industry. Most insurers, he noticed, were selling well below book value. Dividends were large in this industry and if you bought an insurance company at market price you were basically getting the dividend stream for free. He also noticed that while life insurance policies were selling like hotcakes, policyholders weren’t dying. Insurance companies, he realized, were growth companies in disguise. Having studied Ben Graham’s writings Shelby knew of the power of buying these equities. Shelby bought out Frank Brokaw & Co., a street away from Wall Street, and turned it into Shelby Cullom Davis & Co. This is when his seat on the New York Stock Exchange started to show its use and he began to capitalize on that investment using it for his business.

Although he bought insurance stocks his portfolio acted like a modern-day tech portfolio, rising from $100,000 to $234,790 in one year (he always bought on margin). His biggest holding that year was Crum & Forster. By the early 1950’s Davis became a millionaire by sticking with insurance stocks. Insurance companies that had once traded at stodgy multiples (P/E’s of 3-4) and low earnings now traded at P/E’s of 15-20 with high earnings. Shelby called this the “Davis Double Play,” an initial boost from earnings and another from investors bidding up the multiple. He largely focused on fundamentals before choosing his investments, looking for a solid balance sheet and making sure the insurer did not hold risky assets like junk bonds. He then focused on the management quality and made trips to meet with management and drill them. Diversification was also one of his strategies as he believed you needed to own enough stocks so that the ones you were wrong on were compensated by the ones you were right on. Although he never gave a “magic number,” in the mid-1950’s he held up to 32 insurance companies.

After a trip to Japan in the mid 1960’s Davis was convinced that investing in Japanese insurance stocks was a winning bet. There were substantially far less insurers in Japan and many of these were selling at well below book value, sometimes even half of book value. He quickly snatched up American Insurance Underwriters (later acquired by AIG) and American Family (now AFLAC), both which had big dealings in Japan. He also added Tokio Marine & Fire, Sumitomo Marine & Fire, Taisho Marine & Fire, and Yasuda Marine & Fire to his holdings. Davis, after successfully investing in Japanese stocks, began buying stocks in Africa, Europe, the Far East, and Russia.

Like Buffett, Davis snapped up shares of GEICO when it was on the verge of failure. Davis even snapped up a large enough share to be placed on the board. Davis, enraged by a proposed stock sale plan by Buffett and David Byrne, eventually sold off all his shares and left the board, a decision he would live to regret. Shortly after, he increased his position in AIG but soon began straying from insurance holdings. Davis got ahold of Value Line during this time and used the analysis to his benefit. At this point his normal portfolio, usually 30-35 stocks, consisted of hundreds of holdings, often highly rated by Value Line, which he day-traded for small gains and actually profited in a flat market.

Although he deviated somewhat from insurance companies over his lifetime 11/12 most successful investments were still in that industry. These included AIG, the four Japanese companies above, Berkshire Hathaway, AON, Torchmark, Chubb, Capital Holdings, and Progressive. The odd man out was Fannie Mae. He had some other minor successes but the bulk of his portfolio was due to these 12. If anything can be learned from his investing it’s that holding a few big winners for a long time can go a long way.

Note: His son, also Shelby Davis, also went on to be a successful investor as well as his grandsons Chris and Andrew.

If you’d like to learn more about Shelby C. Davis’ life and investing style I urge you to read The Davis Dynasty by John Rothchild.

http://www.insuranceobserver.com/PDF/1994/060194.pdf   Grandfather Knows Best.

Family affair

01 Sep 2001 –

In the 1990s journalist John Rothchild co-authored three bestsellers with investing legend Peter Lynch.

By Rich Blake  September 2001     Institutional Investor Magazine

In his new book, The Davis Dynasty: 50 Years of Successful Investing on Wall Street, he takes on a less celebrated but no less successful subject, chronicling three generations of savvy stock pickers. It’s an intriguing tale that weaves in nearly a century of Wall Street history.

The well-researched, solidly written book focuses on the Davis clan: Shelby Cullom Davis, who died in 1994 at 85; his son, Shelby Davis, who in 1969 founded what would become the $40 billion mutual fund powerhouse Davis Selected Advisers; and his grandsons, Christopher and Andrew, who manage several of those funds today.

Patriarch Shelby Cullom Davis, who all but cornered the market in insurance stocks in the 1950s, began seriously investing at age 40 with a bankroll supplied by his wife. Over the course of four decades, his initial $50,000 stake grew into a $900 million fortune – a compound growth rate comparable to the one delivered by Warren Buffett, who also has an appetite for insurance stocks.

Born in 1909, Davis grew up in Peoria, Illinois, where his parents ran a corner store. His mother, Julia Cullom, traced her roots to the Mayflower. His father, George Davis, made a small fortune selling horse feed to Alaskan gold prospectors. After attending Princeton University, Davis in 1932 married Kathryn Wasserman, the daughter of a wealthy Philadelphia carpet mogul. He worked as a speechwriter and economic adviser for New York State governor Thomas Dewey, who appointed him to the post of deputy superintendent in the New York State Insurance Department. In 1947, with no MBA and no formal investment training, he quit his job to play the market full-time.

In those days most investors shunned insurance companies because of their heavy stakes in low-yielding bonds and mortgages. But Davis shrewdly recognized value in those assets. Between 1947 and 1949 the Dow Jones industrial average fell 24 percent, while Davis’s portfolio of seven insurance stocks more than quadrupled in value. By 1954 he had become a millionaire.

Davis frequently interrogated company managements. One of his favorite questions: “If you had one silver bullet to shoot a competitor, which competitor would you shoot?” A feared company must be doing something right, he reasoned. Rothchild writes of Davis, “He was a walking Rolodex of industry notables, an encyclopedia of actuarial trivia.”

Shelby Davis, born in 1937, “grew up on dinner-table stock talk and annual reports strewn around the house.” The elder Davis’s advice to his son: “You can always learn accounting on the side, but you’ve got to study history. History teaches that exceptional people make a difference.”

By age 25 Shelby was off to a quick start in his own investment career. In 1966 he left Bank of New York, where he worked as a stock analyst, to go into business with Guy Palmer, a fellow bank vice president. Jeremy Biggs, a portfolio manager for the U.S. Steel pension fund, joined them in 1968. (Biggs, the younger brother of Morgan Stanley strategist Barton Biggs, is now the chief investment officer at Fiduciary Trust Co.)

The group bought big stakes in technology names of the go-go ’60s. Most portfolios lost money in 1969; the partners’ New York Venture Fund, a large-cap value fund, gained 25.3 percent. The fund beat the market in all but six of the next 28 years. An original investment of $10,000 would have grown to $379,000.

Shelby’s self-made success pleased his father, who by the late 1950s had made it clear that his children would not be the beneficiaries of a large inheritance. In 1961 Davis squabbled with his daughter Diana over his plan to donate $3.8 million in her name to Princeton. Feeling cheated, she refused to sign the necessary papers and waged a public battle reported in the society pages of The New York Times.

Shelby, like his father, was determined not to spoil his children. “The most important thing I taught them about the investing business,” he recalls, “is how I loved being in it.”

It wasn’t long before the third generation got in the game. By the end of 1999, Christopher Davis’s New York Venture Fund had beaten the Standard & Poor’s 500 index for the sixth year in a row, and ranked near the top of Morningstar’s large-cap value category for five straight years. Venture gained 10 percent in 2000, while the S&P 500 lost 9 percent.

“We try not to be too positive about short-term success or too negative about short-term setbacks,” says Christopher Davis. It’s a sensible approach that has served the clan well.

James Grant Opines on the Unintended Consequences of the FED and ECB’s Interventions

Investors refuse to believe that shock lies in wait…Investors do better where risk management is a conscious part of the process…survival is the only road to riches. Let me say that again: survival is the only road to riches. You should try to maximize return only if losses would not threaten your survival…You don’t want to blow it, because you don’t get a second chance. When you invest, it’s not your wealth today, but it’s your future that you’re really managing. – Peter Bernstein

Hospitalized for a serious condition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbS2WJdav6c&feature=fvsr  Pray that I can be cured……… 

James Grant Discusses the Folly of Fed Policy

James Grant Interview on CNBC March 07, 2012

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000077329&utm

Transcript:

CNBC Money Honey:The Federal Reserve is reportedly considering a new bond buying program to bolster the economy. The Wall Street Journal said the plan would buy more mortgage or treasury bonds, but borrow it back for short periods at lower rates. My next guest says such a plan would do more harm than good. James Grant from Grant’s Interest Rate Observer (www.grantspub.com) and Kelly Evans from headquarters are with me today. Good to see you, Jim. thank you so much for joining us.James Grant: Good to see you.

CNBC: You say such a plan by the Feds would be a wrong approach.

James Grant: We’ve had the easy money now for several years. What do you think the implications of it is? we should call this what it is, it is market manipulation, that’s what we call it in the private sector. What the Fed is doing is manhandling the structure of interest rates to the end of achieving of what it takes to be desirable macro outcomes. If the government would go down to the farmer’s market at 14th street and fiddle with the scales, there would be an understandable outcry from the customers. But the Fed and Central Banks the world over are in unprecedented ways of manipulating the value of what they’re printing, by a ton. In the latest gambit, the Fed wants to manipulate long-term interest rates lower. But in so doing, it is manipulating perceptions of risk, and it is creating a real inflation in the sense that people who want to retire in their savings, need much more cash to do it.

CNBC: And I like your latest cartoon, stick ’em up, this is a debt swap. Yeah. in the latest grant interest rate observer, in terms of the inflationary story, we’ve been talking about the threat of inflation after a long time with this easy money.

James Grant: I want to get into the ECB (European Central Bank) as well, because it’s not just the Fed. have we seen inflation yet? there’s inflation certainly in spots–obviously commodity inflation. But there’s also inflation, I think, in market assets that are stimulated, to use that favorite word of the authorities, stimulated by ultra-low interest rates. For example, in the distressed debt markets, you’ll find companies that have not made a profit in five years, issuing debt, as if this company were somehow   soundly and demonstrably solvent. by pressing down interest rates, by repressing interest rates, the Fed is in effect dulling the risk sensors of   the entire marketplace. Is this good? it’s the question to ask, Kelly. And the reason so many people are focused on the drawback of these record low interest rates and the fact that it’s also punishing savers.

CNBC: I’m curious, it may not amount to anything, but Jim, if the Fed goes this route of sterilizing its quantitative easing, and if they do another round, what does that mean to you?

James Grant: Why would they pursue that kind of action–lend long, in other words, which is in the private sector, a great way to go broke, as a bank. The Fed is going to do this. It thinks — the Wall Street Journal is floating this balloon. The Fed doesn’t want to have us believe that it is recklessly printing money to do that, ergo the gambit of locking up the funds with which this buys the bonds.

CNBC: Kelly, it looks like nothing more than what we’ve seen.  It’s the Fed interposing itself between the marketplace and — Jim, it’s an overture to people like you who think the Feds are creating inflation. Do you read a message like that and feel comforted somehow that —

James Grant, “No, I am distinctly uncomforted, Kelly. The Fed is creating, if not inflation, it is creating distortions. What has the Fed got against the price mechanism? it’s got in this country a long way over 200 years, suddenly, wherever the market sells off, we somehow have to have a fed interjection of money. What about the ECB? We’ve got the European Central Bank allowing a three-year period where the banks can pay back the lending. What are they doing with that money? They’re actually buying sovereign debt longer term. What about the ECB action? The ECB is going through a kind of adolescent growth spurt. Its balance sheet is positively exploding. its balance sheet is the equivalent of $4 trillion. It’s one-third larger than the Fed’s. Although the Euro zone has an economy about 13% or 15% smaller than ours. The Fed is a piker compared to what the  ECB has recently been doing. I think the point is, the world over we’re seeing unprecedented things (the beginning of the end of fiat currencies). We’re seeing interest rates that are lower than ever, and central banks that have never been more recklessly pro creative, to use Warren Buffett’s words, about assets. They’re printing money like mad. And people can’t seem to get enough long-term bonds, because the central banks are manipulating expectations about the future of interest rates. I think it’s all very dangerous. We can draw lessons from the depression of the 1920s, but what are the actual consequences of this continued government intervention?

Can we talk about what happened in early 1920s? Ben Bernanke can’t stop talking about the ’30s. But in 1920, ’21, the economy fell off the cliff. Nominal GDP was down 29%, wholesale prices collapsed by 40%. you know how the Fed and the Treasury reacted to this, the Treasury balanced the budget and the Fed actually raised interest rates. Guess what, the depression ended.

See video on the 1920/21 Depression by Tom Woods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI

Amity Shales on the Great Depression:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLeAqbOUt4c. A video destroying the common beliefs of what caused the Great Depression. The Forgotten Man.

James Grant: We keep on hearing this propaganda stick drum beat assertion that in order to get us out of our sorrows, the authorities, the high and mighty ones, say we must run immense deficits.

Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the power to COIN money and FIX the standard of WEIGHTS and MEASURES. The Constitution was not intended to give government (the Fed) the power to constantly change the yardstick of money (changing the quantity of money).  Also, the Fed interferes with the traffic signals of the economy–interest rates–by keeping the traffic light at green constantly. This will only lead to more mal-investment.

 

Search Strategies and Learning from Professional Investors

They called Baruch “the Lone Eagle.” Men turned to whisper as he passed, runs a highly colored account of Baruch at the end of the century, “tall, aquiline, smiling, but uncommunicative among the excited stock dealers.” He was alone. He was always alone. He was deaf to tips, indifferent to advice or information. –Mr. Baruch by Margaret L. Coit

You can learn occasionally from viewing the libraries of money management firms, but never cease to do your own thinking and beware of marketing.

Epoch Investment Partners (“EIPNY”): http://www.eipny.com/index.php/epoch_insights/white_papers

Free cash flow investing:http://www.eipny.com/assets/pdfs/free-cash-flow-investing-04-18-11.pdf

For example, an excerpt from the above white paper, “What sets us apart from the rest of the investing world is our focus on the generation of free cash flow and the allocation of capital. While most traditional value and growth managers use accounting measures like earnings or book value to underpin their process, we believe that the true value proposition of a company lies within its sources and uses of free cash flow. In this way, we approach the investment problem in much the same way as the managers of the very firms in which we invest. It is akin to a capital budgeting decision.”

Epoch wants to walk a dollar of revenue through the financial statements until the generation of a dollar of income to the investor. Good advice for how to analyze certain companies. That method of analysis might not fit a resource conversion investment like an oil exploration company.

Readers of CSinvesting know everything in investing occurs in context. A business growing rapidly and investing heavily in its infrastructure and growth would not show much free cash flow, however capital redeployment would be crucial for success. Wal-Mart in its early growth stages as it built its economy of scale advantage might be such an example.

But for more mature companies like Coke, JNJ, MSFT, etc., those companies will invest in growth but often have more cash than can be redeployed into their business, so following their uses of cash would give you an understanding of management’s capital allocation abilities and/or shareholder friendliness.

If you then look at EIPNY’s filings (13F-HR), you can see whether the companies in their portfolio like Coke, Pepsi, Ingersol-Rand, Praxair, Lab Corp of America, Comcast, Abbott Labs, Amex, Anh-Busch, Aetna, Texas Instruments, and Kimberly Clark match well with their philosophy. If you agree with their approach, then there may be ideas available for you to look at. Just remember that they are constrained by diversification and size with $18 billion under management.

Another fund with an accounting orientation is Mr. Robert Olstein’s fund: http://www.olsteinfunds.com/home.html. See his white papers like Depreciation: http://webreprints.djreprints.com/2664880057465.pdf

Third Avenue Value Fund is more focused on Net Asset Values and high quality assets than just free cash flows. Marty Whitman recently brought on a new co-manager. http://www.thirdave.com/ta/documents/reports/TAF%201Q%20Report%20and%20Letters.pdf

Davis Funds has an education center for investors here: http://davisfunds.com/education/ The Davis funds like Bill Miller’s and Richard Pzena’s firms took a pounding during their ownership of some financial stocks like AIG during 2009. What you don’t understand and can’t value, you should avoid.

An entrepreneur, Sara Blakely, turned $5,000 into $billion. Perhaps she was able to redeploy capital at a high rate for a long time—the power of compounding?  Are there lessons here for the investor?

Short Video on Sara Blakely’s Success in Women’s Undergarments http://youtu.be/7a6wGw_9lk8

Forbes Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/03/07/undercover-billionaire-sara-blakely-joins-the-rich-list-thanks-to-spanx/print/

MF Global

For those who have money in a brokerage account, an important read–how funds were vaporized in MF Glboal. Will your account be next?

http://www.go2managedfutures.com/Vaporized.pdf

Imagine for a moment that MF Global was your bank. One day you woke up and discovered that the account holding your college savings was gone. Poof! The money in your retirement accounts and related checking accounts had just been “vaporized.” You go to ask the bank where you money is and you are locked out of the bank while strangers who are not depositors are allowed to enter and take assets from the bank, including the contents of the “safe” deposit boxes. You finally hear from the bank and the authorities, who essentially say that while they can see all the transactions of the bank over the last month, for some reason, there is just no longer any trace of the money, and no explanation of what happened. The funds just “vaporized.” And after a few weeks of minimal information dribbles, you hear the search has gone cold. You are told the money disappeared in a chaotic tsunami of transactions and there is no evidence of any criminal actions. But, if money happens to get found, you might get some of it. Oh, and the contents of your safe deposit box are going to be auctioned off, with only a portion of the funds returned to you (this was the fate of the unlucky souls who held gold and silver bars on deposit in their own name with MF Global). That’s all…talk to you later. Good bye and good luck.

Buffett on Gold and Economic Lessons from Margaret Thatcher 1990 on the ECB

For Buffett, Coca-Cola is a prime example of the procreative investment, gold the archetypical other. For us, we submit that the chairman has failed to take proper account of today’s unique monetary backdrop. Interest rates are uncommonly low, worldwide monetary policy unprecedentedly easy. No institution under the sun is so procreative as the quantitatively easing central bank. Faster than even the best business can spin cash flow, the Federal Reserve can materialize scrip. What to do about this novel fact is one of the foremost investment questions of our time. (www.grantspub.com March 9, 2012 Vol 30, No. 5)

Buffett discusses gold as an investment asset

From http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2011ltr.pdf…The major asset in this category is gold, currently a huge favorite of investors who fear almost all other assets, especially paper money (of whose value, as noted, they are right to be fearful). Gold, however, has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative. True, gold has some industrial and decorative utility, but the demand for these purposes is both limited and incapable of soaking up new production. Meanwhile, if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.

What motivates most gold purchasers is their belief that the ranks of the fearful will grow. During the past decade that belief has proved correct. Beyond that, the rising price has on its own generated additional buying enthusiasm, attracting purchasers who see the rise as validating an investment thesis. As “bandwagon” investors join any party, they create their own truth –for a while.

Over the past 15 years, both Internet stocks and houses have demonstrated the extraordinary excesses that can be created by combining an initially sensible thesis with well-publicized rising prices. In these bubbles, an army of originally skeptical investors succumbed to the “proof” delivered by the market, and the pool of buyers – for a time – expanded sufficiently to keep the bandwagon rolling. But bubbles blown large enough inevitably pop. And then the old proverb is confirmed once again: “What the wise man does in the beginning, the fool does in the end.”

OK, I don’t disagree with Buffett on investing in a franchise company that can pass along prices because of its competitive advantage as long as the price you pay is not above value.  Go here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78158885/Ko-35-Year-Chart to view the 50-year chart of Coca-Cola.  Sales, cash flows, earnings, and dividends rose steadily from 1997, year the price declined for 12 years to 2009. Why?

Back to Buffett, he says when you own one ounce of gold you will only have an ounce of gold instead of cash flow (until sold or exchanged) or earnings. True, but gold is not (in my opinion) an investment but more of a medium of exchange (See The Origins of Money and Its Value http://mises.org/daily/1333). An ounce of gold bought a quality man’s suit 100 years ago and the same is approximately true today. Gold is the reciprocal of fiat currency debasement. Unless the world’s central banks are at a top in currency debasement then picking a top in gold will be foolhardy.

Read, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff, to gain perspective on what central banks do when confronted with heavily indebted governments. Print!

Buffett’s other arguments are true regarding bubbles; people go too far. What ends will end. So let’s invert and ask, have we seen the end of rapid currency debasement? Are people’s belief in fiat currency strengthening or weakening. What has changed?

Peter Schiff attacks Buffett in Buffett’s Bursting Bubble: http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff154.html

Thatcher in 1990 Predicting the Crisis in Europe

Margaret Thatcher in 1990 predicts the outcome of the ECB’s policies (No! No! No!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tetk_ayO1x4&feature=related

Longer clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I

Note how prescient she was. She didn’t really predict, but she did combine human nature, economic law and causality to see what was to come.  Who knew that giving a non-elective body with central control of one currency would lead to Europe’s disaster? A Classic.

The Fed Today

Wayne Angel discusses the Federal Reserve and the European  Central Bank.  Mr. Angel says, “The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board  has the responsibility to be restrained from creating (printing) too much  currency in order to provide price stability and full employment. I ask the reader, “Has a government EVER shown restraint in printing fiat currency? If prices send signals to producers and consumers in how to allocate resources, wouldn’t interfering in the price discovery process to “stabilize” prices only distort capital allocation decisions?

Mr. Angel goes onto to explain the government intervention and folly in the U.S. housing market,”Congress thought that every American had the right to own a house.”  Given that disaster, what has really changed to prevent another calamity? Tick-tock.

http://www.centman.com/VideoAngellConversation12-21-11-Menu.html

Housing Starts

The above chart shows how prices do their work in allocating resources. The decline in housing starts will help being about an improving market for homes for either buying or renting.  Markets do work–even hampered markets.

I try my best not to be reflexively contrary unlike the man in this clip who can only contradict people: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf47iNBt_qg&feature=related

M. Pabria Video Lecture at Ivey School Feb. 2012

Mohnish Pabria of Pabrai Funds discusses mental models and competitive analysis.  Don’t blindly follow or worship investing “gurus” but try to use what makes sense to YOU. Even investors like Pabrai have trouble understanding competitive advantage as shown by his investments in Exide (Xide), Pinnacle Airlines, Sub-prime credit during 2008, etc. We ALL make mistakes so we should learn from everyone around us.

Pabrai says, “I am a shameless cloner.” Copy good ideas.

http://www.bengrahaminvesting.ca/Resources/Video

_Presentations/Guest_Speakers/2012/Pabrai_2012.htm

Chuong 2011 Investment Letter

If you shoot mimes, should you use a silencer? –Steven Wright

Jim Chuong’s 2011 Investment Letter

Someone we could all learn from.  Note, that like Jim Grant, he believes rental properties are cheap in certain areas of the United States. Prices of single family homes are at all-time historical lows in terms of affordability. Where are the get-rich books in real estate?

Also, he has a large concentration in Fossil. Note how he differs from a standard portfolio as mentioned in prior post http://wp.me/p1PgpH-xl

An excerpt:

The return that I achieved in 2011 was based on complete and utter inactivity. Readers of the 2009 Letter may recall that my cash dropped to 0% as I deployed virtually all capital during the 2009 year. Since that time, there has been no reason to add additional paid-in capital as no stock fell within my circle of competence and prices continue to remain unreasonable.

In this letter I will outline some of my thoughts around investing in stocks and my small foray into the U.S. real estate market via buying rental properties in Phoenix, AZ.

Aside from K-Swiss dropping from $12 per share to $3 per share, there was little change in my portfolio or my opinion on the stock market in general.

http://www.ticonline.com/

Seeking Portfolio Manager Skill

Why not invest your assets in the companies you really like? As Mae West said, “Too much of a good thing can be wonderful”.

Wide diversification is only required when investors do not understand what they are doing.  –Warren Buffett

Buffett’s investing abilities were discussed here:http://wp.me/p1PgpH-ww

Seeking Portfolio Manager Skill

Mauboussin, a market strategist (cheer leader for Bill Miller?) writes painfully about finding ex ante investment management skill. http://contenta.mkt1710.com/lp/26966/115068/

MauboussinOnStrategySeekingPMSkill_MIPX014394.pdf

Two studies are mentioned in his article on index investing

  1. Active vs. Passive Investing and the Efficiency of Individual Stock Prices: http://finance.bwl.uni-annheim.de/fileadmin/files/Paper_Finance_Seminar/Wermers.pdf
  2. The economic consequences of index-linked investing. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1667188

Takeaways:

  • Active managers are better off maintaining high active share (how their portfolio differs from a benchmark index) through stock picking than through sector bets.
  • Mutual funds with expense ratios of 1.25% or more and that have more than 40 stocks will have low active share—be quasi-indexers—and will have to massively outperform on the active part of their portfolio to equal the benchmark returns.  33% of the portfolio would have to outperform by 3.75% to make up for the 1.25% expense. Wow! There is a compelling reason to use a low-cost index or not to invest in a mutual fund.
  • If you go passive, then really go passive and have no to low costs.
  • However, if you are an active manager, go active. Concentrate on your stock picks and don’t over diversify.
  • There is a role for active management since active management makes prices less inefficient.
  • Most statistics fail the the actual test of reliability and validity.
  • The combination of active share and tracking error provides insight.  Funds with high active share and moderate tracking error deliver excess returns.
  • There is a long-term trend toward lower active share. More investors are indexing, therefore the markets are becoming less efficient.  Don’t own a fund with low active share, because the chances are good that the fun’s gross returns will be insufficient to leave you with attractive returns after fees.

I am not a big fan of the academic jargon that fills this article, but some readers may gain the insight that I had reinforced–mostly, institutional investors do NOT earn an adequate return AFTER fees for investors because they are closet indiexers with high fees. Buyer beware.

And, if you are an individual investor, concentrate in your best ideas.

Recommended Blog and Housekeeping

The most important single factor in shaping security markets is public psychology. – Gerald Loeb

Wall Street never changes. The pockets change, the suckers change, the stocks change, but Wall Street never changes because human nature never changes. – Jesse Livermore

There is nothing more important than your emotional balance. – Jesse Livermore

There are styles in securities as there are in clothes. A security may be undervalued, but if it is also out of style it is of little interest to the speculator. He is, therefore, compelled to study the psychology of the stock market as well as the elements of real value. – Phil Carret

When events have thinking participants, the subject matter is no longer confined to facts but also includes the participants’ perceptions. The chain of causation does not lead directly from fact to fact but from fact to perception and from perception to fact. – George Soros

A Good Blog with free eBooks

http://gregspeicher.com/

I don’t know the writer nor have an affiliation, but beginning to intermediate investors may find many lessons and examples here.

There is a booklet called, 10 Ways to Improve Your Investment Process….and make more money that is worth a read–the link is on the left side of the page.

The author says:

  1. Define your outcome
  2. Define your process
  3. Don’t focus on the outcome
  4. Use checklists
  5. Improve your search strategy
  6. Improve your risk management
  7. Manage yourself (time management)
  8. Pay attention to the details
  9. Be patient
  10. Continuously improve.

Good advice, but how do you ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT the above?

Let’s take #1 Define your outcome.  If you want a 25% annual return, you will have to wait a long time, perhaps several years, to find opportunities sufficiently undervalued to reasonably expect such a return–like in 1932, 1974, and 2009.

Let me know your thoughts about the blog.

Housekeeping

The value vault has issues with downloading if there are many people trying to download large files at once.  We (me, myself and I and un-named others) have split the material into folders which people can view and download the material inside.  Try again another time. If the problem persists, contact www.yousendit.com customer service and then let me know if you are still struggling. We will eventually prevail.

I will build an email list of all those who have requested keys. This list can be used to update you on new quality additions to the value vault folders. I promise to keep the list private and only send when there is new material. For example, if a small file is added to a folder, you will be emailed the material with an attachment. If the addition is a video or book, then you will be alerted to the folder.  This will save you from having to email again and again to request a key.  With providence, we will make our way forward. Thanks for your infinite patience.