Do Not Listen to “Experts” or Jim Cramer on Facebook (FB) IPO; Update on VALUE VAULT

Mad Money’s Jim Cramer came out strong on the Facebook IPO, claiming they were “too legit too quit” claiming he had better experience than anyone to call this. Sad day for the Mad Money host, looks like an epic fail.

See Cramer in action: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKJSuBMr4u0

Who is to blame? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSgKV6zJdHs

Cramer, again, takes no responsibility. Surprised?

Avoid “experts”

If you are a beginning investor struggling to find a way to invest then take the above as a lesson on what NOT to do. Make your own mistakes.  Jim Cramer is not an “expert” on Facebook. He did not value the company; he is only there to generate excitement.  Readers of this blog would at least know to figure out what expectations were built into the price of F. Go here: http://wp.me/p1PgpH-PM. High expectations for future growth can be lethal to the share price if those expectations decline. Spend your time reading annual reports in the companies that interest you not watching CNBC.

Analysts’ predictions:http://www.astrocyte-design.com/interests/analysts.html

Prudens Speculari

A further commentary from Prudens Speculari: Social Networking Junk. (Warning: this blogger despises MBAs).

I haven’t touched on the social networking sector in some time so I thought I would today. These gems are really something to behold. The sector is highlighted by Facebook ticker FB. What do you say about this? The chart says it all. The latest news is the sale of a huge whack of stock by insider Peter Thiel.

All the experts out the woodwork now that the horse has left the barn. I especially enjoyed the laughable rant by Jim “any investor who can get shares of Facebook should purchase as many as possible Mad Money 0516/12” Cramer the other day regarding the Thiel sale of stock. Funny how Jim gets lathered by an insider selling out, which by matter of fact is EXACTLY what an IPO is, yet the billion dollar purchase of a NO revenue, NO profit less than 2 yr old startup company Instagram (or Instacam as it should be called) is not concerning? Sadly for the minions who follow the pied piper of hype, the common denominator for Jim Cramer is if things are going up “who gives a shit”, but when things tank, look out cause he’s a scapegoat huntin’.

But it wasn’t just Jim Cramer. The street is full of his ilk. Do you remember these gems.

“I would invest in Facebook, I don’t care what the opening price is”
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak as part of Facebook pre-IPO hype which should become case study blueprint material for aspiring Wall St. propagandists. So sure Steve, and the rest of us would eat, drink and party like drunken sailors were we worth a couple billion.

“Investors looking to short Facebook stock are getting in front of a freight train”

Needham and Co. senior analyst Laura Martin Wed May 23. 2012 with FB trading around $31-32/share. I didn’t even mention the $40 target she had on the stock. Thank heavens they didn’t let a junior shill, excuse me, I meant analyst near the stock.

Well, the social networking stocks continue to get crushed which is at it should be. Math is math and 2+2=4 no matter how many times a literal army of paid, Wall St. MBA’s tell you it equals 6.

Anyway back on April 23 of this year I had the following posts on twitter regarding some social networks.

“ZYNGA shareholders join GRPN 1’s hope’g 4 an Instagram-esque buyout miracle. Like GRPN, no fraud, simply “growing pains”
That comment about growing pains was from some Wall St. “Henry Blodget-esque’ analyst reassuring the ‘muppets’ that holding the stock that all was well.

“With Wall St. track record sell’g toxic paper I marvel @ the sheep lining up 4 shear’g. IPO shud B renamed ISO. Insiders Selling Out.”
To remind everyone the term ‘muppets’ is how Goldman Sachs fondly refers to its paying clients. I wonder how many Goldman clients out there think, “they can’t be referring to me, gotta be the ‘other clients”

“Don’t forget that other social networking ‘must own’ gem Angies

Update on Value Vault

I finally will have a block of time this weekend to push ahead with reorganizing the material. I know many of you have had troubles getting into the vault. The folders may be over the storage limit for the free accounts. I will speak to customer support this afternoon and find out the issues. Hang in there!

HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND

What is Priced In? U. S. Terriorism

Expectations: What is Priced in? Expectations or What is priced in

U. S. Terriorism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/ and here:http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

Question for readers, Do we in the USA live in a fascist state? Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdgofuMq0rk

Can anyone tell me how the US is SAFER and more prosperous AFTER the Iraq and Afghanastan wars which were never declared.

Thoughts?

Help Buffett! Will See’s (Candy) New Strategy for Growth Work?

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/22/sees-candies-buffett-berkshire/?iid=HP_River

“In California the girls slap you when you bring Russell Stover, and kiss you when you bring See’s.” –Buffett

Think about how you would advise the CEO. Think strategically. A big hint is posted at the end of this article to help you analyze this case. If you disagree with the hint, please post your reasons.

If I wanted to get Mr. Buffett’s attention, I would buy one share of Berkshire’s B shares and write a letter of _____________ as a shareholder and outline why. Say you will guzzle Coke and scarf down gobs of See’s candy while you drive out to Omaha in a GEICO insured car to present to See’s management. Tell him as a shareholder you burn incense and pray for his health every day.

I can almost promise he will write you back if your letter is composed intelligently. Add the hint on the bottom of this post as reinforcement.

Thanks ZG for the heads up on this article. Another chance to learn!

The secrets of See’s Candies

August 22, 2012: 5:00 AM ET

Warren Buffett calls it a “dream business.” Cher, Bill Gates, and millions of Californians love it. Now CEO Brad Kinstler is ready to take the quaint candy maker east. Will it work?

By Daniel Roberts, reporter

See's CEO Brad Kinstler selects a Toffee-ette at the See's store at its Los Angeles plant.

See’s CEO Brad Kinstler selects a Toffee-ette at the See’s store at its Los Angeles plant.

FORTUNE — The plant workers of See’s Candies start arriving each day at 4 a.m. In Los Angeles and San Francisco they stand at their stations and drizzle fondant onto maple pecan bonbons or count the nuts in each almond royal. They spread rum nougat into flat pans or break up chunks of cashew brittle by hand. All the while, they wear the signature white lab coats with their first names embroidered on the front in black stitching — similar to the ones in the famous 1952 I Love Lucy episode, for which Lucille Ball trained at See’s. By 9 a.m., many of the workers break for lunch.

Meanwhile, in the Kiewit Building on Farnam Street in Omaha, Warren Buffett is largely unaware of what is beginning at See’s. His Berkshire Hathaway group (BRKA) acquired the little candy company in 1972 — exactly 40 years ago — for $25 million. The boxed-chocolate industry is small, with total sales estimated at just under $2 billion a year in the U.S., and does not often grow year to year, although it is up 4% in 2012. See’s, which had sales of $376 million in 2011, $83 million of it profit, represents an infinitesimal drop in the bucket of Buffett’s other holdings, which include fat stakes in American Express (AXP), Coca-Cola (KO), and IBM (IBM). But of all his investments, the regional candy maker remains Buffett’s fondest.

MORE: Berkshire Hathaway – No. 7 on the Fortune 500

Of course, the Oracle doesn’t worry himself with the day-to-day management of companies he owns; his biggest act of participation in four decades was in 2006 when he installed longtime Berkshire insurance man Brad Kinstler to run things after Chuck Huggins, who had been with the company 54 years and was CEO for 33 of them, retired.

Now Kinstler, 59, is embarking on a plan to spread out across the country. You may know See’s from airport kiosks on trips to the West Coast, but of the company’s 211 shops, none are east of Chicago. In the next three years See’s plans to open stores in states like Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, and in Washington, D.C. Whether it will be successful is uncertain; past attempts have not worked that well. The plan means risk — though measured — for a business that, like Buffett himself, is usually about patience and caution. But Kinstler is more determined than anyone before him to make it happen.

Workers at See's Carson, Calif., packing facility

Workers at See’s Carson, Calif., packing facility

Charles A. See, a salesman from Ontario, opened the first See’s shop in 1921 in Los Angeles. With its now iconic black-and-white tiles, it was made to look like the kitchen of his widowed mother, Mary. Today the shops still offer the same experience: walk-in customers can sample any piece. “That’s the best marketing we have,” says chief financial officer Ken Scott, who has been at See’s 34 years. “If people try it, they’ll love it.” It’s true. Maybe it’s the fresh ingredients (See’s uses no added preservatives) or the California water, but there is something about See’s. The candy tastes exceedingly good.    (Proprietary Product?)

Warren Buffett has loved See’s since he first tried it in 1971, after hearing about it from his West Coast colleague Charlie Munger, who in turn heard about it from Robert Flaherty, an outside investment counselor at Blue Chip Stamps, a trading-stamp company Berkshire had invested in the year before. Munger and Buffett now say they were stingy in their initial offer, but Munger’s friend Ira Marshall convinced him it was an unusual company, worth spending more to get. “Ira really shamed us,” admits Munger. “Warren and I were too cheap.” So Munger persuaded Buffett to buy. They paid up.

Munger, sitting in the reading room of his L.A. home — the 88-year-old is currently enjoying a biography of Deng Xiaoping — ticks off a lot to like about See’s from a management perspective. The company has changed very little in 91 years, incurs low overhead, and can raise prices by up to 5% each year, thanks to brand loyalty. People are fanatical about See’s (read the reviews of any of its candies on its website), and Buffett is no exception. “When you were a 16-year-old, you took a box of candy on your first date with a girl and gave it either to her parents or to her,” he says. “In California the girls slap you when you bring Russell Stover, and kiss you when you bring See’s.”

As head of marketing for See's Candies, Tracy Cioffi is trying to win over a younger generation of chocolate lovers.

As head of marketing for See’s Candies, Tracy Cioffi is trying to win over a younger generation of chocolate lovers.

Over the years Buffett’s strategy had often been to invest in undervalued “cigar stub” companies. See’s was different: a strong brand that Californians loved. He has called See’s a “dream business,” one capable of greatly increasing its profits without needing much new capital. Berkshire is therefore able to allocate most of See’s profits to whatever businesses or investments Buffett thinks best.

And Buffett finds additional lessons in See’s. For starters, it has taught him about branded goods. “It’s one thing to own stock in a Coca-Cola or something, but when you’re actually in the business of making determinations about opening stores and pricing decisions, you learn from it,” he tells Fortune, sitting in his office with a box of See’s chocolate lollipops (his favorite) on his desk. “We have made a lot more money out of See’s than shows from the earnings of See’s, just by the fact that it’s educated me, and I’m sure it’s educated Charlie too.”

See’s employees feel the same kind of affinity for the company. Most have been there for decades, and they get so delighted talking about working there that they make Google (GOOG) employees look like detainees. Beatriz Romero has been wrapping Scotch kisses (a fresh marshmallow covered in caramel and wrapped tightly like taffy) for 41 years, and she is not an unusual case. The upper-level team is also made up of See’s lifers. Eileen Duag (pronounced doo-ag), vice president of product, has been there 32 years. Johnnie Woods, “customer centricity” director, for 24. Dan Dias, who runs order processing, has 17. They consider Kinstler, with his almost seven years, brand-new.

Kinstler began his career at Cornhusker Casualty, an Omaha insurance company Berkshire opened in 1970. In 1991 he went to run Cypress Insurance in San Mateo, Calif., for nine years before moving on to Fechheimer Brothers, a Berkshire-owned, Cincinnati-based uniform maker. In 2005, Buffett and Munger tapped him to move back to California and take over See’s. Kinstler says he knew little about the business, but jokes, “As soon as I found out I get free candy …”

MORE: Warren and Charlie and the chocolate factory

That vanilla sense of humor belies the ambitious steps Kinstler is now taking to bring Mary See’s recipes to the rest of the country. Until the early 2000s, See’s stayed west, except for a brief stint in the ’80s when Huggins opened a few stores in St. Louis and Texas. They struggled because of competition from the likes of Fannie May (no, not mortgage giant Fannie Mae) and because the company opened them too quickly in untested markets. See’s had to retreat. Today it remains a Western phenomenon; 110 of its 211 stores are in California.

See’s does, however, open seasonal carts in shopping malls all across the country — called “holiday gift centers” (HGCs) — that are around only for Christmas (a few reopen for Valentine’s Day and Easter). It uses their success to measure where a permanent shop might do well. Based on HGC performance, See’s opened its first two stores in Dallas this summer and will open three more in Texas this year. It is slowly moving across the country. In 2012 it is on track to open five stores in Texas, one in Oklahoma, one in Wisconsin, and one in Indiana. Next year it plans to open in Missouri, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania. For 2014, Kinstler envisions stores as far east as Florida and Washington, D.C.

While the plan is ambitious, it is measured. With each store requiring less than $300,000 to build out, “it’s not even a rounded decimal point in Berkshire’s financials,” Kinstler says. Even as he tries to open more than 30 new stores in three years, he’ll do it cautiously, watching how the stores perform in each new market before opening more: “Until I’m very comfortable and convinced, the foot’s always ready to be on the brake as opposed to the gas.”   (Grow on the periphery? Sensible?).

Nevertheless, to help usher this plan along, last October Kinstler hired a new VP of marketing: Tracy Cioffi, who had previous marketing stints at the Sports Authority and Gap (GPS). (When she took the See’s job and updated her profile on LinkedIn, she says many of her contacts expressed surprise. “I just wrote back, in bullet points: Buffett. Berkshire Hathaway. Made in the USA. Do your homework.”) Cioffi, 36, will spearhead an effort to alert new customers to the brand. “We can’t focus on great-grandma anymore,” she says. Her new bull’s-eye is a thirtysomething mother. How do you pull in new, young customers to a 91-year-old candy company that packages its sweets in black-and-white boxes with a kindly old woman on the front? “Usually I’m tasked to make it up … create the brand,” says Cioffi. “I don’t need to do that here — the story is there, the heritage is there. I need to package it and tell it.”

1952: The I Love Lucy show airs its iconic episode featuring high jinks on a chocolate assembly line inspired by the See's L.A. plant.

1952: The I Love Lucy show airs its iconic episode featuring high jinks on a chocolate assembly line inspired by the See’s L.A. plant.

Part of that storytelling will happen in the digital sphere, which seems like a natural home for a brand with the cultlike appeal of See’s. Cioffi touts the company’s Facebook page and its 880,000 “likes.” On sees.com — which Buffett himself pushed to create in 1998 — most pieces have 800 reviews or more, and almost all have an average rating that is close to five stars. The brand’s web presence will be increasingly vital, as 65% of consumer orders now originate online (the rest come via phone, and a tiny portion by snail mail). See’s logs an average 250 online orders each day just for “special packs,” the make-your-own-box option. During peak holiday time, that balloons to 2,200 each day. It makes sense: Boxed chocolate is a highly seasonal business — See’s makes 90% of its money in only four months of the year. To combat the lulls, See’s puts out seasonal flavors, like tropical tango, a refreshing coconut piece, in the summer. (There is a mincemeat flavor for Christmas, and an Irish potato piece for St. Patrick’s Day.)

The logistics of distributing a perishable product are complicated. To truly expand, See’s will have to open up a new plant. That will mean finding new suppliers for all the fresh local ingredients it uses. A big selling point of See’s is that all its ingredients, from Guittard chocolate to Mariani shelled walnuts, are fresh and local; the only items from outside the country are pine nuts and vanilla. Thus, the ingredients don’t travel far to get to the cold lockers where “nut meats” are stored, or to the giant outdoor vats that house milk chocolate and dark chocolate. (In 1994 a driver delivering a bulk order of chocolate fell asleep while his truck was hooked up to one of the vats and pumping; the streets flooded with chocolate and, once the fog cooled it, workers had to shovel it away from the storm drains.) The lack of any added preservatives is a draw for consumers but can make stocking See’s a hassle for its licensees; the candy has a very short shelf life. Scotch kisses, for example, can stay on shelves only 25 days because the caramel isn’t coated in anything.

MORE: What it’s like to work for Warren Buffett

See’s pushes the “no added preservatives” line hard. Employees like to point out that Godiva boxes can stay on shelves much longer (Godiva declined to comment for this article). That See’s would try to appeal to new customers by stressing old values matches up nicely with its plants, which run on a balance of automation and live labor. Men in aprons and goggles churn at giant, steaming cauldrons of caramel. Someone stands and shoots vegetable oil onto a sheet of rum nougat so that it won’t stick to the slicer. A handful of the machines are nearly 100 years old and still going, like the “tinner” that sorts Toffee-ettes into tins, which is from 1919. In other sections brand-new machines roar along, like the flashy robots that make peanut brittle — one stretches out the sheets of brittle, the other flips them — and are nicknamed Tweety and Sylvester. By the time production stops at 2 p.m., marshmallow drips from machinery and a dusting of nut shavings coats the floors. The sanitation crews that come at 3 p.m. are often there for eight hours. In some areas extra chocolate is collected and mixed in with raw food material that ends up feeding farm animals. “We used to call the extra chocolate ‘hog food,'” says L.A. plant manager Gary Gitch.

Though See’s doesn’t officially give public tours of its plants, well-known fans like Cher — who worked at See’s before she achieved fame — have come by, and Buffett once brought Bill Gates for a tour. Buffett says that when his 5-year-old grandson took a tour years ago and gorged on samples, “he was with a couple little buddies, and [after the tour] he gets out of the car and just throws up all of it.”

Workers at the L.A. plant smooth over a line of chocolate fudge.

Workers at the L.A. plant smooth over a line of chocolate fudge.

See’s faces obstacles before it can get kids on the East Coast hooked too. Boxed chocolates is a crowded field: At the high-end there’s Godiva, as well as newer boutique brands that have emerged in recent years. Below See’s there is an abundance of what Duag calls “pharmacy candy,” a market dominated by Russell Stover. According to data from research firm Symphony IRI, in the past year through July 8, Russell Stover’s sales were $90.1 million, Whitman’s Samplers (which Russell Stover owns) did $38 million, Hershey’s (HSY) gift boxes did $20.4 million, Lindt’s boxed chocolates did $11.9 million, and Fannie May did $4 million.

For See’s to win the race in new territories, Cioffi says branding will be key. She hopes to change the voice of See’s. “Right now, I would say we’re sweet,” she says. “I want to get us to where we’re sweet with a wink.”

Bernard Pacyniak, editor of Candy Industry magazine, thinks it may take more than a wink for See’s to break through on the colder coast. “I don’t think See’s means anything to people on the East Coast, where people are also exposed to higher-end chocolate products,” he says. “Their base is still very much the loyal West Coast customers, and on the East Coast they’ll have to start from scratch.” Chip Huggins, who is the son of the company’s longtime CEO and who began working at See’s for his father at age 14 and eventually left to run Joseph Schmidt Confections, asks, “If you put See’s everywhere, what makes it so special anymore?”  (Krispy Kreme Donuts)

It’s a fair question. Like many products with a fervent fan base, the scarcity of See’s provides a large part of its appeal. Kinstler isn’t too worried. He thinks that if the company does lose some customers as it becomes more readily available, the exposure to new people will be worth it. He points to Coors as an example: “When I was growing up, you had to go to Colorado to get it, and that made it very cool,” he says. “But I think Coors is much better off today, now that they expanded and are widely available.”  (Oh really? HOW?)

Most beer drinkers would probably agree. And See’s is betting that most fans of Mary See’s recipes will too.

This story is from the September 3, 2012 issue of Fortune.

As a strategist how might Godiva (Luxury) chocolates respond?

HINTS: 2004_12_Requiem_for_a_Brewer

Coors Case Study

Coors in the Brewing Industry_HBS_Case Study

CoorsCaseStudyAnalysis2004

If you need more insight or help, go here (but first think about applying the Coors Case Studies): Sees Candies Market Entry into Japan HBR_CS and Sees Candies Market Entry into Japan HBR_CS_Part B

Good luck!

We will post Mr. Buffett’s reply to your letter.

What is Intrinsic Value? Readings

Intrinsic Value

One, it is the price that you think a rational and well-informed buyer would be willing to pay for the entire company.

It is the amount of cash that you expect if the company liquidated itself and distributed the proceeds to shareholders.

Or it is the present value of the amount of cash that you expect the company to generate over time, doscounted back to the present. That’s it.

And those are all really just different ways of saying  the same thing. An intrinsic value is not a point. It changes over time and it is typically a range of values. Our goal is to try to come up with a reasable value bon what rational people would be willing to pay.  —  Keith Trauner of Goodhaven

Readings

Don’t forget to ask to be on their weekly mailing lists for investing articles and news/events. Just email them to be on their Emailing list.

kessler@robotti.com and sfriedman@gmail.com

—-

Fairholme_Sears Case Study III August 2012     Asset Value CS

Viewpoints Of A Commodity Trader     Excellent!

Goodhaven_2012_08_10_Welling         Ditto!

DrRichardJohnsonAboutTheFatSwitch           Health

Muhlenkamp second qtr

Beyond Buffett_Aug 12

Articles and Video on Moats

————————————————————–

A truly great business must have an enduring “moat” that protects excellent returns on invested capital.  The dynamics of capitalism guarantee that competitors will repeatedly assault any business “castle” that is earning high returns.  Therefore a formidable barrier such as a company’s being the low cost producer (GEICO, Costco) or possessing a powerful world-wide brand (Coca-Cola, Gillette, American  Express) is essential for sustained success.  Business history is filled with “Roman Candles,” companies whose moats proved illusory and were soon crossed.

Our criterion of “enduring” causes us to rule out companies in industries prone to rapid and continuous change.  Though capitalism’s “creative destruction” is highly beneficial for society, it precludes investment certainty.  A moat that must be continuously rebuilt will eventually be no moat at all. –Buffett (2007)

Many on Wall Street focus on next quarter’s earnings rather than where will earnings be five years from now. They lose perspective on whether the business has or lacks a competitive advantage.

Old School Value

Visit www.oldschoolvalue.com to see their section on moats and articles for beginning investors. Articles on moats:Moats_Old School Value Posts

Another good blog: http://theinvestmentsblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/wide-moats-protecting-business-castle.html

Morningstar Video on Moats

http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=556881

The 5 Sources of Moat

Morningstar’s Paul Larson breaks down the five ways firms can keep competitors at bay and which ways are more durable over time.

Securities mentioned in this video

FB Facebook   Inc
EBAY eBay   Inc

Related Links

Not All Moats Are Created Equal

Behind Morningstar’s Economic Moat Rating

Jeremy Glaser: For Morningstar, I am Jeremy Glaser. Finding long-term competitive advantages, or economic moats, has long been a cornerstone of our equity research process. I’m here today with chief equity strategist Paul Larson to see what the sources of these moats are and to hear some new insights that he has on them.

Paul, thanks for joining me today.

Paul Larson: Glad to be here again.

Glaser: Let’s start with the source of that economic moat, those competitive advantages. What are some ways that businesses can really put some distance between themselves and their would-be competitors?

Larson: We found five major sources of moats, and those sources are one, the network effect, and this is an effect where when you have customers that start using a network, that network suddenly becomes more valuable for all the other users of the network. Some examples here like eBay. It has the most buyers, and therefore it has the most sellers. And it has the most sellers because it has the most buyers. It’s a virtuous circle. A more recent example would be a company like Facebook. When you or I join Facebook, Facebook suddenly becomes more valuable for all of our friends and as more of our friends join Facebook, it’s more valuable for us. So, that’s a network effect.

Another source of economic moat is customer switching costs, and these are the inconveniences that customers would have when they switch from one product to another. As they say time is money and money is time. It may not cost money to switch from one service provider to another, but if it costs time that’s the same thing.

Another source is intangible assets. These are things like patents, basically an explicit monopoly, government licenses that explicitly block competition. Or [this can be a source] if a company has a strong brand that allows it some pricing power for that particular brand.

Another competitive advantage is something that we call efficient scale, and this is a dynamic where you have a limited market that is being efficiently served by one or a very small number of competitors, and some markets are just natural monopolies or natural oligopolies. A great example here are the airport companies like the Mexican airports. Most cities can’t support just one major commercial airport, so it doesn’t make economic sense to have more than one. If you have it, you benefit.

And the final source of moat is cost advantage, and this is simply when you have a company that can provide a better service at a lower cost than the competition that allows the company to either have a fatter profit margin or the same profit margin as the competitors, but in theory higher volume and higher asset turnover.

Glaser: I know you’ve done a lot of research into how sustainable some of these sources of advantage are. When you take a look across different types of moats, do some stand out to you as really being kind of a better moat, one that’s going to last longer than some of the other reasons?

Larson: Yes. One of the things I recently did is categorize each and every company that has a wide- and narrow-moat rating by their source or sources of economic moat. And what we found is companies that benefit from the intangible assets actually have the best returns on capital by a fairly wide margin relative to the other sources of moat. And digging into why that might potentially be, you have a large exposure to the health-care sector, which basically patents [make up] the moat there. Also you have a larger exposure to the consumer sectors where you have these large relatively stable companies that benefit from brands. The health-care and the consumer companies certainly have high returns on capital, and that contributes to the intangible assets cohort having the absolute highest returns on capital.

Conversely, the source of moat that has the lowest fundamental performance [is found with] the efficient-scale companies, and this makes sense if you think about it intuitively. The efficient-scale dynamic is based on companies having an attractive niche that they have positive economic profits, that they have a moat, but not so profitable and so attractive that they are going to attract new competition into the market. So, it makes sense that the efficient-scale companies would have the lowest returns on capital.

Glaser: Now, when you looked at individual companies and were just looking if they are wide- or narrow-moat, what were some of the differences between wide and narrow? What were some the sources that would have contributed to being one or the other?

Close Full Transcript

Larson: Well, we found that the wide-moat firms are more profitable than the narrow-moat firms. I think, there is zero surprise here because the factors that we’re looking at, such as return on invested capital, return on equity, return of assets, so on and so forth, are the things that we look at when we’re actually assigning the economic moat.

Now, it’s not the absolute level of return on invested capital that we care about when we’re assigning the economic moat rating, it’s actually the duration of the excess profit over the company’s cost of capital. I’ll give you an example, if you have a random fashion retailer that happens to get lucky, hit some fashion trend and has a 50% return on capital for a year or two, we’re not automatically going to say, “Well, gee, that’s a wide-moat firm. They have huge returns on invested capital.” They just got lucky.

But if you look at a company like a railroad or a pipeline, these are companies that don’t have high returns on invested capital. They are actually quite low, around 10%. But the sustainability of that return is exceptionally long, and that’s what we look at when we’re assigning our economic moat rating, the sustainability and not the absolute level.

Glaser: The more of those sources that you have, it seems like it’s easier to kind of extend your benefit over the decades.

Larson: Also, when you have a higher return, if you’re going to have a given variability of earnings over time, if you have a higher return on invested capital to begin with, you have a little bit more of a buffer before you hit that cost of capital than if you have a lower return.

Glaser: You mentioned that some of the wide-moat companies might not have a huge return on capital, but are going to earn that over a long period of time. What about the stability of earnings? How important is that then in determining the moat rating?

Larson: It is relatively important. One of the interesting things that I found in the study looking at the sources of economic moat is that the network-effect companies actually have the least stability in terms of their earnings. What I did is I took a 10-year history of all these network-effect companies and looked at the time series and how the earnings changed over time, and network effect by far had the least stability. Meanwhile, the cost-advantage and also the intangible-asset firms did relatively well.

Glaser: Paul, once investors are kind of armed with these economic moat ratings, what’s the best way to actually invest in them? What’s the best way to really think about actually putting your money behind some of these names?

Larson: Well, I think one of the bottom lines here is that wide-moat firms are fundamentally are better companies than narrow moat firms. Surprise, surprise there. Also companies that have more competitive advantages had better fundamental performance returns on capital than companies that only had a single competitive advantage, all else equal. Also I’d say that for intangible-asset companies, while the moat might not be as identifiable as some of the other sources, the intangible-assets source is relatively attractive. So don’t downplay brands and patents and such.

Glaser: Paul thanks for your thoughts on moats today.

Larson: Thanks for having me.

Glaser: From Morningstar, I’m Jeremy Glaser.

The Euro Crisis Explained

“The attraction which inflation policies have for so many people grows, in part at least, out of what may be called the money illusions.” –Irving Fisher

In addition to the lectures you can watch or have watched from my last post: http://wp.me/p1PgpH-1aj you can add the one below to your education in money matters.

Jesus De Soto discusses the reasons for the European Economic crisis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF9RG3hyBZU

A reader writes, “I found the lecture above a great way to learn about Austrian Economics and an easy way to understand the key message from the important book, Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto. His lecture sets the subject in a modern day issue, the Euro Crisis, and Prof. de Soto suggests a anti-consensual conclusion.”

Editor: Prof. De Soto said (more or less) that Americans and Westerners do not want to live under an authoritarian political system, and they have the seen the collapse of centrally planned economic systems due to constant malinvestment by bureaucrats. However, they accept without protest a monetary system that is centrally controlled.

Jesus de Soto’s great work is here: http://mises.org/document/2745/Money-Bank-Credit-and-Economic-Cycles.

His recent articles:http://mises.org/daily/author/210/

 

With the above book and the two below, you can become an expert on money and credit.

Man, Economy and State: http://mises.org/Books/mespm.PDF

The Theory of Money and Credit by von Mises: http://archive.mises.org/4048/theory-of-money-and-credit-pdf/

Lecture Series with James Grant, Peter Schiff and others on Money and the Fed

The usual effect of the attempts of governments to encourage consumption, is merely to prevent saving; that is to promote unproductive consumption at the expense of reproductive, and diminish the national wealth by the very means which were intended to increase it. What a country wants to make it richer is never consumption but production. Where there is the latter, we may be sure there is no want of the former –John Stuart Mill 1844

The crucial distinction is between productive credit, financing investment on the economy’s supply side, and unproductive credit, financing consumption and pure financial activity, like carry-trade, mergers, acquisitions and stock buybacks. Productive investment credit adds to current and future income. Consumption credit only adds to current income. Financial credit adds nothing to economic activity; it only enriches a minority.

That is why in America the rich–thanks to financial leveraging–get richer and richer, while the middle-and lower-income Americans living mainly from production get poorer and poorer. (The Gloom, Boom and Doom Report August 2012)

Money

Six hours of video lectures by famous economists, entrepreneurs and financiers. A chance to be entertained as well as informed.

How was money created? What is the history of money in the US? What happens when your money loses its value? Find out.

Money Lecture Series

Part 1: What is money? (Prof. Joe Salerno) http://youtu.be/vowbrq_g5NM

Part 2: What is constitutional money? (Edwin Vieira) http://youtu.be/k6gMkKmQSW4

Part 3: What about money causes economic crisis (Peter Schiff) http://youtu.be/npJ0CUT8d_Y

The Federal Reserve

All the gory details on the history of the Fed and its future.

The Federal Reserve Series

Part 1: Why was the Fed created? (Prof. George Selgin) http://youtu.be/JeIljifA8Ls

Part 2: What Does The Fed Do? (James Grant being savagely funny) http://youtu.be/pRipVd5wxhI 

Part 3: What is the future of the Fed? (Prof. George Garrison) http://youtu.be/IdX60JgPTmA

All Change Happens at the Margin; A Great Company CAN be a great Investment (Research)

US Bonds: The Trend is your friend until it isn’t….

“As all of us were taught, but most of us have long since forgotten, economic change occurs at the margin, where the action takes place… individuals who can think on the margin always have an advantage over those who cannot.”–Arthur Zeikel

Are Great Companies Great Investments?

I can’t emphasize enough how much these lectures–linked below–helped me improve as an investor. You will be further along your successful investment journey by absorbing these lessons.

As one great investor who lectured at Columbia GBS: R_Bruce_EMBA_Feb_29_2008 and Complete R Bruce said, “I have evolved to buying stable companies with long histories of strong profitability, cash flows, balance sheets and judicious use of capital allocation.”

More research confirms the efficacy of that strategy. Boring works. Great Companies Great Investment and GMO_WP_-_2012_06_-_Profits_for_the_Long_Run_-_Affirming_Quality

Housing Update

We first mentioned housing stocks here http://wp.me/p1PgpH-2g on September 21, 2011–almost exact day of the price bottom and the day of the Wall Street Journal article pointing out the ever worsening housing statistics.

Now the news is getting better, but the prices have already doubled from the lows.  A lesson here.

Investor Optimism; Good News for Introverts; Men vs. Women

“The intelligent investor is a realist who sells to optimists and buys from pessimists.” ~ Benjamin Graham, Jason Zweig in The Intelligent Investor, Rev. Ed.

Editor: Great advice! Now, how do we act on it? See the articles below and view the short videos at the end of this post.

Look who bought Facebook:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPvF97_q00s&feature=related  OUCH!  Please, no small children should see this video.

From www.marketpsych.com

As a psychiatrist I’ve born witness to many extremes of mood.  I’ve tried to steer manic venture capitalists away from spending their life savings on cocaine and sports cars.  And on the other extreme I’ve born witness to the deep pessimism and despair of suicidal clients, trying to help them choose life over oblivion.  My efforts are not always successful, and I’ve learned a lot about the limits of rationality when faced with extremes of mania and despair.  At both extremes many of the people I’ve worked with are highly intelligent and believe they are acting with perfect rationality.  Yet despite their innate intelligence, deeper emotions occasionally sweep away their anchor to reality.

In Ben Graham’s quote above, one could be mistaken for thinking of the “intelligent investor” as a robot or algorithm.  Human investors feel the extreme optimism and pessimism of the markets.  And the effect of this optimism and pessimism is, almost universally, to bias their interpretations of real events.  While the best investors feel the moods of the market (that is, they are empathic), they also have the almost super-human ability to act contrary to their emotional biases.  Graham’s vision of intelligence in the 1950s is what we today call emotional intelligence.

Warren Buffett called Graham’s book, The Intelligent Investor, “By far the best book on investing ever written.”  I think it’s worth looking for lessons in Graham’s thoughts on optimism.

Today’s letter will examine the nature of optimism in the financial markets:  How we experience it, how it distorts our investing, how it plays out in markets, and how we can succeed while being both optimistic AND realistic.  As we go through these themes, we will look at French and Dutch optimism in the Euro-zone, the delusional optimism at the launch of the Facebook IPO (see Dr. Murtha’s hilarious Part 2 video), how portfolio managers can use optimism to their advantage, and visit some tools and techniques for making ourselves better investors.

Facebook Face-plant
It has been a sport in the media to level snarky criticism at the Facebook IPO. But if you’re a long-term investor you might appreciate that not every stock goes up. The IPO went reasonably well given its huge dollar size, massive trading volumes, and the usual banker conflicts-of-interest.What is most concerning to me is why anyone wanted to buy into the IPO, much less overvalued Facebook stock, especially after the shares were sold publicly. Apparently the marketers did their job well, and some of the uninformed investing public took an optimistic gamble.While most Facebook IPO investors had a “rationale” based on some sort of personal logic for their investment, we offer the following – the brain will make up a good ationale to justify us doing what we really feel inclined to do for EMOTIONAL reasons (i.e., Graham’s optimism). Who bought Facebook shares? Probably those who were excited, optimistic, and caught up in the hype. Trouble was, there were a lot of those people (MorganStanley didn’t get so big by products alone – marketing is key). Dr. Murtha created a humorous   follow-up video to his popular first-take on the Facebook IPO. Part 1 showed what financial advisors are up   against when talking to optimistic (and under-informed) clients. Part 2demonstrates the mind-bending effects   of what we call “toxic optimism” or what the layman might call “sheer AWESOMENESS” as a client ponders Facebook stock.Please take a look   at Part 2 and let us know what you think.
Researcher’s Corner: Optimism in the Markets
Given that Graham’s book has been available since the 1950’s, and he has many wealthy disciples such as Warren Buffett, we all know what to DO to make money investing – Buy low, sell high. Buy cheap, sell dear. Buy from pessimists, sell to optimists.But the reality is not so   simple because WE are not so simple. “Buy from pessimists,” Ben   Graham advises. But it’s fair for us to ask, “which pessimists?”  And, “pessimistic for what reasons and for how long and …?”Researchers have found that optimistic investors make a characteristic mistake – they act as if good times will last forever. In a 2009 study, Sentiment and Momentum, co-authors Doukas,   Antoniou, and Subramanyam found that small investors hold onto losing   positions too long during optimistic phases in the stock market: “An   analysis of net order flows from small and large trades indicates that small   (but not large) investors are slow to sell losers during optimistic   periods.” The researchers also found that during bull markets investors   betting on the current trends continuing suffer losses: “Momentum-based   hedge portfolios formed during optimistic periods experience long-run reversals.”   These findings bolster the evidence for the “Confirmation Bias” –   the tendency of optimistic people to believe information that supports their   sunny outlook and discount information that contradicts it.On the one hand, what are we to do if a country or investment has been optimistic for years (e.g., 2003-2007) and then a shock occurs that causes a brief dip on fear (e.g., the credit freeze of August 2007)? In such situations, you don’t want to immediately buy on pessimism. Turning the Titanic of public opinion takes time. Best to watch from the lifeboat. On the other hand, as we emerge from   the financial crisis, the brief periods of investor optimism (e.g., the   spring rallies of 2011 and 2012) have been quickly followed by selloffs   fueled by talk of imminent European financial apocalypse. In those instances,  we DO want to buy from pessimists.One interesting investment simulation, based on our older ETF sentiment data, was buying fundamentally strong and low Joy/pessimistic ETFs (buying a good value from pessimists) and shorting fundamentally strong but high Joy/optimistic ETFs (selling a good value to optimists). In both cases we were looking at Fundamentally strong sectors (good values) based on investors’ perceptions. The returns of such an arbitrage of the 40 most liquid ETFs, with monthly turn-over, are below. This   was only a quick study we did, there are likely much better variations   possible:

The above study implies that Graham was correct, the emotional component adds value to understanding   fundamental valuations. Value strategies can be improved by adding psychological data on optimism and pessimism.We seem the same delayed effect in places such as Burma. There are more horse-carts than cars in Burma. There are loads of natural resources. There is huge potential for growth there, so no wonder investors are optimistic. And they should be. Over   the long term the country will likely do very well and buying optimism may be short-term painful, but long-term rewarding in a place like Burma.
Overconfident?
The human problem with investing is that our perspective changes in reaction to the markets. Our moods shift as prices shift. Our time horizon lengthens or contracts based on   our blood levels of stress hormones. Monday the markets are up and we are   analytical long-term investors. On Tuesday Greece defaults, the S&P500 dives 7%, and we become traders.We’ve tested over 20,000 people in our free online personality testssince 2004. We’ve found some key indicators of overconfidence that correlate with lower reported investment and trading returns. Please take a personality test if you haven’t   already before reading these results. EXTROVERTSPeople who are more Extroverted (outgoing, gregarious,   and optimistic) are more likely to have lower overall investment and trading returns. This result is true in all three of our personality tests – businesspeople, investors, and traders – all report lower long-term returns   in their line of business if they are extraverted. In one studyextroverts were more likely to gravitate towards short-term investing, thus increasing their risk of loss.MEN VS. WOMENThe last question on our personality tests asks: Comparing myself to other investors, I think my abilities place me: (users   answer in ranges: “Among   the top 5 percent”, “Among the top 10 percent“, etc…). We found that this question   seems to speak to men’s pride, and women’s   sense of humility. On average men rate themselves as better investors   than women do. Yet men’s actual reported returns are significantly lower than those of women. This disconnect   between men’s returns and self-perceptions is most significant in relation to risk. Men suffer significantly greater lifetime drawdowns than women. Men have more trouble resisting the temptation of a “sure thing.” Yet sometimes men actually find a sure thing. In those cases, men are more likely to sell out too soon – they have a shorter attention span when it comes to investing, perhaps because they take too much risk due to testosterone effects on risk-taking, and they are more easily shaken out by volatility.Short of taking a personality test, how do we know if our own optimism is excessive?
– First of all, are you open to believing you are wrong? Excessively optimistic people cannot comprehend or objectively consider that they could be incorrect in their beliefs. “Of course Facebook stock will go up, it is AWESOME!”
Overoptimistic people do not look for contrary facts, due to the point above.
– Overoptimistic people have no plan. What if volatility increases? What if   the price drops 2% tomorrow? No contingencies are considered (again, see   point 1 above).

How do we get out of the   over-optimism habit?

– Use a system that requires you to check the potential downsides. Force yourself to look at objectively contrary information.

– Use only objective criteria   that are relevant. “Facebook is   the third largest country in the world.” Is an interesting “fact”, but it is not relevant (nor is it accurate, obviously).  To remain analytical, consider facts such as, Facebook has 955m users. Then   figure the revenue from each. Then look at the growth rate of revenue. Those   are facts. How many users does Facebook need to have, at the same servicing   cost, for its P/E ratio to be 15 (that of Apple)? About 5 billion? How many   people live on earth, again? Hmmm….

While most of this letter has been about the troubling effects of social and investor optimism, recall that individual optimism is a good thing – it stimulates resilience and can help us stay active and engaged. Furthermore, optimism can help us to see opoportunties when all around us are despairing and pessimistic. For investors, optimism is most critical to maintain when the world around appears to be falling apart.

Positive psychologists have found strong empirical evidence for several simple exercises to build our mental habits of optimism. Successful investors need to develop a placebo habit (seeing the opportunities) when others are pessimistic and a nocebo habit (seeing the dangers) when others are optimistic.

Just as our mouths emit an unpleasant if we don’t brush our teeth every day, so too will our attitudes become noxious without ritual cleansing. Some people use prayer, others use morning routines to get in the right headspace. Below are two exercises to help you quickly get your noggin screwed on straight. Practicing these once per day takes 2-3 minutes and improves quality of life dramatically, according to research.

1) Visualize your best possible self. Imagine yourself in your work in a state of peak performance. Next see yourself in at least one scenario involving achievement (e.g., executing an excellent investment) and one dealing with challenges (e.g., problems in an investment). Take on the peak performance attributes and imagine how you achieve. Then imagine how you work through the challenge. Close your eyes and visualize yourself with your peak performance characteristics for thirty seconds before reading on.

2) Create a gratitude list. Every day write three things you feel grateful for to a list. Each item should be unique. The simple act of thinking of three things you feel grateful for strengthens your sense of solidity and groundedness. Moving forward in your day, you are likely to think more creatively and proactively and with less vulnerability.

We have much more about these exercises in our books and training workbooks – please email if you’d like more information or to share experiences. Now let’s turn to one of our prior predictions, one we’re not happy about.

Video Part 1 of Facebook IPO http://youtu.be/-bXevO_gafg Funny but true

Video Part 2 of Facebook IPO http://youtu.be/KD2TBIKiJwM

VALUE VAULT (folder called VV_CS_Inv) UPDATE

The vault is under heavy construction. The folders that have been REORGANIZED are:

Grham, Price, Klarman and Buffett in the INVESTORS FOLDER

Greenblatt in the Investing Lectures Folder

Do not panic if you see folders change or disappear—when finished an email will go out to everyone that has sked for a key.

Nickels: The Perfect Investment with No Downside

For fans of Quirky Investments.

My oddest investment foray was trading cemetary plots.

From www.economicpolicyjournal.com

NICKELS 

Eventually, nickles, which are mostly made
of copper, will start to disappear from circulation,
as the copper price climbs. There is now approximately
4.8 cents worth of metal in a nickel. It was higher 
before the financial crisis: Close to 7 cents worth of metal. 
Buy nickels. There is no downside except storage costs
or hassle.



You need storage space and a dolly to move
them around, but a $100 box of nickels
(roughly the size of a very large brick) 
can be lifted without problem. You can
stack plenty of "bricks" on a hand truck.
What's great about this investment
 is that there is no downside. 

In the unlikely event that there is no inflation,
you can just spend your nickles. But you will
have to "order" your nickles from your bank. 
I tend to keep any one order (per bank) to around
$1,500 for both handling (lifting) purposes.

You can also buy brand shiny new nickels
from numismatic dealers for a small charge,
and obviously they don't ask any questions.
Nickels are a conservative investment
[If you have the space and the strong back]
with zero downside.  

The coins will eventually climb in value as
the government relentlessly debases the
currency to at least double their 5 cent  face
value price. The government has made it
illegal to melt coins down, but you will
never have to do anything close to that. 
When you need to liquidate, just sell them
to a numismatic dealer. Via the magic of
black markets, the value (with a good spread)
will track the metal value. 

You can monitor the value of the metal in
the nickels at the website, Coinflation.com.

 United States Circulating Coinage Intrinsic Value Table

This table does not reflect U.S. Mint production costs, but the pure base metal value that composes the coin. Calculations are based on coin weight, metal composition, and base metal prices. The “Metal % of Denomination” column represents the percentage of metal that comprises the denomination’s purchasing power. A coin that is over 100% in this category has more base metal value than purchasing power.

Table based on August 13, 2012 closing base metal prices:

Copper $3.3390/lb 0.0388 Zinc $0.8180/lb 0.0090 Nickel $6.9339/lb 0.0104
Description Denomination Metal Value Metal % of Denomination
1909-1982 Cent (95% copper) * $0.01 $0.0220285 220.28%
1946-2012 Nickel $0.05 $0.0467121 93.42%
1982-2012 Cent (97.5% zinc) * $0.01 $0.0048553 48.55%
1965-2012 Dime $0.10 $0.0181911 18.19%
1965-2012 Quarter $0.25 $0.0454797 18.19%
1971-2012 Half Dollar $0.50 $0.0909608 18.19%
1971-1978 Eisenhower Dollar $1.00 $0.1819226 18.19%
1979-1981, 1999 SBA Dollar $1.00 $0.0649716 6.49%
2000-2012 Sacagawea Dollar $1.00 $0.0569269 5.69%
2007-2012 Presidential Dollar $1.00 $0.0569269 5.69%