PERSONAL FINANCE SECRET | Search results for Financial Ratios Good Or Bad -->
Showing posts sorted by date for query Financial Ratios Good Or Bad. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Financial Ratios Good Or Bad. Sort by relevance Show all posts

What I Learned from Warren Buffett | How Warren Buffett decides if something is a good investment.

by Bill Gates.

arren Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, Roger Lowenstein (New York: Random House, 1995).

Roger Lowenstein begins his new biography of Warren Buffett with a disclaimer. He reveals that he is a longtime investor in Berkshire Hathaway, the company that under Buffett’s guidance has seen its share price rise in 33 years from $7.60 to approximately $30,000.

In reviewing Lowenstein’s book, I must begin with a disclaimer, too. I can’t be neutral or dispassionate about Warren Buffett, because we’re close friends. We recently vacationed together in China with our wives. I think his jokes are all funny. I think his dietary practices—lots of burgers and Cokes—are excellent. In short, I’m a fan.

It’s easy to be a fan of Warren’s, and doubtless many readers of Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist will join the growing ranks. Lowenstein’s book is a straightforward account of Buffett’s remarkable life. It doesn’t fully convey what a fun, humble, charming guy Warren is, but his uniqueness comes across. No one is likely to come away from it saying, “Oh, I’m like that guy.”

The broad outlines of Warren’s career are well known, and the book offers enjoyable detail. Lowenstein traces Warren’s life from his birth in Omaha, Nebraska in 1930 to his first stock purchase at age 11, and from his study of the securities profession under Columbia University’s legendary Benjamin Graham to his founding of the Buffett Partnership at age 25. The author describes Buffett’s secretiveness about the stocks he picked for the partnership, and his contrasting openness about his guiding principle, which is to buy stocks at bargain-basement prices and hold them patiently. As Warren once explained in a letter to his partners, “This is the cornerstone of our investment philosophy: Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good results.”

Lowenstein describes how Warren took control of Berkshire Hathaway and cash-cowed its dying textile business in order to purchase stock in other companies. The book traces how Berkshire evolved into a holding company and how its investment philosophy evolved as Warren learned to look beyond financial data and recognize the economic potential of unique franchises like dominant newspapers. Today Berkshire owns companies such as See’s Candy Shops, the Buffalo News, and World Book International, as well as major positions in companies such as American Express, Capital Cities/ABC (now Disney), Coca-Cola, Gannett, Gillette, and the Washington Post Company. It also is a major insurer that includes GEICO Corporation in its holdings.

Readers are likely to come away from the book’s description of Buffett’s life and investment objectives feeling better educated about investing and business, but whether those lessons will translate into great investment results is less than certain. Warren’s gift is being able to think ahead of the crowd, and it requires more than taking Warren’s aphorisms to heart to accomplish that—although Warren is full of aphorisms well worth taking to heart.

For example, Warren likes to say that there are no called strikes in investing. Strikes occur only when you swing and miss. When you’re at bat, you shouldn’t concern yourself with every pitch, nor should you regret good pitches that you don’t swing at. In other words, you don’t have to have an opinion about every stock or other investment opportunity, nor should you feel bad if a stock you didn’t pick goes up dramatically. Warren says that in your lifetime you should swing at only a couple dozen pitches, and he advises doing careful homework so that the few swings you do take are hits.
For example, Warren likes to say that there are no called strikes in investing. Strikes occur only when you swing and miss.

Warren follows his own advice: When he invests in a company, he likes to read all of its annual reports going back as far as he can. He looks at how the company has progressed and what its strategy is. He investigates thoroughly and acts deliberately—and infrequently. Once he has purchased a company or shares in a company, he is loath to sell.

His penchant for long-term investments is reflected in another of his aphorisms: “You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.”

He doesn’t believe in businesses that rely for their success on every employee being excellent. Nor does he believe that great people help all that much when the fundamentals of a business are bad. He says that when good management is brought into a fundamentally bad business, it’s the reputation of the business that remains intact.

Warren likes to say that a good business is like a castle and you’ve got to think every day, Is the management growing the size of the moat? Or is the moat shrinking? Great businesses are not all that common, and finding them is hard. Unusual factors combine to create the moats that shelter certain companies from some of the rigors of competition. Warren is superb at recognizing these franchises.

Warren installs strong managers in the companies Berkshire owns and tends to leave them pretty much alone. His basic proposition to managers is that to the degree that a company spins off cash, which good businesses do, the managers can trust Warren to invest it wisely. He doesn’t encourage managers to diversify. Managers are expected to concentrate on the businesses they know well so that Warren is free to concentrate on what he does well: investing.

My own reaction upon meeting Warren took me by surprise. Whenever somebody says to me, “Meet so-and-so; he’s the smartest guy ever” or “You’ve got to meet my friend so-and-so; he’s the best at such and such,” my defenses go up. Most people are quick to conclude that someone or something they encounter personally is exceptional. This is just human nature. Everybody wants to know someone or something superlative. As a result, people overestimate the merit of that to which they’ve been exposed. So the fact that people called Warren Buffett unique didn’t impress me much.

In fact, I was extremely skeptical when my mother suggested I take a day away from work to meet him on July 5, 1991. What were he and I supposed to talk about, P/E ratios? I mean, spend all day with a guy who just picks stocks? Especially when there’s lots of work to do? Are you kidding?

I said to my mom, “I’m working on July fifth. We’re really busy. I am sorry.”
She said, “Kay Graham will be there.”

Now, that caught my attention. I had never met Graham, but I was impressed with how well she had run the Washington Post Company and by her newspaper’s role in political history. As it happened, Kay and Warren had been great friends for years, and one of Warren’s shrewdest investments was in Post stock. Kay, Warren, and a couple of prominent journalists happened to be in the Seattle area together, and owing to an unusual circumstance they all squeezed into a little car that morning for a long drive to my family’s weekend home, which is a couple of hours outside the city. Some of the people in the car were as skeptical as I was. “We’re going to spend the whole day at these people’s house?” someone in the cramped car asked. “What are we going to do all day?”

My mom was really hard core that I come. “I’ll stay a couple of hours, and then I’m going back,” I told her.

When I arrived, Warren and I began talking about how the newspaper business was being changed by the arrival of retailers who did less advertising. Then he started asking me about IBM: “If you were building IBM from scratch, how would it look different? What are the growth businesses for IBM? What has changed for them?”

He asked good questions and told educational stories. There’s nothing I like so much as learning, and I had never met anyone who thought about business in such a clear way. On that first day, he introduced me to an intriguing analytic exercise that he does. He’ll choose a year—say, 1970—and examine the ten highest market-capitalization companies from around then. Then he’ll go forward to 1990 and look at how those companies fared. His enthusiasm for the exercise was contagious. I stayed the whole day, and before he drove off with his friends, I even agreed to fly out to Nebraska to watch a football game with him.

When you are with Warren, you can tell how much he loves his work. It comes across in many ways. When he explains stuff, it’s never “Hey, I’m smart about this and I’m going to impress you.” It’s more like “This is so interesting and it’s actually very simple. I’ll just explain it to you and you’ll realize how dumb it was that it took me a long time to figure it out.” And when he shares it with you, using his keen sense of humor to help make the point, it does seem simple.

Warren and I have the most fun when we’re taking the same data that everybody else has and coming up with new ways of looking at them that are both novel and, in a sense, obvious. Each of us tries to do this all the time for our respective companies, but it’s particularly enjoyable and stimulating to discuss these insights with each other.

We are quite candid and not at all adversarial. Our business interests don’t overlap much, although his printed World Book Encyclopedia competes with my electronic Microsoft Encarta. Warren stays away from technology companies because he likes investments in which he can predict winners a decade in advance—an almost impossible feat when it comes to technology. Unfortunately for Warren, the world of technology knows no boundaries. Over time, most business assets will be affected by technology’s broad reach—although Gillette, Coca-Cola, and See’s should be safe.
One area in which we do joust now and then is mathematics. Once Warren presented me with four unusual dice, each with a unique combination of numbers (from 0 to 12) on its sides. He proposed that we each choose one of the dice, discard the third and fourth, and wager on who would roll the highest number most often. He graciously offered to let me choose my die first.

“Okay,” Warren said, “because you get to pick first, what kind of odds will you give me?”

I knew something was up. “Let me look at those dice,” I said.

After studying the numbers on their faces for a moment, I said, “This is a losing proposition. You choose first.”

Once he chose a die, it took me a couple of minutes to figure out which of the three remaining dice to choose in response. Because of the careful selection of the numbers on each die, they were nontransitive. Each of the four dice could be beaten by one of the others: die A would tend to beat die B, die B would tend to beat die C, die C would tend to beat die D, and die D would tend to beat die A. This meant that there was no winning first choice of a die, only a winning second choice. It was counterintuitive, like a lot of things in the business world.

Warren is great with numbers, and I love math, too. But being good with numbers doesn’t necessarily correlate with being a good investor. Warren doesn’t outperform other investors because he computes odds better. That’s not it at all. Warren never makes an investment where the difference between doing it and not doing it relies on the second digit of computation. He doesn’t invest—take a swing of the bat—unless the opportunity appears unbelievably good.

One habit of Warren’s that I admire is that he keeps his schedule free of meetings. He’s good at saying no to things. He knows what he likes to do—and what he does, he does unbelievably well. He likes to sit in his office and read and think. There are a few things he’ll do beyond that, but not many. One point that Lowenstein makes that is absolutely true is that Warren is a creature of habit. He grew up in Omaha, and he wants to stay in Omaha. He has gotten to know a certain set of people, and he’d like to spend time with those people. He’s not a person who seeks out exotic new things. Warren, who just turned 65, still lives in the Omaha house he bought for himself at age 27.

His affinity for routine extends to his investment practices, too. Warren sticks to companies that he is comfortable with. He doesn’t do much investing outside the United States. There are a few companies that he has decided are great long-term investments. And despite the self-evident mathematics that there must be a price that fully anticipates all the good work that those companies will do in the future, he just won’t sell their stock no matter what the price is. I think his reluctance to sell is more philosophical than optimization driven, but who am I to second-guess the world’s most successful investor? Warren’s reluctance to sell fits in with his other tendencies.
Warren and I share certain values. He and I both feel lucky that we were born into an era in which our skills have turned out to be so remunerative. Had we been born at a different time, our skills might not have had much value. Since we don’t plan on spending much of what we have accumulated, we can make sure our wealth benefits society. In a sense, we’re both working for charity. In any case, our heirs will get only a small portion of what we accumulate, because we both believe that passing on huge wealth to children isn’t in their or society’s interest. Warren likes to say that he wants to give his children enough money for them to do anything but not enough for them to do nothing. I thought about this before I met Warren, and hearing him articulate it crystallized my feelings.

Lowenstein is a good collector of facts, and Buffett is competently written. Warren has told me that the book is in most respects accurate. He says he is going to write his own book someday, but given how much he loves to work and how hard it is to write a book (based on my personal experience), I think it will be a number of years before he does it. When it comes out, I am sure it will be one of the most valuable business books ever.

Already, Warren’s letters to shareholders are among the best of business literature.

Already, Warren’s letters to shareholders in the Berkshire Hathaway annual reports are among the best of business literature. Much of Lowenstein’s analysis comes from those letters, as it should. If, after reading Buffett, you’re intrigued by the man and his methods, I strongly commend the annual reports to you—even ones from 10 or 15 years ago. They are available in many libraries.

Other books have been written about Warren Buffett and his investment strategy, but until Warren writes his own book, this is the one to read.

source : https://hbr.org/1996/01/what-i-learned-from-warren-buffett.
August 14, 2020

Strategies of Legendary Value Investors.

By ANDREW BEATTIE.

Value investing is a strategy where investors actively look to add stocks they believe have been undervalued by the market, and/or trade for less than their intrinsic values. Like any type of investing, value investing varies in execution with each person. There are, however, some general principles that are shared by all value investors.

These principles have been spelled out by famed investors like Peter Lynch, Kenneth Fisher, Warren Buffett, Bill Miller and others. By reading through financial statements, they seek out mispriced stocks and look to capitalize on a possible reversion to the mean.

In this article, we will look at some of the more well-known value investing principles.

Buy Businesses, Not Stocks.
If there is one thing that all value investors can agree on, it's that investors should buy businesses, not stocks. This means ignoring trends in stock prices and other market noise. Instead, investors should look at the fundamentals of the company that the stock represents. Investors can make money following trending stocks, but it involves a lot more activity than value investing. Searching for good businesses selling at a good price based on probable future performance requires a larger time commitment for research, but the payoffs include less time spent buying and selling, as well as fewer commission payments.

Love the Business You Buy Into.
You wouldn't pick a spouse based solely on his or her shoes, and you shouldn't pick a stock based on cursory research. You have to love the business you are buying, and that means being passionate about knowing everything about that company. You need to strip the attractive covering from a company's financials and get down to the naked truth. Many companies look far better when you judge them beyond the basic price to earnings (P/E), price to book (P/B) and earnings per share (EPS) ratios and look into the quality of the numbers that make up those figures.

If you keep your standards high and make sure the company's financials look as good naked as they do dressed up, you're much more likely to keep it in your portfolio for a long time. If things change, you'll notice it early. If you like the business you buy, paying attention to its ongoing trials and successes becomes more of a hobby than a chore.

Invest in Companies You Understand.
If you don't understand what a company does or how, then you probably shouldn't be buying shares. Critics of value investing like to focus on this main limitation. You are stuck looking for businesses that you can easily understand because you have to be able to make an educated guess about the future earnings of the business. The more complex a business is, the more uncertain your projections will likely be. This moves the emphasis from "educated" to "guess."

You can buy businesses you like but don't completely understand, but you have to factor in uncertainty as added risk. Any time a value investor has to factor in more risk, they have to look for a larger margin of safety – that is, more of a discount from the calculated true value of the company. There can be no margin of safety if the company is already trading at many multiples of its earnings, which is a strong sign that however exciting and new the idea is, the business is not a value play. Simple businesses also have an advantage, as it's harder for incompetent management to hurt the company.

Find Well-Managed Companies.
Management can make a huge difference in a company. Good management adds value beyond a company's hard assets. Bad management can destroy even the most solid financials. There have been investors who have based their entire investing strategies on finding managers that are honest and able.

Warren Buffett advises that investors should look for three qualities of good management: integrity, intelligence, and energy. He adds that "if they don't have the first, the other two will kill you." You can get a sense of management's honesty through reading several years' worth of financials. How well did they deliver on past promises? If they failed, did they take responsibility, or gloss it over?

Value investors want managers who act like owners. The best managers ignore the market value of the company and focus on growing the business, thus creating long-term shareholder value. Managers who act like employees often focus on short-term earnings in order to secure a bonus or other performance perk, sometimes to the long-term detriment of the company. Again, there are many ways to judge this, but the size and reporting of compensation is often a dead giveaway. If you're thinking like an owner, then you pay yourself a reasonable wage and depend on gains in your stock holdings for a bonus. At the very least, you want a company that expenses its stock options.

Don't Stress Over Diversification.
One of the areas where value investing runs contrary to commonly accepted investing principles is on diversification. There are long stretches where a value investor will be idle. This is because of the exacting standards of value investing as well as overall market forces. Towards the end of a bull market, everything gets expensive, even the dogs. So, a value investor may have to sit on the sidelines waiting for the inevitable correction.

Time — an important factor in compounding — is lost while waiting to invest. So, when you do find undervalued stocks, you should buy as much as you can. Be warned, this will lead to a portfolio that is high-risk according to traditional measures like beta. Investors are encouraged to avoid concentrating on only a few stocks, but value investors generally feel that they can only keep proper track of a few stocks at a time.

One obvious exception is Peter Lynch, who kept almost all of his funds in stocks at all times. Lynch broke stocks into categories and then cycled his funds through companies in each category. He also spent upwards of 12 hours every day checking and rechecking the many stocks held by his fund. However, as an individual value investor with a different day job, it's better to go with a few stocks for which you've done the homework and feel good about holding long term.

Your Best Investment Is Your Guide.
Anytime you have more investment capital, your aim for investing should not be diversity, but finding an investment that is better than the ones you already own. If the opportunities don't beat what you already have in your portfolio, you may as well buy more of the companies you know and love, or simply wait for better times.

During idle times, a value investor can identify the stocks he or she wants and the price at which they'll be worth buying. By keeping a wish list like this, you'll be able to make decisions quickly in a correction.

Ignore the Market 99% of the Time.
The market only matters when you enter or exit a position — the rest of the time, it should be ignored. If you approach buying stocks like buying a business, you'll want to hold onto them as long as the fundamentals are strong. During the time you hold an investment, there will be spots where you could sell for a large profit and others where you're holding an unrealized loss. This is the nature of market volatility.

The reasons for selling a stock are numerous, but a value investor should be as slow to sell as he or she is to buy. When you sell an investment, you expose your portfolio to capital gains and usually have to sell a loser to balance it out. Both of these sales come with transaction costs that make the loss deeper and the gain smaller. By holding investments with unrealized gains for a long time, you forestall capital gains on your portfolio. The longer you avoid capital gains and transaction costs, the more you benefit from compounding.

The Bottom Line.
Value investing is a strange mix of common sense and contrarian thinking. While most investors can agree that a detailed examination of a company is important, the idea of sitting out a bull market goes against the grain. It's undeniable that funds held constantly in the market have outperformed cash held outside the market that is waiting for a downturn to end. This is a fact, but a deceiving one. The data is derived from following the performance of market measures like the S&P 500 Index over a number of years. This is where passive investing and value investing get confused.

In both types of investing, the investor avoids unnecessary trading and has a long-term holding period. The difference is that passive investing relies on average returns from an index fund or other diversified instrument. A value investor seeks out above-average companies and invests in them. Therefore, the probable range of return for value investing is much higher.

In other words, if you want the average performance of the market, you're better off buying an index fund right now and piling money into it over time. If you want to outperform the market, however, you need a concentrated portfolio of outstanding companies. When you find them, the superior compounding will make up for the time you spent waiting in a cash position. Value investing demands a lot of discipline on the part of the investor, but in return offers a large potential payoff.
July 25, 2020