Day: September 25, 2010

Portfolio Rule Two

Portfolio Rule Two

For those that have e-mailed me about equity management, I will get back to you soon; I have been tied up in details of getting my assets management business going recently.

=-=-=?==?=-==?==-=-=-=-=-=-=-

If you have read me for a while, you have heard of my eight rules of stock investing.? Recently some people have been e-mailing me regarding my plans to start Aleph Investments, and one asked if I could write a series of pieces to explain how I manage stocks.? I thought it was a good idea, so this is the second of what is likely to be eight episodes.? Here?s portfolio rule two:

Purchase equities that are cheap relative to other names in the industry. Depending on the industry, this can mean low P/E, low P/B, low P/S, low P/CFO, low P/FCF, or low EV/EBITDA.

The first principle of value investing is having an adequate margin of safety.? Make sure that your downside is clipped, if things go wrong.? But that’s not today’s topic, I will cover it later in this series.

The second principle of value investing is buying the investment cheap to its intrinsic value.? That is an easy phrase to utter, but complicated to implement.? There is no one single simple metric that serves as a guideline for evaluating cheapness as a value investor.

Ideally, one would create an integrated free cash flow and cost of capital model, one like Michael Mauboussin did in his book Expectations Investing.? That is the correct general model to use; the only problem is that it is impossible for individuals or even small investment shops to implement.

So, when evaluating companies, rather than using a complex model for free cash flow and cost of capital, it makes more sense given limited time, to look at the most critical partial sensitivities of the true model.? What do I mean there?

I go back to what the best boss I ever had sent me regarding modeling: “80 to 90% of the valuable model can be encapsulated in the top 2-3 factors of the model.? What that implies to me regarding analysis of valuation is that simple ratios do still have punch.? But the challenge is selecting the ratios that are the most appropriate for companies in a given industry.

Here is the most basic thing I have learned so far about what valuation ratios to use: with financial companies use price-to-book, and with all other companies use price-to-sales.? How did I come up with this insight?? I spent a lot of time using one of Bloomberg’s functions [GE] and I found the tightest correlation of price movement to each of those variables.

But the intuition that I have received from that is not the end of the story.? Let’s stop for a moment and think about what various valuation ratios mean.

The classic ratio is the price to earnings multiple.? It makes a lot of intuitive sense because we want to know how much we are earning per dollar spent on the stock.? Earnings, and its cousin operating earnings, are the lowest figures on the income statement.? They are also the most manipulated numbers on the income statement.? But there are other ratios on the income statement, less manipulated, that exist higher up on the income statement, or over on the cash flow statement.

Operating income/earnings is a means of trying to look at the profitability the business before interest, taxes and nonrecurring elements.? Many analysts think that this is a better measure of earnings on a continuing basis than ordinary earnings, because it eliminates a lot of noise.? But you can go higher up on the income statement and move to price to sales.? Particularly in an environment like this where sales growth is so scarce, the price to sales ratio plays a larger role.? Exactly how cheap can a stock get on price to sales ratio basis?? Where would its valuation be stretched?

Away from that, on the cash flow statement, we have EBITDA, cash from operations and free cash flow.? EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxation, depreciation and amortization.? Cash from operations is simple to understand.? How much cash is the business generating?? So long as that does not involve the buildup of additional liabilities, or need for additional capital expenditure, that can be a useful figure for analysis.? The same is true of EBITDA.? Free cash flow goes further and subtracts maintenance capital expenditure.

Operating earnings and free cash flow are proxies for trying to understand what the income generating capacity of the business is on a normalized basis.

But then there are balance sheet measures like price-to-book and price to tangible book.? The idea is to ask how much assets are allocable to the equity investors.? In financial companies, where the cash flow statement is pretty meaningless, attempting to estimate the value of the firm, using book or tangible book has some power.? Why?? Because financial firms are in the business of shepherding scarce capital in order to produce returns.? Since capital is typically a constraint for earnings price-to-book is a useful measure for analyzing the valuation of the financial company.

The same is largely true of sales for industrial companies, sales are relatively hard to fake.? Now don’t get me wrong here, sales have been faked in many companies.? It helps to study revenue recognition policies, and it also helps to consider the buildup in accruals for accounts receivable.? Yes, sales can be faked, but cash from sales is very hard to fake.

One more metric worthy of consideration is enterprise value to EBITDA.? This metric is useful during times when there are a lot of mergers and acquisitions going on.? This metric measures in a crude way the amount of free cash flow that the assets of the business throw off.? It is the way many acquirers would look at a business.

Another way to think of it is, is the business more valuable in the hands of the current management, or the hands of new management?? If it is more valuable in the hands of new management, enterprise value to EBITDA is the better metric.? If the current management makes it more valuable, then price to sales is the better measure.

Now there are two more ideas that must be considered here: cost of capital, and reversion to mean.? In one sense we want to look at earnings, or free cash flow in excess of the cost capital employed.? The way I handled this is not to estimate the cost of capital but to look at the credit ratings, leverage on the balance sheet, volatility of the stock price, and volatility of earnings in order to get a feel for the riskiness of the company.

Mean-reversion is involved in value investing, in the sense that return on equity for firms tends to mean-revert over time.? What that implies is that it makes sense to pay attention to valuation, because firms in bad shape often clean up their act and get better, and firms in exceptionally good shape find their excess earnings competed away by other firms.? And that’s why value investing tends to work: companies with cheap valuations improve, and multiples expand.? Companies with high multiples tend to contract, because it is difficult to maintain superior growth over the long haul.

Book Review: Risk and the Smart Investor

Book Review: Risk and the Smart Investor

Risk and the Smart Investor

Not every book grabs me at first.? “Risk and the Smart Investor” was one such book.? But it grew on me.? Having been through many exercises in risk control inside insurance companies, I can sympathize with the much more complex job that it is to control risk inside investment banks.

I was fascinated with the structure of the book, which I found tedious and hokey at first, but I grew to like the intriguing and novel approach.? The author introduced the topic through his experience, then explained the theory, then showed how neglect of it led to failure, and then gave stories of Max and Rob, two very different men whose lives illustrated risk management, and the lack thereof.

Risk control has to be realistic.? You can’t eliminate all risks.? You shouldn’t even want to eliminate all risks.? Anyone who tries to eliminate all risk will end up killing the profitability the business.? As that great moral philosopher James Tiberius Kirk once said, “Risk is our business.”? (For the jobs were I was explicitly a risk manager, I kept that quote on my wall.)

I am going to touch on the themes of the book as I understand them.? In order to control risk, one must first be able to control himself.? Without self-control, there is no risk control.? That process requires humility.? Almost every action of risk control involves limiting the behavior of those that have the power to commit money for investment or to sell assets to raise cash.

Part of that comes down to understanding what are reasonable goals, and what aren’t.? Nothing grows without limit.? Almost every business has a maximum growth rate, which if exceeded materially raises the probability of insolvency.? This is true for individuals as well.? Peter Drucker once said something like, “Jobs should be big enough to be challenging, but not so big that they require superhuman effort.”? In the same way, efforts to grow your personal assets too quickly will lead to decisions with a high probability of large losses.

For risk control the context of large firm, the critical question is cultural issues.? That involves instilling the idea of risk control in every person if the firm ? making it a part of the firm DNA.? It must extend to the very pinnacle of management, and not let it be seen as something that is a tradable issue.? It is similar to the idea of a reputation.? You only get one reputation.? Your reputation is your brand.? If your reputation is harmed or destroyed, rebuilding it is desperately tough.? Granted, America is the land of unlimited second chances, but rebuilding is still tough.

We can diversify lines of business.? We can diversify assets.? We can diversify funding sources.? We can’t diversify our reputation.? We only have one reputation.? It is as one of my favorite bosses of the past said, “I’m willing to take lots of moderate risks, but not willing to take an action that has a material probability of destroying the firm.”? This is just another way to say that there are things that can be diversified and things that can’t.

Corporate culture cannot be diversified; it flows from the top and affects all employees.? Good risk control cultures inculcate checks and balances.? They make sure that no one has too much power, such that the work cannot be checked.? They insist on transparency within the firm and transparency outside to the degree that it facilitates business and satisfies regulators.

Such a corporate culture monitors continuously the factors that affect profitability future risks.? It also learns from mistakes, but keeps the risks small early in the process so that learning from mistakes is not an expensive and surprising endeavor.

The structure of the book contrasts financial risks and life risks through the lives of Rob and Max.? They are two very different people, one of whom is careful about risk, and one of whom ignores risk.? Just as we have seen firms that were careful about risk, during the present crisis, and firms that ignored risks, so we have seen the same in ourselves and our friends.? The stories of Rob and Max on the risks that we go through life and the risk that we go through markets.? In my opinion it richens the book a great deal.

Risk is inherent to life.? And, the ultimate risk is death.? You can’t diversify death.? You can’t pay a certain spread over LIBOR in order to engage to death swap on your own life.? The most you can do is build something that may last for some small to moderate amount of time after your death.? Even the great Warren Buffett is trying to do something like this, as I explained in my piece Moat, Float, Growth.

Quibbles

None.? It’s a really good book; very well-thought out.

Who would benefit from this book:

This book would benefit anybody who deals with the question of risk, whether personally or corporately, and that means all of us.? Not only do you get a lucid perspective on the causes of the financial crisis, but you get to see firsthand how corporations deliberately the word sound risk management principles in order to make money in the short term.

The reader also gains perspective on how to deal with risk in his or her own life.? Will you go the way of Rob, or will you go the way of Max?? Or, as most of us, will you do little of both?

I read lots of books on asset allocation, but relatively few books on risk control, because few accessible books get written on that topic.? This in my opinion was a very good book on risk control.? It has my highest recommendation.

If you want to, you can buy it here: Risk and the Smart Investor.

Full disclosure: I was asked if I would review a copy of the book.? It sounded interesting, so I said I would consider it; I was e-mailed an advance copy of the book.

If you enter Amazon through my site, and you buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my main source of blog revenue.? I prefer this to a ?tip jar? because I want you to get something you want, rather than merely giving me a tip.? Book reviews take time, particularly with the reading, which most book reviewers don?t do in full, and I typically do. (When I don?t, I mention that I scanned the book.? Also, I never use the data that the PR flacks send out.)

Most people buying at Amazon do not enter via a referring website.? Thus Amazon builds an extra 1-3% into the prices to all buyers to compensate for the commissions given to the minority that come through referring sites.? Whether you buy at Amazon directly or enter via my site, your prices don?t change.

Twenty Answers from the Author of Risk and the Smart Investor

Twenty Answers from the Author of Risk and the Smart Investor

A little bit ago, I published Twenty Questions for the Author of Risk and the Smart Investor.? Well, David X. Martin got back to me, and here are his thoughtful answers.? I will have more commentary on this as I write the book review, which I am doing immediately after posting this.

1. Q: Imagine you are talking to a bright 12-year old girl.? How would you explain to her why and how the financial crisis happened?

A: Think of what happens when you blow up a balloon. First it expands, but eventually, if you continue to add more and more air, it bursts. The air going into the balloon in the years leading up to the recent financial crisis was either ?borrowed? air, that is air that was bought on credit, or air that was highly leveraged. In other words, only a small part of the air was paid for, and the rest was borrowed. And when the balloon burst most of those that had borrowed air, or had lent air to others, were left with nothing.

2. Q: I was fascinated with the structure of your book, which I found tedious and hokey at first, but I grew to like it.? The way I see it, you introduce the topic through your experience, then explain the theory, then show neglect of it led to failure, and then you give us the stories of Max and Rob.? How did you hit upon this intriguing and novel way to write your book?

A: I first thought about the decision process, and described the continuous process of risk management in relatively simple steps?i.e., assessment (know where you are and what you do not know); rules of the game (know your risk appetite, transparency, diversification, checks and balances); decision-making (alternatives, responsibilities, reputation and time frame); and finally, reevaluation (monitor and learn from your mistakes ). My goal was not to write a “how to book” but rather to help readers build frameworks?to make good decisions, and it seemed it would be helpful, and entertaining, I hoped, to see the process in action through the fictional risk story.

3. Q: Why do you suppose so few people in risk management, and senior management at major financial firms, were unwilling to consider alternative views of the sustainability of the risks being taken as the risks got larger and larger relative to the equity of individual companies, the industry as a whole, and the economy as a whole?

A: People get lulled into seeing the world from a particular viewpoint, particularly if they have never been through the worse case scenario. I?ve been through many of them.

4. Q: As a risk manager, bosses would sometimes get frustrated with me when they wanted a simple answer to a complex question that had significant riskiness.?They did not like answers like, ?I don?t know, it could have six significant effects on our company.?? How can we convey the limits of our knowledge in a way that management can get the true uncertainty and riskiness of the environment that we work in?? How can we get management to consider scenarios that are reasonable, and could harm the company, but few others in similar situations are testing for?

A: Scenarios are a great way of thinking about the future in terms of the realm of possible outcomes. Thinking now about what you can/should be doing about those possible outcomes, is an excellent way to communicate risk potential to management. and engage their interest.

5. Q: In your experience, how good are the managements of financial companies at establishing their risk tolerances?? Better, how good are they at enforcing those limits, such that they are never exceeded?

A: Not very good. Businesses have strategies, strategies entail risks, and risks require capital. Very few companies take a holistic view of risk, capital, and strategy.

6. Q: How do you create a transparent risk culture in a firm?? How do you get resisters to go along, even if it is management that does not see the full importance of the concept?

A: Cultures do not change rapidly, they migrate. Transparency starts at the top and it will never spread through a company if management doesn?t recognize its importance, and communicate its importance to everyone in the firm.

7. Q: Are most cases where a person or a company fails to diversify intentional or unintentional?? Do we put too many eggs in one basket more out of ignorance or greed?

A: Diversification is a strategy that requires discipline. Take the case where you start with a diversified portfolio, and then one position takes off and acquires a disproportionate weight in your portfolio. Regardless whether the cause is ignorance (you did not monitor your portfolio?s balance) or greed (you rode the stock up ), the root problem is a lack of discipline.

8. Q: Why do you suppose that checks and balances for risk management are not built into the cultures of many financial companies?

A: When does a problem exist? Even if it has always been there, it comes into existence only when you recognize that it is a problem. Many times checks and balances do not exist because no one recognizes the risk/problem and therefore no one evaluates the checks, and balances, and controls needed to manage it.

9. Q: I have a friend Pat Lewis who developed a risk management system for Bear that could have prevented the failure of the firm, but it was ignored because it got in the way of profit center manager goals.? Was it the same for you at Citigroup when your ?Windows on Risk? got tossed out the window?

A: See pages 124-5 in my book. You never have to ask a portfolio manager what he or she thinks, just look at their portfolio. When I found out Citibank was no longer using Windows on Risk I sold my entire position that day. I recall it was at $51.75.

10. Q: Can culture and personal judgment work in risk management ever?? Take Berkshire Hathaway ? risk control is embedded in the characters of a few people, notably Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger.?If the culture is really, really good, and it comes from the top, can risk management work when it is seemingly informal?? (Remember, you don?t want to disappoint Warren.)

A: Risk management is all about culture and personal judgment. I remember pondering the question, “How high is up” at a Windows on Risk meeting at Citibank. The most senior management were sitting around the table. We came to our answer by asking the following question: What was the amount of loss we would be embarrassed to read about in the WSJ? That number, it turned out, was not very high, at least in the judgment of the people sitting around that table. News of that decision got around and had an impact on the company culture.

11. Q: How can you teach younger people in risk management intuition about risk that helps them have a healthy skepticism for the results of impressive complex modeling?

A: I co-wrote an article with Mike Powers from the London School of Economics titled “The End of Enterprise Risk Management.? Models are just one input; they are not a substitute for good judgment.

12. Q: Is it possible to do effective risk management in a financial firm if management is less than wholeheartedly committed to the goal?

A: I forgot where I first heard the expression, but it explains my feelings. “A fish starts to stink from its head first.?

13. Q: Aside from AIG, and other financial insurers, the insurance industry came through the crisis better than the banks because they focused on longer-term stress tests, and not on short-term measures like VAR.? Should the banking industry imitate the insurance industry, and focus on longer-term measures of risk, or continue to rely on VAR?

A: VaR is one measure. It has deficiencies. For example, the loss amounts predicted in the tails (that is, the extreme cases) are the best case scenarios, not the worse case. Institutionalizing this one measure, or relying on the measurement of “risk based capital,” has not worked.

14. Q: Seemingly the big complex banks did not analyze their liquidity risk, particularly with repo lines.? Why did they miss such an obvious area of risk management?

A: Liquidity is a very difficult concept. If you decide to sell your house in the suburbs at 2AM in the morning and put a “for sale” sign on your lawn at that hour, how quickly do you think it will sell. Liquidity, therefore, has to be thought of in terms of time. If, for instance, you see high average daily volume in a stock what is your real liquidity if the volume is the result of a nano second of high speed trading?.

15. Q: How much can risk management be shaped in financial firms by the compensation incentives that employees and managers receive?

I saw Walter Wriston six months before he died. He asked me how things were going. I said, nothing wrong with risk as long as you manage it. He smiled at me from ear to ear because those were his words, from his book Risk and other Four Letter Words. I think it is all about matching responsibility and authority, having the right culture, learning from errors, and promoting ethics. Incentives are on the list, but not at the top.

16. Q: I have often turned down shady deals in business, saying that you only get one reputation in this world.? How do you encourage an attitude like this in financial firms among staff?

A: If you go to sleep in s–t, you will most likely wake up covered with flies. I would start with an ethics committee, and make sure the most important people in the firm were on it.

17. Q: A lot of portfolio management and risk management is juggling different time frames.? Is there a good structure for balancing the demands of the short-, intermediate-, and long-terms?

A: A poor investment decision is still the same poor investment decision irrespective of the time frame. If you always try to do the right thing, time frames become less important.

I am not saying to forget about the timeframe, just that you shouldn?t let it lead you to a poor decision.

18. Q: Most developed country economic players assume that wars will have no impact on their portfolios.? Same for famine, plague, or environmental degradation.? What can you do to get investors to think about the broader risks that could materially harm their well-being?

A: Great question, but this one is outside my realm of expertise.

19. Q: Are Rob?s more common in the world than Max?s? That?s my experience; what do you think?

A: I purposely made Rob and Max pretty different in order to illustrate the principles in the book. I think we are all human and have a little bit of each.

20. Q: At the end of your book, one of your friends dies.? Did you mean to teach us that even if we manage our risks right, we still can?t overcome problems beyond our scope, or were you trying to say something else, like creating a system or family that can perform well after you die?

A: My first draft of the book began with what is now the concluding chapter?the one in which I discuss the courage necessary to face death. The developmental editor at McGraw-Hill, of course, didn?t like it up front, so I moved it to the end, where I wrote: ?It is at that moment, when death is imminent, and there is no possibility of escape, that courage comes into the picture.?

My view is that this mindset can be useful long before we consider our mortality, by helping us understand that there are realities that must be faced and not avoided. In investing as in life, long term success results from thoughtful, timely preparation. Or in other words, the best decisions are made before we are forced to make them. The best decisions are made before certain inevitabilities, so long on the horizon, appear unexpectedly in front of us, and we no longer have the time to consider the alternatives; when we can still calmly and intelligently assess our circumstances, consider alternatives, and make informed decisions, monitoring the results as we go.

This is what I refer to as ?de-risking,? and although the principles set out here are drawn from my experience as a risk manager at a number of leading investment firms, they apply not only to financial matters, but to almost every decision you?ll make over the course of your life.

So to my way of thinking, ?when lightning strikes–the processes that you have put in place make courage less necessary. Put another way, if you embrace risk by following an orderly process you will have constructed a framework that will help you make the right decisions

Theme: Overlay by Kaira