Category: Stocks

Don’t Invest in the Company that You Work for

Don’t Invest in the Company that You Work for

My friend Cody put out a piece today on not investing in the company that you work for.? 95% of the time, that is correct.? Since this blog is about reduction of risk, I advise all readers not to increase their risk by risking their retirement funds on the the company from which they derive their wages.? That said, here is the other 5%, from a RealMoney CC:


David Merkel
Right On, Roger!
12/12/2006 1:54 PM EST

Roger is dead right when he says to diversify. My broad market strategy has 35 stocks in it. Biggest position is Allstate (boring, huh?) at 5%. Most of the rest are around 2.5%, with about 15% cash.

There have only been two times that my wife has suggested that I do something with respect to our investments. Both were when I let a position grow too big. The first was the St. Paul, when I worked there. The other is my only private equity holding: a company which makes the best commercial lawn mowers in the world (my opinion). She was right both times, in my opinion.

The secret to investing is risk control. Don’t make a move that could knock you out of the game, and over the long run, you can make decent money as you compound your gains.

If I compare my investing to baseball, I would say that I try to hit singles. Playing home run ball leads to too many strikeouts, and the strikeouts hurt more than the home runs help. Not only do you lose money, you lose confidence to stay in the game.

So, play the game with a margin of safety. Diversify broadly, and maybe, just maybe, buy some bonds too, to even out the ride. (I have an article coming on my bond holdings in the next month…)

Position: long ALL

There are exceptions, though, and I will point three of them out.? 1) Executives often have to buy company stock; but they are beiong paid to take risk for the good of the shareholders.? 2)? Occasionally, when your company is out of favor, and you know it has a strong balance sheet, it may be time to buy.? That’s what I did with the St. Paul back in 2000, and it paid off well.? 3) If you understand your business better than anyone else (very rare), and you are in a fast growing industry, the stock of your company can be a good deal if the general market has not discovered it yet, and bid the stock price to high P/E ratios.

Aside from that, do not invest in the stock of your company.? Why put your retirement at risk?

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

The Fundamentals of Residential Real Estate Market Bottoms

This article was posted at The Big Picture this morning as I was guest-blogging for Barry.? That’s a first for me, and there is no better site to do it at.? I present the article here for those that did not see it at The Big Picture.

=–==–==–==–==-=-=–==-=-=-=-=–==-=-=-=-=-=–=-=-=-==-=-=-

This piece completes a series that I started RealMoney, and continued at my blog.? For those with access to RealMoney, I did an article called The Fundamentals of Market Tops, where I concluded in early 2004 that we weren?t at a top yet.? For those without access, Barry Ritholtz put a large portion of it at his blog.? I then wrote another piece at RM applying the framework to residential housing in mid-2005, and I came to a different conclusion: yes, residential real estate [RRE] was near its top.? Recently, I posted a piece a number of readers asked me to write: The Fundamentals of Market Bottoms, where I concluded we weren?t yet at a bottom for the equity markets.

This piece completes the series for now, and asks whether we are at the bottom for RRE prices. If not, when, and how much more pain?

Before I start this piece, I have to deal with the issue of why RRE market tops and bottoms are different.? The signals for a bottom are not automatically the inverse of those for a top. Tops and bottoms for RRE are different primarily because of debt investors.? At market tops, typically credit spreads are tight, but they have been tight for several years, while seemingly cheap leverage builds up.? There is a sense of invincibility for the RRE market, and the financing markets reflect that. Bottoms are more jagged, with debt financing expensive to non-existent.

As a friend of mine once said, ?To make a stock go to zero, it has to have a significant slug of debt.?? The same is true of RRE and that is what differentiates tops from bottoms.? At tops, no one cares about the level of debt or financing terms.? The rare insolvencies that happen then are often due to fraud.? But at bottoms, the only thing that investors care about is the level of debt or financing terms.

Why Do RRE Defaults Happen?

It costs money to sell a home ? around 5-10% of the sales price. In a RRE bear market, those costs fall entirely on the seller. That?s why economic incentives for the owners of RRE decline once their equity on a mark-to-market basis declines below that threshold. They no longer have equity so much as an option on the equity of the home, should they continue to pay on their mortgage and prices rise.

As RRE prices have fallen, a larger percentage of the housing stock has fallen below the 10% equity threshold. Near the peak in October 2005, maybe 5% of all houses were below the threshold. Recently, I estimated that that figure was closer to 12%. It may go as high as 20% by the time we reach bottom.

Defaults occur in RRE when there would be negative equity in a sale, and a negative life event occurs:

  • Unemployment
  • Death
  • Disability
  • Disaster
  • Divorce
  • Large mortgage payment rise from a reset or a recast

The negative life events, which, aside from changes in mortgage payments, can?t be expected, cause the borrower to give up and default. During a RRE bear market, most people in a negative equity on sale position don?t have a lot of extra assets to fall back on, so anything that interrupts the normal flow of income raises the odds of default. So long as there are a large number of homes in a negative equity on sale position, a certain percentage will keep sliding into foreclosure when negative life events hit. For any individual, it is random, but for the US as a whole, a predictable flow of foreclosures occur.

Examining Economic Actors as We near the Bottom

Starting at the bottom of the housing ?food chain,? I?m going to consider how various parties act as we get near the RRE price bottom. At the bottom, typically Federal Reserve policy is loose, and the yield curve is very steep. Financial companies, if they are in good shape, can profit from lending against their inexpensive deposit bases.

This presumes that the remaining banks are in good shape, with adequate capacity to lend. That?s not true at present. Regulation has moved into triage mode, where the regulators divide the institutions into healthy, questionable, and dead. The bottom typically is not reached until the number of questionable institutions starts to shrink. Right now that figure is growing for banks, thrifts, and credit unions.

The Fed?s monetary policy can only stimulate the healthy institutions. Over time, many of the questionable will slow growth, and build up enough free assets to write off bad debts. Those free assets will come through capital raises and modest profitability. Others will fail, and their assets will be taken over by stronger institutions, and losses realized by the FDIC, etc. The FDIC, and other insurance funds, will have their own balancing act, as they will need to raise premiums, but not so much that it harms borderline institutions.

Another tricky issue is the Treasury-Eurodollar [TED] Spread. Near the bottom, there should be significant uncertainty about the banking system, and the willingness of banks to lend to each other. Spreads on corporate and trust preferreds should be relatively high as well. Past the bottom, all of these spreads should be rallying for surviving institutions.

Financing for purchasing a house in a RRE bear market is expensive to nonexistent, but the underwriting is strong. At the bottom, volumes increase as enough buyers have built up sufficient earning power and savings to put a decent amount down, and be able to comfortably finance the balance at the new reduced housing prices, even with relatively high mortgage rates relative to where the government borrows.

Many other players in RRE financing will find themselves stretched, and some will be broken. Consider these players:

1) Home equity lenders will be greatly reduced, and won?t return in size until well after the bottom is passed.

2) Many unregulated and liberally regulated lenders are out of business. The virtue of a strong balance sheet and a deposit franchise speaks for itself.

3) Buyers of subordinated RMBS have been destroyed; same for many leveraged players in ?high quality? paper. Don?t even mention subprime; that game is over, and may even be turning up now as vultures pick through the rubble. This has implications for MBIA, Ambac, and other financial guarantors, since they guaranteed similar business. How big will their losses be?

4) Mortgage insurers are impaired. In earlier RRE bear markets, that meant earnings went negative for a while. In this case, one has failed, and some more might fail as well.

5) Do the GSEs continue to exist in their present form? That question never came up in prior bear markets, but it will have to be answered before the bottom comes. Will the FHLB take losses from their mortgage holdings? Will it be severe enough that it affects their creditworthiness? I doubt it, but anything is possible in this down cycle, and the FHLBs have absorbed a lot of RRE mortgage financing.

6) Securitization gets done limitedly, if at all. This is already true for non-GSE-insured loans; the question is how much Fannie and Freddie will do. My suspicion is near the bottom, as loan volumes increase, banks will be looking for ways to move mortgages off of their balance sheets, and securitization should increase.

7) The losses have to go somewhere, which brings up one more player, the US Government. Through the institutions the US sponsors, and through whatever m?lange of programs the US uses to directly bail out financially broken individuals and institutions, a lot of the pain will get directed back to taxpayers, and, those who lend to the US government in its own currency. It is possible that foreign lenders to the US may rebel at some point, but if the OPEC nations in the Middle East or China haven?t blinked by now, I?m not sure what level of current account deficit would make them change their policy.

That said, the recent housing bill wasn?t that amazing. Look for the US Government to try again after the election.

A Few More Economic Actors to Consider

Now let?s consider the likely actions of parties that are closer to the building and buying of houses.

1) Toward the bottom, or shortly after that, we should see an increase in speculative buying from investors. These will be smarter speculators than the ones buying in 2005; they will not only not rely on capital gains in order to survive, but they require a risk premium. Renting the property will have to generate a very attractive return in order to get to buy the properties.

2) Renters will be doing the same math and will begin buying in volume when they can finance it prudently, and save money over renting.

3) At the bottom, only the best realtors are left. It?s no longer a seemingly ?easy money? profession.

4) At the bottom, only the best builders survive, and typically they trade for 50-125% of their written-down book value. Leverage declines significantly. Land gets written down. JVs get rationalized. Fewer homes get built, so that inventories of unsold homes finally decline.

As for current homeowners, the mortgage resets and recasts have to be past the peak at the bottom, with the end in sight. (In my piece on real estate market tops, I suggested that after the bubble popped ?Short rates would have to rally significantly to bail these borrowers out. We would need the fed funds target at around 2%.? Well, we are there, but I didn?t expect the TED spread to be so high.)

5) Defaults begin burning out, because the number of the number of properties in a negative equity on sale position begins to decline.

6) Places that had the biggest booms have the biggest busts, even if open property is scarce. Remember, a piece of land is not priceless, but is only worth the subjective present value of future services that can be derived from the land to the marginal buyer. When the marginal buyers are nonexistent, and lenders are skittish, prices can fall a long way, even in supply-constrained markets.

For a parallel, consider pricing in the art market. Many pieces of art are priceless, but the market as a whole tends to follow the liquidity of the rich marginal art buyer. When liquidity is scarce, prices tend to fall, though it is often masked by a lack of trading in an illiquid market.

When financing expands dramatically in any sector, there is a tendency for the assets being financed to appreciate in value in the short run. This was true of the Nasdaq in the late ’90s, commercial real estate in the mid-to-late 1980s, lesser-developed-country lending in the late ’70s, etc. Financing injects liquidity, and liquidity creates confidence in the short run, which can become self-reinforcing, until the cash flows can?t support the assets in question, and then the markets become self-reinforcing on the downside, as buying power collapses.

The Bottom Is Coming, But I Wouldn?t Get Too Happy Yet

There are reasons to think that we are at or near the bottom now:

But I don?t think we are there yet, and here is why:

My best guess is that we are two years away from a bottom in RRE prices, and that prices will have to fall around 10-20% from here in order to restore more normal price levels versus rents, incomes, long term price trends, etc. Hey, it could be worse, Fitch is projecting a 25% decline.

Not all of the indicators that I put forth have to appear for there to be a market bottom. A preponderance of them appearing would make me consider the possibility, and that is not the case now.

Some of my indicators are vague and require subjective judgment. But they?re better than nothing, and keep me in the game today. Avoiding the banks, homebuilders, and many related companies has helped my performance over the last three years. I hope that I ? and you ? can do well once the bottom nears. There will be bargains to be had in housing-related and financial stocks.

Full disclosure: no positions in companies mentioned

The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind…

The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind…

Gusty Hurricane Gustav

That said, my question is: do I buy the property reinsurers here?? My initial guess is yes, because it has been a weak hurricane season so far, and the beginning and end of the seasons tend to be correlated.? But, it is too early to take action.? What I am more likely to do is wait until my next reshaping at the end of September, and make some shifts then.? Perhaps Gustav and some other hurricanes will prove my thesis wrong by then.

So, how are valuations for the reinsurers?? Cheap, but pricing is weak, because capital is plentiful.

Source: Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg
Source: Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg

If I were looking to move tomorrow, I would consider IPC, Flagstone, and Validus among the “pure play” property reinsurers. Among the diversified players, I would consider PartnerRe, Endurance, Allied World, and Aspen. Note that the book value of PartnerRe is understated because they don’t discount their loss reserves. For conservative players, PartnerRe is compelling because of their strong balance sheet, very diversified book of business, and strong management. PartnerRe, Endurance, Flagstone, IPC and Allied World score some extra points in my book because of their conservative cultures.

I’m not doing this trade tomorrow, but with good weather, and continued pessimism over financials, this trade could look very good near the end of September.

Full disclosure: no positions

Finance When You Can, Not When You Have To

Finance When You Can, Not When You Have To

“Get financing when you can, not when you have to.”? Warren Buffett said something like that, and it is true.? My biggest early investment loss was Caldor, which Michael Price lost a cool billion on.? A retailer that could not hold up to Wal-Mart, Target, and Sears, Caldor expanded in the early 90s by scrimping on working capital.? Eventually a cash shortfall hit, and their Investor Relations guy said something to the effect of, “We have no financing problems at all!”? The vehemence cause the factors that financed their investory to blink, and they pulled their financing, sending Caldor into bankruptcy, and eventually, liquidation.

Caldor had two opportunities to avoid the crisis.? It could have merged with Bradlees and recapitalized, leaving it stronger in the Northeastern US.? It also could have done a junk bond issue, which was pitched to them eight months before the crisis, but they didn’t do it.? In the first case, the deal terms weren’t favorable enough.? In the second case, they thought they could finance expansion on the cheap.

Caldor is forgotten, but the lessons are forgotten today as well.? Today, overleveraged financial companies wish they had raised equity or long-term debt one year ago, when the markets were relatively friendly and P/Es were higher, and credit spreads were lower.

I know I am unusual in my dislike for leverage in companies, but on average less levered companies do better than those with more debt.? Caldor went out with a zero for the equity.? A few zeroes can really mess up performance.

Capital flexibility has real value to good management teams.? I don’t mind exess cash hanging out on the balance sheets of good firms.? Hang onto some of it, and maybe during a crisis you can buy a competitor at a bargain price.

But for the financials today, who has the wherewithal to be a consolidator?? Most of the industry played their capital to the limit, and are now paying the price.? Either the door is shut for new capital, or they are paying through the nose.

I don’t see anyone large who fits that bill of being a consolidator.? Maybe some of the large energy companies that have been paying down debt would like to diversify, and buy a bank.? Hey, feeling lucky?!? Lehman Brothers!

Look, I’m being a little whimsical here, but the point remains — run your companies with a provision against adverse deviation.? Be conservative.? For those that invest, avoid companies that play it to the limit, unless you are an investor with enough of a stake that you can control the company.

Book Review: Investing By The Numbers

Book Review: Investing By The Numbers

I’m going to be reviewing a few books on quantitative investing.? Many of these will not be suitable for everyone, and as I do these reviews, I will try to indicate what level of math skills you will need in order to benefit from the book.? For today’s book, you can get most of it if you can remember your Algebra 1, and understand basic statistics.? Knowing regression helps, and a little calculus wouldn’t hurt, but this book is mainly qualitative.? It describes,and there are many graphs, but formulas are not on every page.

Investing By The Numbers has been out a while (1999), and though it is a good book in my opinion, it never sold big.? Oddly, a lot of investment actuaries bought the book because of a review in the Investment Section newsletter, Risk and Returns.? I have one of the few signed copies.? When I met Jarrod Wilcox when he gave a talk to the CFA Society of Washington, DC, he was genuinely surprised when I asked him to sign my copy of the book.

Jarrod Wilcox, Ph.D., CFA, held important roles at PanAgora Asset Management and Batterymarch Financial Management.? He runs his own shop now, focusing on liability-driven investing, something that I have written about at RealMoney, and at this blog.? What do I mean by liability driven investing?? Just that your asset allocation should reflect when you will most likely need the money.

This book does not have one big overarching idea to guide it.? Instead, it has many models to share from different situations in the market.? There is something for every quantitative equity investor here, and I will mention the areas where I benefited the most:

  • Along with a few other books, including some from the Santa Fe Institute, this book confirmed to me that one has to look at investment using an ecological framework.? Many strategies are competing for scarce returns.? Often the best strategy is the one that has few following it, and the worst one is the crowded trade.
  • Why do value methods tend to work?
  • How do you avoid traps in calculating models?
  • How do investors with different goals and expectations affect the market?? What happens when you get too many momentum investors?? Too many growth investors?
  • Difficulties with the Capital Asset Pricing Model [CAPM] and Arbitrage Pricing Theory [APT].
  • If the market tends toward equilibrium, the forces guiding it are weak.
  • Behavioral finance as a means of bridging investment theory and reality.
  • Market microstructure: how do we minimize total trading cost?? Minimize taxes?
  • How is the P/B-ROE model derived?
  • How to model market anomalies?
  • When do different valuation methods pay off well?
  • How does international diversification help?? (Bold in 1999, but a bit dated now.)
  • How to manage foreign currency risk in an equity portfolio?
  • How do neural nets work and what challenges are there in using them?

As a young investor using quantitative methods, I found the book useful, and still use a number of its findings in my current investing. Again, this is not a book for everyone — you have to want to do quantitative investing from primarily a fundamental mindset in order to benefit for this book.

Full Disclosure: Anytime anyone enters Amazon.com through any link on my site and buys anything there, I get a small commission.? This is my version of the tip jar, but best of all, it doesn’t cost you a thing, if you needed to buy it through Amazon already.

Banking on Continued Risk in Lending Markets

Banking on Continued Risk in Lending Markets

I like to think that I have a pretty strong stomach for risk.? I am used to losses.? I have my sell disciplines, and I act on them.? I also try to be forward-thinking about risk; not just reacting, but trying to anticipate what the markets are likely to deliver.? Every now and then, I get a surprise.? Here’s the surprise, which I got from The Big Picture (Barry’s blog).? Institutional Risk Analytics does some good work, and this article is representative of their work.? In it, they describe the two risks facing the large banks — risks from their assets, and risks from their derivative books.

The second link made me pause.? I know things are bad, and I can’t vouch for Institutional Risk Analytics’ risk based capital model for banks, but the level of notional derivatives exposure at many of the major banks to their tier 1 surplus made me pause.? There are two claims on surplus — losses from direct lending, and losses in the derivative books.

Those who have read me for a long while know that I think the derivative books at the investment banks are mismarked and possibly mishedged.? When accounting rules are not well-defined, and instruments are illiquid, even well-meaning managements tend to err in their favor in the short run.

This is significant in a number of ways, but the main one was pointed out in the first link, that with the continuing failure of small banks, how will the FDIC make depositors secure if a large-ish institution fails, when reserves are relatively low?? They need to raise their fees that they charge solvent banks to replenish their coffers.? They are also bringing back retirees with experience in dealing with insolvent banks.

So, are the banks in trouble?? Some of them are experiencing stress, and that is coming through higher credit spreads on their debt.? Given the higher costs entailed in funding for banks, it is all the more important in your investing to look for companies that don’t need much external finance.? After all, many banks may find it harder to lend.? Consider the difficulties in funding InBev’s purchase of Anheuser-Busch.? Large banks are straining at their limits.? They don’t have enough parties to sell loans off to, nor do they want to hold onto so much of the risk.

The bank loan and and bond markets are closely connected.? Troubles in one tend to spill over to the other.? Loans have a higher priority claim, so the yields are lower than for bonds.? As it is, investment grade corporate bonds, particularly financials, are facing higher yields.? The high yield market has slowed considerably.

So, what does this imply?? The banks are hunkering down.? They are scrutinizing all risk exposures.? They aren’t expanding lending, which is showing up in MZM, M2, and my M3 proxy.? Credit is getting tough/sluggish.

Money Supply
Money Supply

And the degree of leverage that banks are willing to use versus the Fed’s monetary base is dropping, and hard (the graph covers 28 years).

Bank Leverage
Bank Leverage

So, I’m not optimistic here. I believe in the value of “long only” money management as having better chances of risk control than hedged strategies, but this is making me queasy. What it makes me think, is that the FOMC’s next move is a loosen. It hurt to say that, particularly given my dislike of inflation, but the solvency of the financial system comes ahead of inflation in the Fed’s calculus, even though loosening won’t help much.

With that, I am looking to continued problems in banks, and perhaps for the economy as a whole.? Our next president will have a fun time with this…

Don’t Overpay, for Insurance M&A

Don’t Overpay, for Insurance M&A

I’ve been mulling over whether I should write about insurance M&A.? Ugh, yes, I should say something.? What pushed me over the edge was a piecein the WSJ on the purchase of Philadelphia Consolidated.? When I first heard about the deal, I blinked, and said, “Foreign acquirer overpays to enter the US.”? Is Philly a good company?? It’s a great company, but it may not be so under foreign ownership.? And, the price was well in excess of what it would have taken to create/attract the talent for a new venture.? Paying 2.7x book is not a winner.

But, the have been other missteps as well recently.? Liberty Mutual buys Safeco and Ohio Casualty for 1.8x and 1.6x book.? High prices for the assets obtained, and Liberty Mutual can’t lever that much as a mutual company.? It feels like the current management is going for growth at all costs, and the only losers will be the participating policyholders, who will eventually get a lower dividend stream.

I’m also not into funky holding company structures, for example, where a mutual company sells off a piece of a subsidiary to be publicly traded.? In that sense, it was good of ALFA to buy in their stock subsidiary (2.0x book), and now Nationwide is doing it as well (1.6x book).? Someone buying Nationwide Financial Services at the IPO earned an 8.7% annualized returnto the buyout.? ALFA shareholders did better, but I am not sure how much better, because I can’t tell how many times the stock split.? Both beat the returns on the S&P 500.? (I won’t mention the details of how Provident Mutual took Nationwide to the cleaners when they sold themselves; that had an effect on the returns.)

But, think about it from the perspective of the participating policyholders, who nominally own the mutual insurance companies.? That was expensive capital that diluted the dividends that they would have received.? But, mutual policyholders are sleepy, and mutual company managements take advantage of them.

I will mention three more deals before I close.

  • Commerce Group sold itself to Mapfre SA (1.6x book).? Another foreign company overpaying for a US presence.? I like the deal, because Safety Insurance will out-compete Commerce/Mapfre.
  • Midland Companies was bought by Munich Re for 2.0x book.? Midland was well-run, but I don’t see the fit with Munich Re.
  • Castlepoint Holdings was bought by Tower Group at 1.0x book value.? Perhaps a little incestuous, because it was Tower Group’s main reinsurer, but Tower helped bring th IPO to market, and I can’t tell whether this is a bright or dumb idea.

Insurance accounting is opaque to outside experts, and sometimes even to those doing the figures inside the companies.? Management often see marketing or cost synergies in doing deals, but my experience says those aren’t common.? Also, diversification benefits have to be weighed against lack of focus.? It is very difficult to manage disparate business lines.

To those are getting bought out, or who have been bought out, I encourage you to be grateful for the gift that you have received.? For those who own the acquiring company, I must say that the return performance for acquiring companies has been poor.? Consider investing in companies pursuing organic growth, which is often a better idea.

Full Disclosure: long SAFT

We Have to Say Something, Don’t We?

We Have to Say Something, Don’t We?

At the end of a business day, the business press has to sum up why the market did what it did.? This is sometimes the worst business journalism.? Why?? Because there often is no good reason for why the market did what it did.? So, we make something up, because we have an assignment to write the closing report.? It can be hard to write when the market moves a lot for no apparent reason.? It can be hard to write when the markat doesn’t move much.? How easy is it to say, “Nothing material happened today. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.”

People have a bias for wanting to see cause-and-effect.? Partly, it is because there are causes for each effect, but discerning causes in complex systems is tough.? Perhaps if we lengthen the time horizon, we can make more sense out of monthly, quarterly, and yearly moves, than to agonize over daily moves.

Personally, I try to tune the daily noise out, and focus on the intermediate term.? I think that is the most useful posture for investors, and would encourage you to do the same.

Book Review: Super Stocks

Book Review: Super Stocks

When I review books, I don’t just review new books.? I try to share with my readers the books that have helped me become a better thinker on investments.? Fortunately, in this case, the 1984 book Super Stocks was reprinted in 2007.? Perhaps that validates my opinion that this is a valuable book.

Ken Fisher focuses on the concept of Price to Sales [P/S] ratios as a means of analyzing cheapness in companies.? Cheapness, yes, but predicated on the concept that a new product, process improvements, or better management will make more profits from the sales, or improve sales volumes and perhaps profit margins.

Though the examples are from the early 80s, the writing is clear enough that one can get the idea of how it might apply today.? You would get the same feeling from Ben Graham’s classic The Intelligent Investor, where the examples were from the 50s and 60s, but the truths are timeless.

Why choose this book to review now?? Profit margins are artificially high, and will come down somewhat from here, even if they remain above average.? How can we find cheap stocks when profit margins are so high?? Use P/S, or Price-to-Book [P/B].

My own investing looks at a wide number of valuation figures, but across an economic cycle, I give more or less weight to each variable.? When things are bad, I give more weight to P/S and P/B.? During the recovery, I emphasize P/E on a forward basis.? When the bull market is in full swing, I let industry selection dominate, which gives me more market sensitivity. As another example, I play up EV/EBITDA when buyouts are becoming common, and drop it as a criterion when buyouts are not being funded.

So, unlike Peter Lynch, paying attention to the macroeconomic environment can positively affect your performance, if you do it intelligently.

Super Stocks is very consistent with my eight rules, particularly the rules:

  • Stick with higher quality companies for a given industry.
  • Purchase companies appropriately sized to serve their market niches.
  • Analyze the use of cash flow by management, to avoid companies that invest or buy back their stock when it dilutes value, and purchase those that enhance value through intelligent buybacks and investment.

Fisher spends a decent amount of time on balance sheets, market share, competitive advantage, and use of cash flow for future investment.? Though I don’t endorse everything in the book, like his price-to-research ratios, there are a lot of good concepts for the average investor to consider, and benefit from.

Full Disclosure: If you enter Amazon through any of the links on my site (mainly on the leftbar) and buy anything, I get a small commission.? This is my version of the tip jar, and it doesn’t increase your costs at all.

Margin of Safety

Margin of Safety

In value investing, it is imperative that one considers the state of the industry invested in, the balance sheet of the company, and earnings quality.? These are basic concerns for any investor, and all of my failures in investing can be be linked to neglect of one of these three items.

Ben Graham used the phrase “margin of safety.”? Actuaries, even less poetic, use “provision for adverse deviation.”? In either case, the idea is investing in such a way that you won’t get badly hurt if you are wrong.? It handles risk at the security selection level — choose your companies carefully; make sure they are survivors.

Does the industry have pricing power?? Is it under pressure from rising costs?? (Credit losses are a cost for financials.)? Pricing power, and lack thereof, should be considered in valuation decisions.? Are things so bad that companies are going bankrupt?? Perhaps it is time to buy the strongest one in that industry, because it often takes defaults to make pricing power turn.? Fewer competitors means profit margins can rise.

Does the company have a lot of debt?? Is the tangible net worth small relative to the liabilities?? Be careful, because a small negative change in the economics of the business could kick the company over the edge.

Do the earnings come from cash earnings, or do accruals dominate the earnings?? Cash earnings are always higher quality than accrual earnings.? This is one reason why financials almost always trade at a discount, becausethey are a bag of accruals.? Also, with financials, the quality of the accrual entries affects valuations.? Asset managers will have higher valuations than long-tail P&C insurers.? Who knows whether the reserves are right or not?

All that said, it was with sad amusement when I heard on the radio this afternoon that Legg Mason had become the largest shareholder of Freddie Mac.? Is Bill Miller (or Private Capital) doubling down?? He will look like a genius or a fool after this, depending on the outcome.? I think it is foolish, and an willing to say that he doesn’t understand the credit risk in the current environment, and should get advice from someone who gets the current credit crisis better, like me, or Eric Hovde.

After all, at the present time, even the rating agencies are downgrading everything at Fannie and Freddie except the senior debt ratings.

Value investors often invest in financial stocks.? That is their undoing in the present market, as earnings and net worth get eaten by credit losses.? But to any value investor that does industry analysis, this was avoidable, because the risk of credit losses to the banks grew as the banks were willing to lend on terms that were loose.

As a value investor, I have been able to avoid the current crisis.? I avoided credit-sensitive financials, and have bought cheap names among industrial stocks.? But that was yesterday, what of tomorrow?? I don’t think the credit crisis is done, and so I urge a conservative posture at present.

Theme: Overlay by Kaira