Think of Your Stocks Like Real Estate

This past week, I was considering buying a home near my parents so that when I was back in area, I would have a place from which to work and live. With the real estate market falling to 2004 prices, on average, it seemed a good time to buy (value investing is not limited to stocks – it’s a business philosophy). Anyway, I made an opening offer roughly 10.6% below the list price, which was more than reasonable given the current economic environment, the fact that I don’t need a property per se, and my outlook for real estate values over the next five to ten years.

The owners of the property came back with their counteroffer, but refused to budge much. They had in mind a price that they thought appropriate for the property based upon their own analysis of the comparable sales in the neighborhood. They determined that based upon their own financial needs that they couldn’t afford to sell their asset for the price the market was currently indicating it was worth; indeed, they demanded the same appreciation that had been the rule for the past twenty years, not recognizing the new reality. That’s fine. That’s what I’ve been trying to teach you with the thousands of articles that have been published. Although I trust my own analysis (this is what I do for a living – valuing assets, buying them at attractive levels, and generating profit on those capital commitments), they had arrived at their own estimate of replacement value for the property. They will now either have to continue holding the real estate, wait for an offer that they think is more inline with their estimate of value, or be forced into a sale if they can’t hold out until the market recovers.

Now, here’s where most people make huge errors that cost them years, even decades, of wealth building effort. If they had owned a basket of stocks – say, shares of Wal-Mart, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, and U.S. Bancorp – and they had experienced a drop of 10% or 20%, let alone the 50% drubbing many equities have taken over the past year, it’s unlikely that these same people would apply a rational disposition to their portfolio like they did their house. They wouldn’t research the valuation of comparable businesses to each of those they owned, estimate what they think their share of those businesses was, and then refuse to sell (or better yet, buy more while it was cheap) until it reflected a conservative estimate of intrinsic value.

Instead, it’s likely that they would be more likely to sell the further prices fell because they trusted their neighbor’s estimate of what their property is worth instead of their own, cold, dispassionate calculation. I wrote you a few weeks ago and told you that if you were selling your 401(k) assets, people like me were out there buying them in the midst of all the fear. In a few years, you would wonder why we had gotten substantially richer.

The bottom line: You must assess all of the assets in your life based on their estimated intrinsic value. There’s nothing more irrational than saying, “My accounts are down $10,000 or $100,000 or $500,000! What do I do?” If you are invested in a broad-based, low-cost index fund, falling prices are good for you in the long run. That’s because the dividend yield on your portfolio will increase, allowing you to purchase more shares with your reinvested earnings. Your regular contributions will also purchase more shares. This is the secret to building equity, which is the surefire way to building wealth.

Understanding Intrinsic Value and Why Different Businesses Deserve Different Valuations

Readers of this site know that I’m an unabashed, dyed-in-the-wool value investor. Yet, a mistake many people tend to make is to associate this with only buying low price-to-earnings ratio stocks. While this approach has certainly generated above-average returns over long-periods of time (see Tweedy, Browne & Company’s publication What Has Worked in Investing), it is not the ideal situation.

Understanding Intrinsic Value and Why Different Businesses Deserve Different Valuations

At its core, the basic definition for the intrinsic value of every asset in the world is simple: It is all of the cash flows that will be generated by that asset discounted back to the present moment at an appropriate rate that factors in opportunity cost (typically measured against the risk-free U.S. Treasury) and inflation. Figuring out how to apply that to individual stocks can be extremely difficult depending upon the nature and economics of the particular business. As Benjamin Graham, the father of the security analysis industry, entreated his disciples, however, one need not know the exact weight of a man to know that he is fat or the exact age of a woman to know she is old. By focusing only on those opportunities that are clearly and squarely in your circle of competence and you know to be better than average, you have a much higher likelihood of experiences good, if not great, results over long periods of time.

All businesses are not created equal. An advertising firm that requires nothing more than pencils and desks is inherently a better business than a steel mill that, just to begin operating, requires tens of millions of dollar or more in startup capital investment. All else being equal, an advertising firm rightfully deserves a higher price to earnings multiple because in an inflationary environment, the owners (shareholders) aren’t going to have to keep shelling out cash for capital expenditures to maintain the property, plant, and equipment. This is also why intelligent investors must distinguish between the reported net income figure and true, “economic” profit, or “owner” earnings as Warren Buffett has called it. These figures represent the amount of cash that the owner could take out of the business and reinvest elsewhere or spend on diamonds, houses, planes, charitable donations, or gold-plated fine china.

In other words, it doesn’t matter what the reported net income is, but rather, how many hamburgers the owner can buy relative to his investment in the business. That’s why capital-intensive enterprises are typically anathema to long-term investors as they realize very little of their reported income will translate into tangible, liquid wealth because of a very, very important basic truth: Over the long-term, the rise in an investor’s net worth is limited to the return on equity generated by the underlying company. Anything else, such as relying on a bull market or that the next person in line will pay more for the company than you (the appropriately dubbed “greater fool” theory) is inherently speculative. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be in doubt about my ability to retire comfortably.

The result of this fundamental viewpoint is that two businesses might have identical earnings of $10 million, yet Company ABC may generate only $5 million and the other, Company XYZ, $20 million in “owner earnings”. Therefore, Company XYZ could have a price-to-earnings ratio four times higher than its competitor ABC yet still be trading at the same value.

The Importance of a Margin of Safety

The danger with this approach is that, if taken too far as human psychology is apt to do, is that any basis for rational valuation is quickly thrown out the window. Typically, if you are paying more than 15x earnings for a company, you need to seriously examine the underlying assumptions you have for its future profitable and intrinsic value. With that said, a wholesale rejection of shares over that price is not wise. A year ago, I remember reading a story detailing that in the 1990’s, the cheapest stock in retrospect was Dell Computers at 50x earnings. That’s right – had you bought it at that price, you would have absolutely crushed nearly every other investment because the underlying profits really did live up to Wall Street’s expectations, and then some! However, would you have been comfortable having your entire net worth invested in such a risky business if you didn’t understand the economics of the computer industry, the future drivers of demand, the commodity nature of the PC and the low-cost structure that gives Dell a superior advantage over competitors, and the distinct possibility that one fatal mistake could wipeout a huge portion of your net worth? Probably not.

The Ideal Compromise

The perfect situation is when you get an excellent business that generates copious amounts of cash with little or no capital investment on the part of the owners relative to the profits at a steep discount to intrinsic value, such as American Express during the Salad Oil scandal or Wells Fargo when it traded at 5x earnings during the real estate crash of the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. A nice test you can use is to close your eyes and try to imagine what a business will look like in ten years; do you think it will be bigger and more profitable? What about the profits – how will they be generated? What are the threats to the competitive landscape? An example that might help: Do you think Blockbuster will still be the dominant video rental franchise? Personally, it is my belief that the model of delivering plastic disks is entirely antiquated and as broadband becomes faster and faster, the content will eventually be streamed, rented, or purchased directly from the studios without any need for a middle man at all, allowing the creators of content to keep the entire capital. That would certainly cause me to require a much larger margin of safety before buying into an enterprise that faces such a very real technological obsolesce problem.

There are three categories of financial capital that are important for you to know when analyzing your business or a potential investment. They each have their own benefits and characteristics.
Equity Capital

Otherwise known as “net worth” or “book value”, this figure represents assets minus liabilities. There are some businesses that are funded entirely with equity capital (cash written by the shareholders or owners into the company that have no offsetting liabilities.) Although it is the favored form for most people because you cannot go bankrupt, it can be extraordinarily expensive and require massive amounts of work to grow your enterprise. Microsoft is an example of such an operation because it generates high enough returns to justify a pure equity capital structure.

Debt Capital

This type of capital is infused into a business with the understanding that it must be paid back at a predetermined future date. In the meantime, the owner of the capital (typically a bank, bondholders, or a wealthy individual), agree to accept interest in exchange for you using their money. Think of interest expense as the cost of “renting” the capital to expand your business; it is often known as the cost of capital. For many young businesses, debt can be the easiest way to expand because it is relatively easy to access and is understood by the average American worker thanks to widespread home ownership and the community-based nature of banks. The profits for the owners is the difference between the return on capital and the cost of capital; for example, if you borrow $100,000 and pay 10% interest yet earn 15% after taxes, the profit of 5%, or $5,000, would not have existed without the debt capital infused into the business.
Specialty Capital

This is the gold standard. There are a few sources of capital that have almost no economic cost and can take the limits off of growth. They include things such as a negative cash conversion cycle (vendor financing), insurance float, etc.

· Negative Cash Conversion (Vendor Financing) Imagine you own a retail store. To expand your business, you need $1 million in capital to open a new location. Most of this is the result of needing to go out, buy your inventory, and stock your shelves with merchandise. You wait and hope that one day customers come in and pay you. In the meantime, you have capital (either debt or equity capital) tied up in the business in the form of inventory.

Now, imagine if you could get your customers to pay you before you had to pay for your merchandise. This would allow you to carry far more merchandise than your capitalization structure would otherwise allow. AutoZone is a great example; it has convinced its vendors to put their products on its shelves and retain ownership until the moment that a customer walks up to the front of one of AutoZone’s stores and pays for the goods. At that precise second, the vendor sells it to AutoZone which in turn sells it to the customer.

This allows them to expand far more rapidly and return more money to the owners of the business in the form of share repurchases (cash dividends would also be an option) because they don’t have to tie up hundreds of millions of dollars in inventory. In the meantime, the increased cash in the business as a result of more favorable vendor terms and / or getting your customers to pay you sooner allows you to generate more income than your equity or debt alone would permit. Typically, vendor financing can be measured in part by looking at the percentage of inventories to accounts payable (the higher the percentage, the better), and analyzing the cash conversion cycle; the more days “negative”, the better. Dell Computer was famous for its nearly two or three week negative cash conversion cycle which allowed it to grow from a college dorm room to the largest computer company in the world with little or no debt in less than a single generation.

· FloatInsurance companies that collect money and can generate income by investing the funds before paying it them out in the future in the form of policyholder payouts when a car is damaged, or replacing a home when destroyed in a tornado, are in a very good place. As Buffett describes it, float is money that a company holds but does not own. It has all of the benefits of debt but none of the drawbacks; the most important consideration is the cost of capital – that is, how much money it costs the owners of a business to generate float. In exceptional cases, the cost can actually be negative; that is, you are paid to invest other people’s money plus you get to keep the income from the investments. Other businesses can develop forms of float but it can be very difficult.

Sweat Equity

There is also a form of capital known as sweat equity which is when an owner bootstraps operations by putting in long hours at a low rate of pay per hour making up for the lack of capital necessary to hire sufficient employees to do the job well and let them work an ordinarily forty hour workweek. Although it is largely intangible and does not count as financial capital, it can be estimated as the cost of payroll saved as a result of excess hours worked by the owners. The hope is that the business will grow fast enough to compensate the owner for the low-pay, long-hour sweat equity infused into the enterprise.

The Biggest Rip-Off Fees of All

A few days ago, I was reading through the commission schedule of a major East Coast bank and was shocked to find that customers were charged $25 per position, up to ten stocks for a maximum of $250, for “safe keeping” fees on the stocks in their account.

Now that we are in an age where stock certificates are rare, there is virtually no effort involved with a broker keeping track of the companies in which you hold shares. For an investor with, say, $50,000 in assets, this represents a frictional expense of 1/2 of 1%! Add on the management fees that are taken out of mutual funds that you never see directly, and it’s not hard to understand why so many investors have a difficult time matching, much less beating, the market.

To add insult to injury, if you wanted to avoid these fees and request a paper certificate, the same firm would likely charge you $25 to $50 to get what rightfully belongs to you! Even more salt in the wound? Many companies offer direct stock purchase plans and dividend reinvestment plans that won’t charge you a penny for having stocks safely held with the transfer agent.
The bottom line is this: You should not be paying custodial or safe keeping fees for the right to hold stocks in your account. This is simply a way for hidden charges to ring the cash register at the broker, banks, or wealth management firm at your expense. Demand these fees be waived or you might just need to consider taking your business elsewhere.

Junk Bonds - The Sexiest Investment

A Short & Simple Lesson in the Danger and Allure of Junk Bonds

You know you shouldn't. Your CPA wouldn't approve. Your wife would be furious if she found out. The guilt would consume you. Still, you can't help casting a lustful glance at junk bonds with their 10-12% coupons. Just remember flashy investments usually go up in smoke, and when these babies fall, they fall hard. They're called "junk" for a reason.
Lately, I've received a lot of emails about junk bonds and how (if) to invest in them. Here's a short and to-the-point lesson in what they are and whether you should add them to your portfolio.

The Fundamentals of Junk Bonds

Bond rating agencies such as Fitch, Standard and Poors, and Moody's assign ratings to debt issues. So-called investment grade bonds have a rating of BBB or higher. By assigning such a rating, the agency is saying that it believes, based on the company's current financial position, interest coverage ratio, and economic outlook, that the chance is default is not substantial. These issues often have a history of long, uninterrupted interest payments to bondholders.

Non-investment grade issues, on the other hand, are those that have been assigned a rating of BB or lower. These obligations possess a much higher risk for default or loss of principal. The companies that issue these "junk" bonds must somehow entice investors to risk their money. In order to do this, they offer a much higher coupon rate (e.g., 10%) than their investment
counterparts (e.g., 5 1/2%). Ironically, this increases the inherent risk because the companies that are least able to afford high interest charges pay double or triple their better-capitalized counterparts. Every bond in the world falls into one of two categories... investment and non-investment grade. There is a huge of difference between the two. Investment grade usually have a rating of BBB or higher. It is a safe bet to assume that they posses solid fundamentals, a stable balance sheet, and are not in serious risk of default or bankruptcy. Most have a long track record of making steady interest payments to their bondholders.

Junk bonds were tremendously popular in the generation of leveraged buyouts and corporate liquidations (otherwise known as the 1980's). Lately, they have staged a slight comeback with a potentially disastrous outcome. Small investors are buying them without fully understanding the risks they carry (and once they do figure it out, it will already be too late.)

Fallen Angels vs. Junk Bonds

In the course of business history, good companies have sometime experienced troubles that caused their debt ratings to be slashed. The company's bond issues plummet as a result. These type of issues are known as "fallen angels". They differ from junk bonds in that they were issued as investment grade and fell from grace. Purchasing fallen angels, if done intelligently, is far less speculative than acquiring junk bonds with the hope of holding them until maturity. This type of operation should be left to those who are able to evaluate a corporation's financials and reasonably estimate the potential outcome of the situation.
The Bottom Line on Junk Bonds
Avoid them like the plague unless you know what you are doing. If you do purchase them, do so with full understanding that unless you have substantial quantitative reasons to believe your purchase promises a safety of principal, you are speculating, not investing.

The Five Components of an Investors Required Rate of Return

In financial theory, the rate of return at which an investment trades is the sum of five different components. They are:

1. The Real Risk-Free Interest Rate

This is the rate to which all other investments are compared. It is the rate of return an investor can earn without any risk in a world with no inflation.

2. An Inflation Premium

This is the rate that is added to an investment to adjust it for the market’s expectation of future inflation. For example, the inflation premium required for a one year corporate bond might be a lot lower than a thirty year corporate bond by the same company because investors think that inflation will be low over the short-run, but pick up in the future as a result of the trade and budget deficits of years past.

3. A Liquidity Premium

Thinly traded investments such as stocks and bonds in a family controlled company require a liquidity premium. That is, investors are not going to pay the full value of the asset if there is a very real possibility that they will not be able to dump the stock or bond in a short period of time because buyers are scarce. This is expected to compensate them for that potential loss. The size of the liquidity premium is the dependent upon an investor’s perception of how active a particular market is.

4. Default Risk Premium

How likely do investors believe it is that a company will default on its obligation or go bankrupt? Often, when signs of trouble appear, a company’s shares or bonds will collapse as a result of investors demanding a default risk premium. If someone were able to acquire assets that were trading at a huge discount as a result of a default risk premium that was too large, they could make a great deal of money. Many professional money managers actually bought shares of Enron’s corporate debt during the now-famous meltdown of the energy-trading giant. In essence, they bought $1 of debt for only a few pennies. If they can get more than they paid in the event of a liquidation or reorganization, it can make them very, very rich.

K-Mart is a wonderful example. Prior to its bankruptcy, hedge fund manager Eddie Lampert and distressed debt expert Marty Whitman of Third Avenue Funds, bought an enormous portion of the retailer’s debt. When the company was reorganized in bankruptcy court, the debt holders were given equity in the new company. Lampert then used his new controlling block of K-Mart stock with its improved balance sheet to start investing in other assets.

3. Maturity PremiumThe further in the future the maturity of a company’s bonds, the greater the price will fluctuate when interest rates change. That’s because of the maturity premium. Here’s a very simplified version to illustrate the concept: Imagine you own a $10,000 bond with a 7% yield when it is issued that will mature in 30 years. Each year, you will receive $700 in interest in the mail. Thirty years in the future, you will get your original $10,000 back. Now, if you were going to sell your bond the next day, you