Saturday, December 27, 2014

Buffett - 92

Our equity-investing strategy remains little changed from what 
it was fifteen years ago, when we said in the 1977 annual report:  
"We select our marketable equity securities in much the way we 
would evaluate a business for acquisition in its entirety.  We want 
the business to be one (a) that we can understand; (b) with 
favorable long-term prospects; (c) operated by honest and competent 
people; and (d) available at a very attractive price."  We have 
seen cause to make only one change in this creed: Because of both 
market conditions and our size, we now substitute "an attractive 
price" for "a very attractive price."

The reason has to do with the way prices are set in each 
instance.  The secondary market, which is periodically ruled by 
mass folly, is constantly setting a "clearing" price.  No matter 
how foolish that price may be, it's what counts for the holder of a 
stock or bond who needs or wishes to sell, of whom there are always 
going to be a few at any moment.  In many instances, shares worth x
in business value have sold in the market for 1/2x or less.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

Henry Singleton


1. "I don't believe all this nonsense about market timing." Singleton was not someone who thought he could profit from timing the market in the short term. Because of his aversion to market timing, Singleton believed that making precise predictions about the short-term direction of markets was neither possible nor necessary, if you understand value and have the discipline to invest aggressively when the time is right. Following this approach, Henry Singleton was able to accumulate one of the best capital allocation records of any investor ever. He generated a 20.4% compound annual return for shareholders over 27 years. Charlie Munger has said Singleton's financial returns as an investor were a "mile higher than anyone else …utterly ridiculous."

 

2."My only plan is to keep coming to work every day. I like to steer the boat each day rather than plan ahead way into the future." "I know a lot of people have very strong and definite plans that they've worked out on all kinds of things, but we're subject to a tremendous number of outside influences and the vast majority of them cannot be predicted. So my idea is to stay flexible." Henry Singleton was also someone who understood the value of optionality. Singleton was able to put himself in a position to opportunistically capture profits when assets were mispriced. They key to optionality is simple: bet big when you have a big upside and a small downside. When you have a big downside and a small upside, don't bet. If you have a big upside and a big downside, why bet if other bets have more valuable optionality?

3. "It's good to buy a large company with fine businesses when the price is beaten down over worry.." Buying shares in a business with a moat at a price that is beaten down is the value investor's mantra. Prices get beaten down when there is a lot of uncertainty caused by worry. Be greedy when others are fearful. John Train points out that Singleton bought over 130 business "when his stock was riding high, then when the market, and his stock fell, he reversed field."

Singleton used big stock price drops to aggressively buy back Teledyne shares. Mike Milken describes one of Singleton's business decisions here: "In the 1970s two businessmen I greatly admired were doing what Drexel and its clients and its imitators were doing ten years later: using debt–junk, if you will–to acquire equity. I'm talking about Dr. Henry Singleton of Teledyne and [the late] Charles Tandy of Tandy Corp. These were both great operational managers and great financial managers. They recognized that their common stock was selling at ridiculously low levels, so they offered to swap high-coupon bonds for common stock. Tandy used $35 million in 10% 20-year bonds to acquire 11% of its own common. In less than ten years that repurchased stock was worth more than $1 billion. Singleton bought in 26% of Teledyne's equity for $100 million in 10% bonds–a very high coupon in those days. By the early 1980s that repurchased stock was worth more than $1.5 billion."

 

4. "There are tremendous values in the stock market, but in buying stocks, not entire companies. Buying companies tends to raise the purchase price too high.""Tendering at the premiums required today would hurt, not help, our return on equity, so we won't do it." Henry Singleton did not like paying a control premium. If you are paying a control premium, you are counting on the fact that you will be able to change the operations or strategy of that business AND realize that value, in addition to the right return on investment on that premium. With control you do have the ability to change strategy, benefit from supply or demand side economies of scale or scope, lower the cost structure of the business, sell unattractive assets or obtain tax benefits.

 

5. "After we acquired a number of businesses we reflected on aspects of business. Our conclusion was that the key was cash flow." This approach is not dissimilar to Jeff Bezos,John Malone and others who focus on absolute dollar free cash flow rather than reported earnings. Growth of revenue and size of the company were never key financial goals. Singleton liked businesses which generated cash that could either be taken out of the business or reinvested when it makes sense. Reinvesting only make sense when you can generate substantially more than a dollar in value for every dollar reinvested. Some executives like Henry Singleton, John Malone and Warren Buffet know how to redeploy cash, but some don't.

 

6. "Our attitude toward cash generation and asset management came out of our own thought process. It is not copied." You don't outperform a market if you are not occasionally contrarian and right about what you believe on enough occasions. Charlie Munger has said about Henry Singleton: "He was 100% rational, and there are very few CEOs that we can say that about." Arthur Rock once said about Singleton: "He really didn't care what other people thought." Independence of thought and emotional self-control are the keys to making successful contrarian bets. The other point made here by Singleton is about doing your own thinking and not outsourcing it to consultants and bankers.

 

7. "To sell something to lift the price of the stock is not thinking correctly." In this quote he was referring to a potential spin off or sale, but he also had strong views on stock buy backs and new stock issuance. Henry Singleton believed that the time to sell a stock is if it is overvalued and the time to buy shares is when they are undervalued. What could be simpler? The purpose of a stock buyback should not be to lift the price of the stock. Thorndike puts it well here: '[CEOs] can tap their existing profitability– their existing profits– they can raise equity, or they can sell debt. And there are only five things they can do with it. They can invest in their existing operations, they can make acquisitions, they can pay a dividend, they can pay down debt, and they can repurchase stock. That's it, those are all the choices. And over long periods of time, those decisions have a significant impact for shareholders."

 

8. "We build for the long term."Appeasing analysts who cry out for accounting earnings or other concocted metrics in the short term is folly. When his stock went down, Henry Singleton bought more back. That's an example of long-term thinking. Being fearful simply because others are fearful is a big mistake. The greatest investing opportunity arises when people are fearful.

 

9. "All new projects should return at least 20% on total assets." Free cash flow was not the only driving metric for Henry Singleton. He believed that businesses with sustained returns on assets (lasting for years, not months) produce superior investment returns. This sustained high return is what investors Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger mean by the "quality" of a stock. This rate of return must be maintained over a period of years to be considered a positive investment criteria, since otherwise you can't tell whether there is a genuine moat versus merely high points in a business cycle.

 

10. "Our quarterly earnings will jiggle." Henry Singleton was not someone who managed earnings. Singleton would much rather have had a long term average financial return of 14% that was lumpy than a 12% return that was smooth. Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google (executives and co-founders) once wrote: "In Warren Buffett's words, 'We won't 'smooth' quarterly or annual results.' If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you."

 

11. "Teledyne is like a living plant with our companies as the different branches and each one is putting out new branches and growing, so no one is too significant." If Singleton is criticized it is because he operated "a conglomerate." Warren Buffett disagreed with this criticism: "Breaking up Teledyne was a poor result, certainly now and in the future." Singleton was able to ignore the criticism since he has the discipline to think and act independently.  It is one thing to talk about being a contrarian and quite another thing to actually do it.  Singleton once said in an interview with Forbes: "being a conglomerate is neither a plus nor a minus."

"There was no general theme," Rock has said. "This was a conglomerate of scientific companies, and most of these were allowed to operate with very little direction from corporate."

While Singleton diversified the businesses of his conglomerate, in terms of his outside investments, Singleton was a "focus" investor who did not believe indexing made any sense for an investor like him. Charlie Munger said Singleton "bought only a few things he understood well" – an approach he shared with famous investor Phil Fisher. Singleton said in his Forbes interview: "the idea of indexing isn't something I believe in or follow."

Of course, Singleton was not an ordinary investor.  Singleton was one of the few investors who, as Warren Buffett says, fits into the "know something" category.  Most people are better off with an index-based approach to investing since they do to have the temperament nor the inclination to work as hard as Singleton did to understand the businesses that he was investing in.

 

12. "A steel company might think it is competing with other steel companies. But we are competing with all other companies." Henry Singleton knew that any moat is subject to attack and that that attack does not need to come from a competitor that is engaged in the same activities. The most successful attacks on a business tend to be asymmetric. Businesses tend to fail not from a frontal attack, but when they are eclipsed or enveloped.

p.s., This interview with Will Thorndikeis an outstanding way to understand Singleton.  Thorndike points out in the interview: "Throughout that decade, his stock traded at an average P/E north of 20, and he was buying businesses at a typical P/E of 12. So it was a highly accretive activity for his shareholders. That was Phase One. Then he abruptly stops acquiring when the P/E on his stock falls at the very end of the decade, 1969, and focuses on optimizing operations.

He pokes his head up in the early '70s and all of a sudden his stock is trading in the mid single digits on a P/E basis, and he begins a series of significant stock repurchases. Starting in '72, going to '84, across eight significant tender offers, he buys in 90% of his shares. So he's sort of the unparalleled repurchase champion."

Sent from my iPhone

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

The state of consumer fintech



Marc Andreessen in an interview recently said the following about finance: “We can reinvent the entire thing”.
How has tech been changing finance? That’s what this piece will be about, in specific reference to consumer finance, which I think really has started to “unbundle” as Marc talks about in his interview.
I think technology impacts consumer finance in three main ways:
  1. It increases access to information thereby allowing consumers to make better decisions
  2. It reduces the friction in conducting transactions where friction can be time or effort
  3. It lowers the fees/rates on transactions by serving as a cheaper middle man.
But to show the above, I’ll have to break down consumer finance which by itself is very broad into its sub categories. To do so, I’ll start with a basic equation from Macroeconomics 101:
Y = C + S
which when it refers to consumers means that Income = Consumption + Savings.
A couple things to note with this equation, at least for the purposes of this piece:
  • Savings more or less represents the same thing as investment
  • Consumption can be greater than income, in which case savings is negative (i.e, that person borrows money rather than invests).
I think all consumer fintech products fall in one of two categories based on the equation:
  1. Products that change how individuals consume/spend
  2. Products that change how individuals save/invest/borrow
I’ll now dig deeper into each of the categories to see what the major activities involved are and how technology is impacting them. (Hint: at the end, we end up with a categorization as in the image below)

An overview of the consumer fintech industry

Consumption and Spending

Consumers tend to consume in two main ways: (1) spend money on purchases/bills etc and (2) send money to friends and family (this might not sound like consumption, but usually this transfer is associated with some “transaction”).
There are three main areas of consumption then which technology can disrupt:
  1. Sending money to friends/family
  2. Spending money on purchases/bills (i.e, paying)
  3. Tracking spending

Sending Money

Technology has impacted this activity in three main ways: by making it simpler, cheaper and quicker. Some of the major players in this space which have made sending money to others a better experience include:
  • Venmo which lets users send money to friends
  • Pay with gmail which allows users to send money to their friends through email
  • Square cash which allows users to send money to friends
  • Paypal which allows users to send money to any phone number/email address
  • TransferWise which lets users send money internationally for only 0.5% in fees.
  • Coinbase which lets users send bitcoins to others

Spending money

Spending money is essentially the saying as paying. The technology products that fit in this category have disrupted the space largely by reducing friction and enabling smoother payments, and saving the consumer time. Some of them include:
  • Apple Pay which enables consumers to pay with their phones through NFC
  • Google Wallet which also enables consumers to pay with their phones through NFC
  • Square Order which allows customers to order from local cafes and pay through their phone
  • Paypal which allows customers to pay through the app at participating stores
  • Mint bills which allows users to pay their bills
Although this more or less represents the bucket of payment companies, it is important to note that these refer to the products that change how consumers pay and not those products that make it easier for businesses to accept payments (e.g, Square/Stripe would not fall in this category, but Square Wallet/Order would)

Tracking spending

Another activity which relates to consumption is for a consumer to learn about how they consume so that they can make better decisions. Technology has impacted this space by increasing consumer’s access to information and helping them understand it better through budgeting and tracking apps. This tends to be known as the “personal finance” space.
Some of the companies in the space are:
  • Mint is the clear leader in the space, having been around since 2006 and helps users track and manage their income and expenses.
  • Level money is a mobile app that helps users budget and spend smarter
  • Billguard helps users track spending and prevent their cards from fraud.
What happens when you combine more than one of these three activities involved in spending? Simple is one example — it’s a bank that budgets automatically and lets the user easily transfer money to others, and purchase things too (though still through a credit card).

Savings and Investment

As I mentioned earlier, savings can be positive or negative (borrowing). The two categories which emerge naturally from that definition are
  1. Investing
  2. Borrowing

Investing


I like to think about technology products and investing on a spectrum of degree of automation, but that’s a whole other concept that I’ll leave for another post.
Technology impacts investing in two main ways: (1) increasing access to information (2) making it cheaper to invest (reduced fees)
Some products that help increase access to information include:
  • Openfolio which enables users to see what stocks others are buying and selling and how they are performing
  • Stocktwits which is a social network for investors and traders
  • Angellist which enables investors to determine which products are seeking investment
  • Angel list Syndicates which allows users to “back” certain angels and get access to their deals
Some products that make it cheaper to invest include:
  • Robinhood, which enables zero commission stock trading.
  • Betterment which is an automated investing service that charges between 0.15%-0.35% in management fees
  • Wealthfront which is an automated investing service that charges 0.25% in fees above $10k in assets managed.
  • Personal Capital which is an automated investing service that charges between 0.5% to 1% in fees.
  • Nutmeg which is an automated investing service in Europe which charges between 0.3 and 1% in management fees.
  • Acorns which automatically invests spare change from everyday products into a diversified portfolio

Borrowing


Just like investing, technology impacts borrowing in two main ways: (1) increased access to information, and (2) making it cheaper to borrow by making alternative funds available (either through better measurement of creditworthiness due to data or by better connecting individuals that need funds with those that have them)
Increased access to information
This tends to be products that either:
  • Help users understand the loan options available to them so that they can get the best rate. An example of this is Lendingtree, which allows individuals to compare loan offers from competing banks instantly.
  • Help users track their credit score so that they have access to better interest rates in the future. Examples include Credit Karma and Credit Sesame
Access to alternative forms of funds
This includes those products that allow individuals to borrow money from sources other than banks, such as from peers. These products enable users to obtain loans at better rates normally because they use a system of creditworthiness that includes data other than the traditional credit score used by banks. Some notable examples include:
  • Lending Club, a peer-to-peer lending company for personal loans, which recently IPO’ed
  • Prosper which is another peer-to-peer lending marketplace
  • Zopa which is a peer-to-peer lending marketplace in Europe
  • Affirm which allows individuals to borrow money to purchase certain products
  • Kickstarter where creators can get funds for their creations from backers

Closing Thoughts


The above was a broad overview of consumer finance in terms of the main activities involved, which companies are disrupting it and how.
One thing that becomes clear is that while some companies have multiple products that target different activities involved in consumer finance, there’s no one company that does all of this. For example, there’s no tech company that allows users to both invest in stocks and bond and also take loans. Similarly, there’s no company that both gives users short term credit (credit cards) and also let them invest in the markets. Simple was an all-in-one bank, but even then that focused on the consumption side of banking, allowing for easy sending, spending and access to spending information, but it did not allow users to invest in the markets or take loans. This is how consumer banking is being “unbundled” — a bank is being broken up into its key activities, and products are emerging which do those key activities better/cheaper than banks.
I’ll end with the three main ways technology seems to be disrupting the consumer finance industry:
  1. Giving individuals better access to information (about spending, credit, investing) so that they can make better and more informed decisions
  2. Enabling individuals to borrow, invest and transfer money at lower rates than traditional financial institutions
  3. Reducing the friction and improving the experience in conducting transactions (where friction could be time, effort, clicks, etc.)

Monday, December 22, 2014

Books

Books that contributed significantly to our thinking include Computer Wars, by Charles H. Ferguson and Charles R. Morris, Complexity, by M. Mitchell Waldrop, Out of Control, by Kevin Kelly, The Theory of Investment Value, by John Burr Williams, Quest for Value, by G. Bennett Stewart, III, Creating Shareholder Value, by Alfred Rappaport, Competitive Advantage and Competitive Strategy, by Michael Porter, and all the great stuff written by Warren Buffet

Geoff Moore is a business strategist for high-tech companies and author of two best-selling books on the subject, Crossing the Chasm and Inside the Tornado. He and Tom Kippola are part of The Chasm Group, a consulting practice based on the framework of ideas in these books. The framework itself describes how high-tech markets develop in characteristic ways that set them apart from other markets, all of which can be traced back to the challenges of the Technology Adoption Life Cycle. The way in which the market overcomes these


Fwd: nice quote

"The secret of patience is to do something else in the meantime." -Spanish Proverb

Thursday, December 11, 2014

Russell Napier: This Has Never Happened Before Without A Drop In Stock Prices

Russell Napier: This Has Never Happened Before Without A Drop In Stock Prices

Tyler Durden's picture


From Russell Napier, of The Solid Ground via ERIC
It Can't Happen Here, Can It?
The Solid Ground has long flagged the importance of falling inflation expectations when nominal interest rates are so low. The Fed cannot lower nominal rates, so its control over real rates of interest rests entirely with its ability to create actual inflation or manage inflation. After five and a half years of QE, inflation expectations are very near their lows. The chart below shows the break-even inflation rate of the five-year Treasury Inflation Protected security. Over the next five years investors now expect inflation to average just below 1.3%. This level of expected inflation has always previously been associated with a decline in US equity prices. There have been no exceptions until today.
* * *
THE PROWLER
Which force is currently depressing the corporations share of GDP? It is a question worth asking, because if such suppression lifts then the corporates share of GDP can go higher and, the likelihood is, share prices will go with it. While most questions in finance are difficult to answer this one is really easy because nobody and nothing is depressing the corporations share of GDP. The usual suspects for depriving the corporation of higher profits --- labour, creditors and the state --- are all "quiescent", to use a word favoured by the man formerly known as ‘The Maestro’. Indeed, these forces are so quiescent that most equity investors consider them to be demons which have been slain.
THE SLEEPING TIGER
There is nothing in the historical record to equate dormancy with death when it comes to the future path of wages, interest rates or corporate taxation. For the equity bulls who choose to believe in the prolonged dormancy of labour, creditors and the state, all at the same time, history has a very clear warning that there is another potent force which can drive mean reversion of corporate profits and equity valuations --- deflation.
THE DAMNED
In 1919-1921, 1929-1932, 2000-2003, 2007-2009 it was not a resurgence in wages, Fed-controlled interest rates or corporate taxes which produced a collapse in corporate profits and a bear market in equities. On those four occasions equity investors suffered losses of 32%, 85%, 41% and 51% respectively despite the continued dormancy of labour, creditors and the state. It was deflation, or the fear of deflation, which cost equity investors so much. There is a simple reason why deflation has always been so damaging to corporate profits and equity valuations: it brings a credit crisis.
TIME WITHOUT PITY
Investors forget at their peril what can happen to the credit system in a highly leveraged world when cash-flows, whether of the corporate, the household or the state variety, decline. In a deflationary world credit is much more difficult to access, economic activity slows and often one very large institution or country fails and creates a systemic risk to the whole system. The collapse in commodity prices and EM currencies in conjunction with the general rise of the US$ suggests another credit crisis cannot be far away. With nominal interest rates already so low, monetary remedies to a credit seizure today would be much less effective. Such a shock, after five and a half years of QE, might suggest that the patient does not respond to this type of medicine. Investors would doubt whether monetary policy in general has the power to sustain corporate profits and with them near record-high equity valuations.
FIGURES IN A LANDSCAPE
In 2009, 2010 and 2011 US equity prices fell sharply as the five year TIPS break-even inflation rate fell below 150bp. The 2009 episode was associated with the collapse of Lehmans, resulting in massive losses for equity investors. In 2010 and 2011 the end of QE1 and then QE2 was sufficient to produce a rapid decline in inflation expectations and led to major losses for equity investors. In 2010 the S&P500 fell 16%, as the expected rate of inflation declined from 2.1% in April to 1.1% in August.
In 2011 inflation expectations fell from 2.5% in April to 1.4% in September and the S&P500 fell by 19%. In 2014 inflation expectations have fallen from 2.1% in June to 1.3% in December and the S&P500 index has risen by 6%! Prior to this year the minimum loss equity investors would have experienced given a decline in inflation expectations to 1.4% was 16%, but on this occasion they have made a profit of 6%! So, as Marvin Gaye was wont to ask, what’s going on?
ACCIDENT?
Investors are ignoring the deflation threat, as this is supposed to be the ‘good’ deflation in which prices fall boosting consumption as a consequence. This analyst doubts whether even that dynamic will be as powerful as normal given the ageing of the baby-boom generation. However, even assuming that this is exactly how consumers behave, it still ignores the major associated negative from deflation in the form of a credit shock. This analyst has long thought that the shock would come from EM, either from a commodity-exporting nation with large foreign currency debts (such as South Africa) or from a country with a large current-account deficit which is heavily reliant on short-term capital inflows (Turkey).
BOOM!
Ultimately, just such a shock would come to many places if China tired of the monetary tightening implicit in its link to the world’s strongest currency, the USD. At some stage China will need to relax the monetary reins and this will be virtually impossible if it is tethered to a rising USD. The 1994 devaluation of the RMB wreaked havoc with the finances of China’s competitors and a similar, in fact even more powerful, dynamic is evident today. A devaluation of the RMB would thus be another trigger for a credit crisis. The consensus, it would seem, views this deflationary move as one without tears. With US equities trading at 27X CAPE , that’s one hell of a bet!!

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Ramdeo - CNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiYmI80k3kk&noredirect=1

Mistakes of omission seem to be far more expensive monetarily, while mistakes of commission, on the investor psyche

Mistakes of omission:

  • HDFC bank seems to be the common theme - How to avoid?
  • Prof. Bakshi has alluded to this several times in several forms - Pay up for the best asset and then sit tight; Quality means pay-up
Mistakes of commission:
  • Infrastructure companies: Lesson learnt - Sell duds at any price
  • MTNL: Public sector value trap
  • Central Bank of India - Bull market (that is happening right now) takes everything up - hangover happens after the party not before
  • Visualsoft: Laggards will always appear cheap
Other takeaways:
  • There is no remedy to lack of conviction - Investing is a lonely game! cannot blame an analyst for buying or selling something
  • Experts fail very often cos they cannot keep noise at bay
  • Distance from management is a critical component of success - again for keeping noise at bay

Thursday, December 4, 2014

James Montier: The Stock Market Is Hideously Expensive [feedly]


 
 
Shared via feedly // published on ValueWalk // visit site
James Montier: The Stock Market Is Hideously Expensive

James Montier: The Stock Market Is Hideously Expensive by Mark Dittli, Finanz und Wirtschaft

James Montier, the outspoken value investor and member of the asset allocation team of Boston-based GMO, talks about dangerously high valuations and the virtues of holding dry powder.

Four words seem to define the current mood in financial markets: There Is No Alternative. Yes, equity markets might be somewhat expensive, but considering the alternatives – bonds and cash –, they are still the best investment. The correction in October turned out to be a mere hickup in a solid bull market. But James Montier remains skeptical. The value investor and member of the asset allocation team at Boston-based asset manager GMO sees the stock market in a near-bubble and warns investors from being complacent. «To think that central banks will always be there to bail out equity investors is incredibly dangerous», says the outspoken Brit. His source of wisdom in current markets comes from none other than Winnie the Pooh: «Never underestimate the value of doing nothing.»

James, when you screen global equity markets today: Do you still find any value?

James Montier: It's getting really tough now. It's getting harder and harder to find really good sources of value these days. There are maybe one or two pockets out there, in Europe and in some emerging markets.

Where exactly?

James Montier: Emerging markets are really bifurcated into stocks you don't want to own at all, because they are really expensive, and stocks that are outright cheap, but they are also pretty damn scary. In that field, I talk about Russian energy or Chinese banks. I personally don't like the latter but one can make the argument that they are at least optically cheap. There are a lot of reasons why these stocks are cheap. The good news is that everybody knows why they're cheap, which means it's all in the price already. But apart from that, it's really hard to find anything that is reasonably cheap out there.

So in a simple beauty contest between Russian energy versus Chinese banks you'd go for the former?

James Montier: Yes, I'd go for Russian energy. The problem with the Chinese banks is that they are optically cheap, i.e. they trade on high dividend yields and low PEs. But they are financials, and the credit cycle in China is pretty extended. We've been looking at the market-implied levels of non-performing loans in the Chinese banking system, and we came out with 9%. Which is ok, but if you look at a serious, big banking crisis, you get NPL way in excess of 9%. In Thailand in 1997 we saw a NPL level of 45%. I'm not sure there is a big margin of safety in Chinese banks. It certainly is not big enough for my taste.

Full article here Finanz und Wirtschaft

James Montier

The post James Montier: The Stock Market Is Hideously Expensive appeared first on ValueWalk.




Sent from my iPad

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

100 to 1 in the stock market


  • Never look at the data just for one year - Atleast a five year window is crucial if not a 10 year window
  • Dividend getting reinvested in a high RoCE business is far better than the business which pays out dividends with the same RoCE