Lessons from the master - X

Last week, through Warren Buffett's 1985 letter to shareholders, we got to know the master's views on his textile business. Let us go a year further and try to discuss what the guru has to say in his 1986 letter to shareholders.

The letter, as usual, though did contain quite a bit of commentary on the company's major businesses, it also had general investment related wisdom. This time around the master chose to speak on himself and his partner's role. This is what he had to say:

"Charlie Munger, our Vice Chairman, and I really have only two jobs. One is to attract and keep outstanding managers to run our various operations. This hasn't been all that difficult. Usually the managers came with the companies we bought, having demonstrated their talents throughout careers that spanned a wide variety of business circumstances. They were managerial stars long before they knew us, and our main contribution has been to not get in their way. This approach seems elementary - if my job were to manage a golf team - and if Jack Nicklaus or Arnold Palmer were willing to play for me - neither would get a lot of directives from me about how to swing."

"The second job Charlie and I must handle is the allocation of capital, which at Berkshire is a considerably more important challenge than at most companies. Three factors make that so - we earn more money than average; we retain all that we earn; and, we are fortunate to have operations that, for the most part, require little incremental capital to remain competitive and to grow. Obviously, the future results of a business earning 23% annually and retaining it all are far more affected by today's capital allocations than are the results of a business earning 10% and distributing half of that to shareholders. If our retained earnings - and those of our major investees, GEICO and Capital Cities/ABC Inc. - are employed in an unproductive manner, the economics of Berkshire will deteriorate very quickly. In a company adding only, say 5% to net worth annually, capital-allocation decisions, though still important, will change the company's economics far more slowly."

The master's non-interference in the management of the businesses he owned is now almost legendary. But just like the companies he invested in, he made sure that the people he put in charge had outstanding track records. Once that was done, he would completely move out of their way and let them manage the business. Indeed, when a business with favorable economics is run by an exceptional manager, the last thing one would want to do is upset the applecart. Yet again, while the line of thinking is simple yet extremely effective, it must have stemmed from the master's own experience of managing the operations of the textile business of Berkshire Hathaway. Having been at the wheels for years, he must have realised how difficult it is to successfully run a business and deliver knock out performances year after year.

Berkshire Hathaway, from the time Buffett has been at the helm, has never paid dividends to shareholders. This is because the master has always felt that he would be able to find a better use of capital than paying out dividends. And find he did! The returns that the company has generated for its shareholders have vastly exceeded returns by any other American company. A very difficult task indeed, especially over a very long period of time. He is also very right in saying that a company that earns above average returns and retains all earnings is likely to see its economics deteriorate much faster than a company retaining only 5% if the retained capital is not put to good use. In the end, the honours should definitely go to the company that makes the most effective use of capital.

The master rounded off the 1986 letter by introducing a concept of owner earnings, the one he frequently uses to evaluate companies. It is nothing but (a) reported earnings plus (b) depreciation, depletion, amortization, and certain other non-cash charges minus (c) the average annual amount of capitalised expenditures for plant and equipment that the business needs to fully maintain its long-term competitive position and current volumes.

While owner earnings looks similar to cash flow after capex and working capital needs, it does not take into account capex and working capital investment required for generating more volumes but instead takes into account capex that is required to maintain just the steady state operations. In other words, what we call as the maintenance capex. Since inflationary pressures can make maintenance capex look very large, analysts who do not consider it are bound to overestimate the worth of the company. In fact, this is what he has to say on those who do not consider the all-important (c) item in their evaluations.

"All of this points up the absurdity of the 'cash flow' numbers that are often set forth in Wall Street reports. These numbers routinely include (a) plus (b) - but do not subtract (c). Most sales brochures of investment bankers also feature deceptive presentations of this kind. These imply that the business being offered is the commercial counterpart of the Pyramids - forever state-of-the-art, never needing to be replaced, improved or refurbished. Indeed, if all US corporations were to be offered simultaneously for sale through our leading investment bankers - and if the sales brochures describing them were to be believed - governmental projections of national plant and equipment spending would have to be slashed by 90%."

Lessons from the master – XI

Last week, we saw the master expand upon his concept of owner earnings and the only two basic jobs that he and his partner Charlie Munger engage in through his 1986 letter to his shareholders. This week, let us see what investment wisdom he brings to the table in his 1987 letter.

We are living in a fast changing world and every few years there comes a technology or a product that just brings about a revolution and spreads across the globe like a mania. Few examples that come to mind are the automobiles and aeroplanes in the US in the early 20th century or the recent Internet and dot-com mania. However, the fact that the companies in such revolutionary industries rake up equally impressive returns on the stock market is far from truth. While loss making abilities of the US auto companies and airliners are legendary, not less infamous either is the amount of wealth that has been destroyed in the Internet bubble at the cusp of the 21st century. No wonder this is what the master has to stay on which companies end up winners in the stock market.

"Experience indicates that the best business returns are usually achieved by companies that are doing something quite similar today to what they were doing five or ten years ago. That is no argument for managerial complacency. Businesses always have opportunities to improve service, product lines, manufacturing techniques, and the like, and obviously these opportunities should be seized. But a business that constantly encounters major change also encounters many chances for major error. Furthermore, economic terrain that is forever shifting violently is ground on which it is difficult to build a fortress-like business franchise. Such a franchise is usually the key to sustained high returns."

"Berkshire's experience has been similar. Our managers have produced extraordinary results by doing rather ordinary things - but doing them exceptionally well. Our managers protect their franchises, they control costs, they search for new products and markets that build on their existing strengths and they don't get diverted. They work exceptionally hard at the details of their businesses, and it shows."

Indeed, with technology changing so fast in industries such as auto and Internet, it becomes really difficult to zero in on a company that will continue to exist ten years from now and in the process still give attractive returns. This is definitely not the case with a single product company existing in an industry, where more the things change more they remain the same.

In an era when investing in equities had been reduced to nothing more than moving in and out of companies based on their quotations, the master was a breed different from the rest. He did not let fluctuations in stock prices influence his investment decisions but rather viewed investments from the point of view of a business analyst, judging companies on the basis of their operating results and viewing stock market not as a guide but as a servant. Laid out below is what perhaps is one of the most lucid yet one of the most effective explanations of how one should view the stock market.

The master says, "Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. MARKET who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his.

Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market's quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him.

Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic - he doesn't mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you.

But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice - Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to either ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren't certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don't belong in the game".

Lessons from the master – XII

In our previous article on Warren Buffet's letter to shareholders, we discussed the master's 1987 letter and got to know his preference for businesses that are simple and easy to understand. In the same letter, Buffett also explained the concept of 'Mr Market' in a rather detailed way. Let us now see what the master has to offer in his 1988 letter to shareholders.

The year 1988 turned out to be quite an eventful one for Berkshire Hathaway, the master's investment vehicle. While the year saw the listing of the company on the New York Stock Exchange, it also turned out to be the year when Buffett made what can be termed as one of its best investments ever. Yes, we are talking about the company Coca Cola. The letter too was not short on investment wisdom either. Although he did discuss previously touched upon topics like accounting and management quality, these are not what we will focus on. Instead, let us see what the master has to say on some novel concepts like arbitrage and his take on the efficient market theory.

For those of you who would have thought that Warren Buffett is all about value investing and extremely lengthy time horizons, the mention of the word 'arbitrage' must have come as a pleasant surprise or may be, even as a shock. However, the master did engage in 'arbitrage' but in very small quantities and this is what he has to say on it.

"In past reports we have told you that our insurance subsidiaries sometimes engage in arbitrage as an alternative to holding short-term cash equivalents. We prefer, of course, to make major long-term commitments, but we often have more cash than good ideas. At such times, arbitrage sometimes promises much greater returns than Treasury Bills and, equally important, cools any temptation we may have to relax our standards for long-term investments."

First of all, let us see how does he define arbitrage.

"Since World War I the definition of arbitrage - or "risk arbitrage," as it is now sometimes called - has expanded to include the pursuit of profits from an announced corporate event such as sale of the company, merger, recapitalization, reorganization, liquidation, self-tender, etc. In most cases the arbitrageur expects to profit regardless of the behavior of the stock market. The major risk he usually faces instead is that the announced event won't happen."

Just as in his long-term investments, in arbitrage too, the master brings his legendary risk aversion technique to the fore and puts forth his criteria for evaluating arbitrage situations.

"To evaluate arbitrage situations you must answer four questions: (1) How likely is it that the promised event will indeed occur? (2) How long will your money be tied up? (3) What chance is there that something still better will transpire - a competing takeover bid, for example? and (4) What will happen if the event does not take place because of anti-trust action, financing glitches, etc.?"

And how exactly does he differ from other arbitrageurs? Let us hear the answer in his own words.

"Because we diversify so little, one particularly profitable or unprofitable transaction will affect our yearly result from arbitrage far more than it will the typical arbitrage operation. So far, Berkshire has not had a really bad experience. But we will - and when it happens we'll report the gory details to you."

"The other way we differ from some arbitrage operations is that we participate only in transactions that have been publicly announced. We do not trade on rumors or try to guess takeover candidates. We just read the newspapers, think about a few of the big propositions, and go by our own sense of probabilities."

Another important topic that the master touched upon in his 1988 letter was that of the Efficient Market Theory (EMT). This theory had become something like a cult in the financial academic circles in the 1970s and to put it simply, stated that stock analysis is an exercise in futility since the prices reflected virtually all the public information and hence, it was impossible to beat the market on a regular basis. However, this is what the master had to say on the investment professionals and academics who followed the theory to the 'Tee'.

"Observing correctly that the market was frequently efficient, they went on to conclude incorrectly that it was always efficient. The difference between these propositions is night and day."

In order to justify his stance, the master states that if beating markets would have been impossible, then he and his mentor, Benjamin Graham, would not have notched up returns in the region of 20% year after year for an incredibly long stretch of 63 years, when the market returns during the same period were just under 10% including dividends. Hence, despite evidences to the contrary, EMT continued to remain popular and forced the master to make the following comment.

"Over the 63 years, the general market delivered just under a 10% annual return, including dividends. That means US$ 1,000 would have grown to US$ 405,000 if all income had been reinvested. A 20% rate of return, however, would have produced US$ 97 m. That strikes us as a statistically significant differential that might, conceivably, arouse one's curiosity. Yet proponents of the theory have never seemed interested in discordant evidence of this type. True, they don't talk quite as much about their theory today as they used to. But no one, to my knowledge, has ever said he was wrong, no matter how many thousands of students he has sent forth misinstructed. EMT, moreover, continues to be an integral part of the investment curriculum at major business schools. Apparently, a reluctance to recant, and thereby to demystify the priesthood, is not limited to theologians."

Market v/s YOU

"An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and an adequate return.' This was how Benjamin Graham defined 'investment'. And rightly so! At these times, when the markets are witnessing high levels of volatility, it becomes an ardent need for stock buyers to understand this difference between a speculative activity and investment. It requires just a misguided step for investor to turn his investment venture into a speculative misadventure.

In this regard, Graham's parable of 'Mr. Market' stands in good stead. This is, probably, one of the best metaphors ever created for explaining how stocks can become mispriced. Through this parable, Graham asks investors to imagine a non-existing person called Mr. Market who is your (investor's) partner in a private business. He appears daily and names a price (stock quotation) at which he would either buy your interest or sell you his. Now, despite the fact that both Mr. Market and you have stable business interests, his quotations are rarely so. At times, he falls so ecstatic that he sees only the favourable factors affecting business. And this is the time he would name a very high buy-sell price because he fears that if he does not quote such a high price, you would buy his interest in the enterprise and rob him of imminent gains.

And then there are times when this very Mr. Market is so depressed that he sees nothing but trouble ahead for both business and the world. These are the occasions when he would name a very low price, as he is terrified that if he does not do so, you would burden him (sell him) with your interest in the business.

Now, Graham says that if you were a prudent investor or a sensible businessman, you would not let Mr. Market's daily communication determine your view of the value of your interest in the enterprise. You may be happy to sell out to him when he quotes you a ridiculously high price, and equally happy to buy from him when his price is low. But at the rest of the time, you would be wiser to form your own ideas of the value of your holdings, based on full reports from the company about its operations and financial position.

What Graham tells investors through this parable of Mr. Market is that they should look at market fluctuations in terms of the Mr. Market example. They should make these fluctuations as their friend rather then their enemy. This means that they should neither give in to temptations that rising markets bring with them nor should they think of doom when the markets are falling incessantly.

Coming back to the abovementioned definition of an investment operation, investors need to have a long-term (two to three years) perspective when making their investment decision. Only then would the promised safety of principal and an adequate return accrue to them. Now, the term 'adequate return' typically varies from investor to investor. A high-risk investor would demand a high return from his investment from the extra bit of risk he is taking. On the other hand, a low-risk investor would settle for a relatively lower return. Having said that, in a rising market, expectations tend to be on the higher side without a fundamental premise. Here is where 'Mr. Market' could mislead you. If you believe that 15% per annum is an 'adequate return', then stick to that irrespective of whether it is a bull market or a bear market. Otherwise, you are changing i.e. risk profile is changing, which is not required.

As Graham says, '...in the short term, the market is a 'voting' machine whereon countless individuals register choices that are product partly of reason and partly of emotion. However, in the long-term, the market is a 'weighing' machine on which the value of each issue (business) is recorded by an exact and impersonal mechanism.' Happy investing!

Note: Characters in italics are quotes from Benjamin Graham.