Feeds:
Posts
Comments

holdings

Accurate as of 21 June 2013

Initial Net Asset Value: $10.00

Net Asset Value as of  21 June 2013: $13.75

graph

Hypothetical Growth of $10,000 invested since September 2011 (NAV at September 2011 was $9.71)

* A total return index is an index that measures the performance of a group of components by assuming that all cash distributions (dividends) are reinvested, in addition to tracking the components’ price movements

* I have changed the benchmark to the iShares S & P 500 TR Index to reflect the fees of a index fund. NAV is calculated net transaction costs and tax.

* Portfolio Net Asset Value will be updated quarterly at the end of the third week of each month.

Good reads from around the web:

This will be my final piece on investing as I look to take a break from writing. It represents the culmination of not only my own investing experiences to date, but the work of countless others that have come before me. They form the foundation of all that I know about investing, and I hope you find it useful.

The markets are generally efficient at pricing securities. So in that way, I do agree with the general notion of the efficient market theory. What we exploit, and how we invest is to find pockets of market inefficiency, and to exploit the differences between price and intrinsic value.

To understand where to look for market inefficiencies, it’s easiest to examine the underlying assumptions of the efficient market theory. I will be covering the ones which I feel most pertinent.

Imperfect information:

The more coverage a stock receives, the harder it is to find divergences in intrinsic value based on traditional forms of valuation. They exist sporadically and infrequently – and right now, we are betting on two highly publicized companies in the US where coverage is high – Bank of America & AIG (our thesis is that the legacy problems that have led to recent lackluster results are being resolved, and their true earnings power will eventually be realized).

One has to take healthy stock in their own abilities as an investor. People who work in the financial industry are generally smart and highly motivated. It is extremely hard to possess an informational edge on companies that widely covered since so many people are working on the same problem as you are. Is it possible to generate superior insight by the careful study of annual reports and financial data? Yes. But the task inevitably becomes much harder, and the payoff far less rewarding with high profile names as such inefficiencies are inevitably arbitraged away as information about the business becomes commonplace.

Following that train of thought, it is logical to deduce that gaining an informational edge is much easier by looking where no one else is. Take for example, the Singapore Stock Exchange. While there are about 450 companies listed, only about 50 companies receive widespread institutional coverage. Gaining an investment edge through rigorous analysis of the remaining 400 thus offers a much higher probability of success since there is little competition. Valuations that typically exist during recession like conditions in more developed financial markets like the United States & the United Kingdom (or Greece now) are commonplace in Singapore.

Inevitably as the markets develop in Asia, such opportunities will cease to exist. But such developments do not happen instantaneously. The evolution of the financial industry in Wall Street took decades to play out. If history is of any relevance to us, I daresay that the development of the industry in Asia will take a similar path, and it will be many years before such opportunities cease to be.

As such, the well-worn path is one that we must avoid if your goal is superior market returns. There is nothing inherently wrong with investing in a benchmark index. However if one aspires to do better than the market, it is inherently illogical that you can achieve that goal by investing like everyone else is. Markets such as Singapore & Japan provide fertile ground for the enterprising and hardworking investor, and as markets continue to open up in Asia – notably China, Thailand & Myanmar among many others – there will be ample opportunities to exploit.

Market prices do not always reflect intrinsic value:

The underlying assumption behind ALL fundamental analysis is that the markets will eventually recognize the underlying value of the security. If you are long a stock, you believe that there’s a divergence between price and value – and that the markets are incorrectly pricing it below what it’s actually worth. If you are short a stock, you believe that the market is placing a far greater value than whatever the business is actually worth.

In truth, learning how to value a business is the easiest part of investing. Through careful study and due diligence, it is not hard to arrive at an estimate of what a business is worth. The difficulty comes in waiting for the market to recognize what we believe to be true.

The traditional bread and butter approach of a value investor is to find companies trading at a discount to intrinsic value, and than waiting for the markets to revalue them to what they are really worth.

Let me present to you a variation of this, one still anchored from the foundations of a focus on intrinsic value, but borne out of my own experiences from how financial markets work. For us to do that, we need to establish the premise behind exploiting this “market inefficiency”.

Humans are rationally irrational. Even after thousands of years, all of us, regardless of our origins are governed by the same fundamental emotions of greed and fear. Investment opportunities that are widely purported to make money (whether they do so is another question) are often exploited by other people. Witness the junk bond mania of the 1980s, the dot-com frenzy of the 1990s, and the sub-prime crisis of the 2000s.

Thus while we invest on the premise that the price of an underlying security and its intrinsic value will eventually converge, the truth is that for the most part, they don’t. Believing that markets operate rationally is the surest way to folly as they reflect so little of what reality is. In the short run, the stock market is like a voting machine. It’s driven by a herd like mentality – and emotions.

Consider this, while value investors like to talk about investing for the “long-run”, the truth is no one knows just when this revaluation will take place, if it ever does (if you know someone who does, my advice is to run for the hills). It could be weeks, months or years. The whole point of speaking in broad specifics is that it affords us the margin of error seeing that we have no clue when it would happen. We have our rough ideas and our expectations, but they are rarely right. If there existed an exact science of forecasting, investors would have no need of portfolio diversification.

In the real world, prices for most transactions are governed by the fundamental laws of demand and supply. When the number of buyers exceeds the number of sellers, prices rise, and when the reverse happens, prices fall. The deeper the market, the greater the liquidity, the smaller the mis-pricings between the prices of what buyers and sellers demand.

The real investment opportunity comes when the normal state of the markets are thrown into turmoil without warning. Consider for example, panic selling in the wake of market wide declines. The number of sellers who want to get out of their positions far outweighs those who are trying to get into the market. They are highly motivated to get out and sometimes not because they want to, but because they are forced to due to margin calls, excessive leverage etc. You are essentially playing the role of a trader, exploiting the differences in positioning that both parties have.

And that’s why sometimes intrinsic value doesn’t matter at all. If you are a large institutional firm taking a huge short position, and word gets round that you need to get out for your position, you are screwed. The market is going to make use of your need to cover your shorts to extract the highest possible price because you have no say in the matter. It doesn’t matter whether your thesis is right or wrong. Let’s say you’re house is being foreclosed and being auctioned off. Now, the value of your property conservatively valued might be $500,000. But more often than not, you won’t get anywhere close to that sum. You aren’t in a position to bargain. Intrinsic value doesn’t matter.

One of the reasons why distressed debt investing is so profitable isn’t that the underlying businesses behind them are great. They aren’t. Rather investors can pay such depressed prices for their debt that it far compensates them for any risk that they are required to assume. They are placed in a superior bargaining position to demand lucrative prices. If you pay 20 cents for bond with a par value of $1, a lot can go wrong and you can still make a lot of money!

If I could sum this “market inefficiency” in one sentence, it’s that investors should be waiting for situations where the number of sellers far exceeds the number of buyers. This is different from the traditional associated form of “value investing”, because it requires you to be highly tuned in to the market. You take on the mind of a trader, keeping up with the latest developments, waiting for situations to unfold. These investment opportunities normally only exist for short spans of time.

Closer to home, let’s take the situation of the locally listed company – Olam.

When word that Muddy Waters had taken a short position in Olam, market value of its listed debt and equity declined considerably in value. Investors were highly motivated to get out of their positions. Like every other time, it was a case of do first, think later. Now, depending on what you though Olam was actually worth, there was a significant chance to buy the same company at a significant discount to what it was trading just a couple of days earlier – literally a contrarian trade with a short time horizon and not one where the holding period was years.

Individual investors don’t need to do anything when there’s nothing to do:

More than anything else, this is the biggest advantage that individual investors have over institutions. Institutions thrive on activity, and they need to be doing something or anything to justify their fees. Funds have to be fully invested, opinions have to be given even when no intelligent conclusions can be formed, and institutions in general, tend to crowd into the same trades.

Individual investors face none of that burden, and it’s the most powerful advantage you have. You can wait for indefinite periods of time for the right pitch to surface before moving, and you should exploit this advantage to the fullest.

Let me walk through how advantageous by highlighting an example close to home.

Those of you familiar with me know that I generally hold a bearish view of the property market in Singapore. Prices have risen considerably, and the general sentiment of the average investor is far too bullish for me to be comfortable, especially with what is essentially a highly geared investment. An investment idea which combines high levels of debt, and the assumption that interests rates continue to remain depressed indefinitely and that prices of houses continue to rise (or remain level at least) is one that in my view, doomed to end badly (this is what the sub-prime crisis in essence was).

But this is where the individual investor has a huge advantage. If I do not want to invest in property, I don’t have to! Sure, the average person might feel the compelling need to since all his friends are getting rich doing so, but that is different from an obligation to do so.

Now, consider this, if you were running an institutional fund and property stocks or REITs just had a terrific run, you certainly might have reached the same conclusion as me that they were overvalued. But, calls from your clients would soon come in, asking why you weren’t loaded up with property stocks when rival fund manager XYZ who had done much better than you, was. Clients would soon start leaving you, feeling you out of touched with the “new-age” of investing, and soon your livelihood – directly correlated to the amount of assets you managed would be threatened. You would be compelled to start making investments in these assets despite your own personal beliefs – not because you wanted to but because you had to.

Sound farfetched? It isn’t.

What I’ve described has repeated itself countless times throughout history. It’s the same reason why funds are normally crowded into the same trades all at the same time. It’s far better (and easier) to fail conventionally, together, than it is to succeed unconventionally, alone.

In my view, this is really the biggest advantage that individual investors have. The ability to do nothing when there’s nothing intelligent to do, and to swing for the fences when the right pitch comes is fundamental to generating market beating returns. The only way to achieve superior results is to do what no one else is doing.

Final thoughts:

I have drawn upon the works of countless others, coupled with close to three years of investment experience to reach the conclusions above. While not exhaustive, they provide the bulk of what has come to define my own approach to investing, and like all things, will continue to evolve as the years roll by. While I’ve enjoyed it, this will be my last piece of investment writing for a long time coming. To end off, I echo the words of Benjamin Graham which apply not only to investing, but life as well – you are never right or wrong because of what other people say, but because of your research and because of your reasoning. If both are sound, have the conviction to stick to your beliefs and stay the course, no matter what others may say, and in time, you will be duly rewarded.

In this letter, I thought I take a break from tradition and not talk about the performance of the fund. Instead, I like to share the experiences I had over the past 18 months, the conclusions I’ve drawn, and where I am personally taking my life in future.

The two most fundamental things which exist for us are time and money. We study hard to get a degree, work hard to get a good job to help us attain the financial capability that we desire. In return, we exchange our time to achieve this goal. People with money have the opposite “problem”. With enough money, they can purchase “time” by hiring people to work for them, to do their chores and to settle their problems.

A word on investing. The prudent management of your money, combined with frugal spending habits, in the long run will make you a rich person. Not filthy rich, but rich nonetheless. The problem with this is that it requires (1) a sizable amount of capital to begin with & (2) a considerable amount of time in the length of decades.

Depending on your goals, your current financial standing, and your resources, this may suffice. However, underlying this is the assumption that you and I are going to live for a long time, and that you want to lead frugal lives.

If there’s anything I’ve learnt, it’s that life is unpredictable.

You have no idea what’s about to befall you. Illness, death, tragedy. There is no guarantee that each of us will live to a ripe old age. While I admire Buffett, I certainly do not wish to lead his life. While he draws happiness and contentment from reading annual reports and investing, my own interests vary a great deal from him. I like to live a large life, seeing and learning everything there is in the world, experiencing the different things there are, and trying everything at least once.

Your mileage may vary, and I think the most important thing I’ve realized is that respecting someone is one thing, but idol worship is another. Implanting the ideals of another on yourself will not make you a happy person.

Where does this lead us?

All great fortunes can be traced back to a few industries – oil, finance, real estate and finally, owning your own business. The world is a dramatically different place than it was 50 years ago, and the opportunities really are boundless. Today, at the tip of your fingers, you have access to information from world class experts around the world. You have the ability to tap onto help from people working in different countries. You have the capacity to learn anything that you could possibly want to. Whole industries are undergoing revolution. Just look at traditional business models like retail and publishing – which have been unseated by upstarts like Amazon.

The traditional path which we have been cultivated to believe will work from young to succeed is broken. Built for a different world, the rules of everything are being re-written. Unless you have a specific career that you wish to embark on like medicine or law, there is really little utility in possessing a degree. Bear in mind that I am coming from the point of view that you want to experience all of life, to achieve financial independence, and to be outside the “system” – all at a relatively young age.

I do not purport to have the answers… yet. But what I do know is that the traditional path will not help you get there if these are the things you want. Investing can only take you so far, and even if you are a brilliant investor, and unless you choose to leverage on your talents and work in the financial industry, it is impossible to reach these goals (assuming you are starting out with little or no capital of your own).

In light of all this, I decided to devote the next few years of my life to carve out an unconventional plan to reach my goal. From the fees generated from managing money, I intend to channel it to exploring different avenues and project (think venture capital). It’s a different ball game. But like all investing, there’s always a trade off where you invest you capital. In the end, readers must ask themselves whether their capital is best used investing passively, and where there exists a “ceiling” to their returns (Buffett managed 30% per annum at his peak), or to invest in uncharted waters where the risks and rewards are harder to map out.

I had fun time writing till now. I don’t intend to stop investing any time soon. I love every moment of it. It is one of those truly holistic professions, drawing from every discipline. You can do it every day, and the markets will always find a new way to surprise you. I intend to do this for a very long time.

While it will continue to be part of my arsenal of skills, I intend to take the time to explore different ventures. A new blog will possibly be built to split it off in the future to document this. To end off, I will be blogging much less in the future, and I wish everyone all the best in their endeavors going forward.

holdings

Accurate as of 17 March 2013

Initial Net Asset Value: $10.00

Net Asset Value as of  17 March 2013: $12.85

graph

Hypothetical Growth of $10,000 invested since September 2011 (NAV at September 2011 was $9.71)

* A total return index is an index that measures the performance of a group of components by assuming that all cash distributions (dividends) are reinvested, in addition to tracking the components’ price movements

* I have changed the benchmark to the iShares S & P 500 TR Index to reflect the fees of a index fund. NAV is calculated net transaction costs and tax.

* Portfolio Net Asset Value will be updated quarterly at the end of the third week of each month.

I have been following Apple for quite a while now, and its trading history for the past year reflects the fickle sentiments of the market.

There was little doubt that under Steve Jobs, Apple was a fantastic company: a poster child of innovation, brilliance and cutting edge technology, combined with incredible returns on capital and a solid balance sheet to boot. I recommend reading Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson to see the incredible amount of influence Jobs had on the corporate culture of Apple.

2012 was a challenging year for Apple. The emergence of Samsung as a dominant player in the Smartphone industry and the bumbling of key releases such as iOS 6 and the maps fiasco were just some of the challenges it faced. For me, the transition in leadership was the most pivotal.

Apple is unique in many ways: it enjoys an unparallel following, not only by its customers, but by those that purchase its stock. Following on from forum chatter and reports from industry analysts, it’s not hard to deduce that Apple has some of the most ardent supporters in the industry.

For me, the decision to not invest in Apple was quite simple. I think that Apple is a brilliant company. My family owns a number of devices: the iPhone, various renditions of the iPad, and I personally understand Apple’s appeal. It has an unparalleled track record at allocating capital and for persistent growth, despite operating in a highly competitive and notoriously unstable industry.

What worked against it as an investment were two variables: valuation and the sentiment surrounding the company. Around this time last year, the projections of Apple’s growth were absurd in my opinion, with rumors and news stories flying around about whether Apple was going to release the next version of the iPhone, the iPad mini etc. Furthermore, Apple’s touching a market capitalization of $500 billion was another red flag to me.

Jim Rogers once opined that very few people make money by buying at historical highs. While this alone is not a conclusive factor, it does weigh heavily. Logically it is much harder for a company to go from $500 billion to $1 trillion than it is for a company to grow from $1 billion to a $100 billion. At some point in time, you run out of customers to sell to and your economies of scale disappear. Whether Apple had hit this point is up for debate, but the probability of this certainly weighed against the company.

Finally, the growth projections that were laid out were in my view highly dubious. I have a very low opinion of projections into the future considering that analysts do not even know what products are definitely going to be released. My worry, as with all growth stories, is what happens with companies who fail to meet growth projections. No company has ever consistently met projections and for that very reason, history is littered with businesses that failed as opposed to those that have succeeded. The odds are just heavily skewed against your favor if you choose to invest with the tide.

Fast forward to today, the sentiment in Apple has swung to the other side. Analysts are no longer as bullish as they once were with margins being squeezed. And yet it is in this that to a contrarian investor such as me the greatest opportunity lies. While I am not longing to invest in Apple at the point of writing, it certainly is far more attractive at $450 than at $700, and I will certainly be watching closely as events further unfold.

 

holding

Accurate as of 22 December 2012

Initial Net Asset Value: $10.00

Net Asset Value as of  22 December 2012: $11.43

Hypothetical Growth of $10,000 invested since September 2011 (NAV at September 2011 was $9.71)

graph

* A total return index is an index that measures the performance of a group of components by assuming that all cash distributions (dividends) are reinvested, in addition to tracking the components’ price movements

* I have changed the benchmark to the iShares S & P 500 TR Index to reflect the fees of a index fund. NAV is calculated net transaction costs and tax.

* Portfolio Net Asset Value will be updated quarterly at the end of the third week of each month.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 648 other followers