I generally analyse a good number of companies before investing in a few. A lot of times i am not able to figure out, with reasonable confidence, the range of intrinsic value estimates for the company. I have had this problem with telecom, retail companies etc. These are companies in a new, sunrise industry. There is a lot of promise and enthusiam around the companies and the valuations may reflect that. I do not have a doubt that these companies and industries will do well. The problem for me is figuring out how well, and how much of that is already built into the stock price.
On the other end are companies which are essentially conglomerates or a combination of businesses such as Reliance, IOC etc. These are in mature industries and are good companies. They may very well be undervalued. The problem for me is that they have a lot of moving parts. IOC has a 400 page annual report, relaince has (or used to have) a lot smaller businesses such as telecom, asset management and now retail etc. So analysing these companies would mean taking apart each of the sub-businesses, valuing each of them separately and then arriving at the whole value. Impossible …no, but definitely tough and a lot of work.
Compare that to the simple (as least to me) businesses such as castrol (lubes), Lanxess ABS(ABS), marico (FMCG), asian paints (paints), concor etc. I could go on and on. These companies are engaged in a single line of business, nationally or in some cases in international markets. They have a decent operating history, dominant position in a stable market, and in some cases attractive valuations. To boot, some even have a small annual reports to analyse (just joking!).
I have invested in both the complex and in the simple businesses (avoided the sunrise type industry as I don’t have a better idea of these businesses). Overall, I found that the simple businesses are easier to understand, to follow on a regular basis and in the end give good returns.
I am clearly influenced by the following quote by warren buffett
"Investors should remember that their scorecard is not computed using Olympic-diving methods: Degree-of-difficulty doesn't count. If you are right about a business whose value is largely dependent on a single key factor that is both easy to understand and enduring, the payoff is the same as if you had correctly analyzed an investment alternative characterized by many constantly shifting and complex variables."
So if I have an option between a diffcult to understand, complex conglomerate and a simple business(all else being the same), I generally opt for the simpler business.
January 9, 2007
January 1, 2007
A new Era
I have been noticing in the past few weeks that interest rates have started hardening. I do not have the exact figures, but it seems that the rates for housing loans have started approaching double digits now.
I wrote a post on interest rates a year back (see here). Back in 2003-2004 the rates were at an all time low (as low as 7.5% fixed and 7.25 % variable). However everyone looking at the immediate past, were prediciting further drops (what else would explain almost everyone’s preference for variable rate loans?). I almost got into an argument with the loan officer in getting a fixed rate loan (the loan officer kept telling me that I was making a big mistake).
My logic in working out a rough pricing level for loans was detailed here. General extremes in valuations, whether stock or interest rates are easier to spot (although I cannot predict them). However I do not know if the rates are high now, will rise or fall in the future. What I feel strongly is that any rate lower than 8% is good and should be locked in via a fixed rate loan.
There are a few new conventional ideas now prevalent such as
- real estate is great investment at any price and will rise 20-30 % per annum due to the extreme shortage of real estate in india (for better idea of real estate bubbles, read about the 90’s real estate bubble in japan)
- Indian economy has entered a new era and stocks are worth more now. Every drop in the market as a result presents a new opportunity to buy
I don’t claim that I know any better on the above two new convential ideas in vogue currently. I am however unwilling to pay for the bright and shiny new future in these investment classes (stocks and real estate)
I wrote a post on interest rates a year back (see here). Back in 2003-2004 the rates were at an all time low (as low as 7.5% fixed and 7.25 % variable). However everyone looking at the immediate past, were prediciting further drops (what else would explain almost everyone’s preference for variable rate loans?). I almost got into an argument with the loan officer in getting a fixed rate loan (the loan officer kept telling me that I was making a big mistake).
My logic in working out a rough pricing level for loans was detailed here. General extremes in valuations, whether stock or interest rates are easier to spot (although I cannot predict them). However I do not know if the rates are high now, will rise or fall in the future. What I feel strongly is that any rate lower than 8% is good and should be locked in via a fixed rate loan.
There are a few new conventional ideas now prevalent such as
- real estate is great investment at any price and will rise 20-30 % per annum due to the extreme shortage of real estate in india (for better idea of real estate bubbles, read about the 90’s real estate bubble in japan)
- Indian economy has entered a new era and stocks are worth more now. Every drop in the market as a result presents a new opportunity to buy
I don’t claim that I know any better on the above two new convential ideas in vogue currently. I am however unwilling to pay for the bright and shiny new future in these investment classes (stocks and real estate)
Fortune’s formulae – II
I just finished reading the book. In addition to my previous post on the topic (see here), I found the following important points and learnings
- Size your bet/ stock position based on the edge or odds. Although I don’t have a scientific formulae behind it, my typical approach is to put 2-5 % of my portfolio in a stock where the odds are 3:1 or less. For cases where the risk is low and I have a very high level of confidence, my typical wieghtage is around 10%. I however rarely exceed 10% in a single stock. I however do not resort to portfolio rebalancing and allow my winners to run.
- Geometric return is more important than arithmetic return. Geometric returns are the compound returns from an investment whereas arithmetic returns are the average of the annual returns.
- Fat tails in the distribution of returns can cause large fluctuations in the portfolio value. As a result managing risk through optimal portfolio sizing and diversification is important (personal thought: buying real estate in 5 different cities is not diversification. More important diverisification criteria is to spread money across asset classes)
- Size your bet/ stock position based on the edge or odds. Although I don’t have a scientific formulae behind it, my typical approach is to put 2-5 % of my portfolio in a stock where the odds are 3:1 or less. For cases where the risk is low and I have a very high level of confidence, my typical wieghtage is around 10%. I however rarely exceed 10% in a single stock. I however do not resort to portfolio rebalancing and allow my winners to run.
- Geometric return is more important than arithmetic return. Geometric returns are the compound returns from an investment whereas arithmetic returns are the average of the annual returns.
- Fat tails in the distribution of returns can cause large fluctuations in the portfolio value. As a result managing risk through optimal portfolio sizing and diversification is important (personal thought: buying real estate in 5 different cities is not diversification. More important diverisification criteria is to spread money across asset classes)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)