Showing posts with label NewsHighlight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NewsHighlight. Show all posts

Newshighlight (10)

by January 14, 2012


Happy New year readers. As usual, very busy writing my book on "how to earn extra money during your free time" hence i hardly have any time to update you with the lastest market gems (yes GEMs!) i found since mid last year. Nevertheless, enjoy this article by Dr. David Kass commentary on Warren Buffett.

Warren Buffett’s Meeting with University of Maryland MBA Students – March 11, 2011
March 17th, 2011 by dkass under Uncategorized. 7 Comments.

Notes Taken by Professors David Kass and Sarah Kroncke, Department of Finance, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland)


Dr. David Kass with Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett (WB) met with 20 MBA students from each of eight universities, including the University of Maryland, on March 11, 2011. He began his two-hour Q & A session by mentioning that he would answer questions on any topic except what Berkshire is planning to buy or sell. He further stated that he tapes his mouth shut at night so he would not say what to buy or sell in his sleep. The MBA students asked 21 questions in the following order:

(1) Do you believe that Africa will be the major driver of world growth in the years ahead?

WB: China will be a bigger driver of growth in the next 10-20 years. They are growing from a smaller base than that of the U.S. The U.S. and the rest of the world will be growing rapidly as well. The U.S. can’t grow as fast as China on a per capita basis. People are becoming more productive, so output per capita will increase. The question is how will this output get distributed.

(2) Can you explain your philosophy of not splitting your stock?

WB: Berkshire wants to attract shareholders who focus on long run earnings. Investors should not buy a stock just for a split. In the mid-1990’s Berkshire effectively split its stock by issuing class B shares to thwart someone who was planning to sell unit trusts in Berkshire that was tax inefficient. Many people who would have bought shares in that unit trust would have sold at a loss and been upset with Berkshire. Berkshire did split its B shares in February 2010 when it acquired Burlington Northern (BNI) in order to offer BNI shareholders holding less than $3,000 of stock the opportunity to participate in a tax free deal. Berkshire does not want to attract shareholders who are focused on next quarter’s earnings or stock splits. A company’s value is the same regardless of how many pieces you slice it into. Berkshire measures its success over time by how little turnover there is in its shares.

(3) If you were to meet Benjamin Graham tomorrow, what would be your critiques, or what things did he get wrong?

MBA student trip to see Warren Buffett, March 2011
WB: Read every book on investing in the library by the time he was 11 and bought his first stock. Read the Intelligent Investor in 1949 or 1950 when it was published. There is nothing in the book that needs to be changed. Its main principles are: (1) margin of safety, (2) buying dollar bills at a discount, and (3) awareness of the inability to predict the future. In 1970 or 1971 Benjamin Graham, who was ill, asked him to revise the book. He may have added something about inflation, but the fundamentals have remained the same for himself and Charlie (Munger).

(4) Looking back at the financial crisis, did you learn anything that you didn’t know before?

WB: Learned how bad things could get. Knew there was a housing bubble, but surprised by the speed at which it spread, the way the dominoes toppled, and the need for the government to act. In September, when Lehman went down, that Sunday, if Ken Lewis (Bank of America) had not bought Merrill Lynch (ML), ML would have gone down on Monday. Everyone was terrified. No one trusted anyone else or even placing their money under a mattress. Berkshire sold a $5 million Treasury Bill in December 2008, due in April 2009, for $5,000,070. The purchaser would get back $5 million at maturity and earn a negative return (losing $70). People didn’t trust each other. Banks didn’t trust each other. Bernanke, Paulson, and Geithner understood that speed was needed. President Bush said the most important 10 words in economic history: “If money doesn’t loosen up, this sucker is going down”. He backed up Paulson. There are certain chairmen, presidents, and Treasury secretaries that might have frozen. If anyone had frozen for a few weeks, it would have been too late. Congress did not get it at first. When they initially voted down TARP, the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 750 points that day, coming close to a financial Armageddon. This was potentially a lot more serious than the 1930’s, although there was a worse social impact at that time. After Lehman failed, money market funds held $3.5 trillion which was equal to one-half domestic deposits at banks. In three days, $175 billion (or 5% of money market funds) was removed from money market accounts. To whom would these funds liquidate assets (commercial paper)? Only the government could have stepped in, which it did. At that time Berkshire had already committed to come up with $6.6 billion to assist Mars in its purchase of Wrigley. He has never seen a panic period like this one. One should buy what you can pay for. If you are smart you do not need to borrow. If you are dumb, you do not know what to do with the amount you borrow.

(5) Does the U.S. have a sustainable competitive advantage versus the emerging countries?

WB: In the 1920’s 32% of Americans worked on farms. Today, that number is 3%. In the 1980’s Americans thought that Germany and Japan would dominate the world’s economies. However, over the next decade the U.S. created 20 million jobs. We have a system that works and encourages creativity. Since 1995, the Internet has changed the world.

(6) Question about WB convincing 60 billionaires to contribute a large percentage of their wealth to charities such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

WB: What the billionaires have pledged to give away will not hurt them (lower their standard of living). WB is giving away 99% of his wealth and it leaves him with enough. Would rather that his wealth wipe out malaria over time rather than build the world’s biggest tomb, or buy ten 747’s. The middle class is the most philanthropic class in the world, contributing 2% of GDP to charity.

(7) In the past you have said your investment philosophy was 85% Graham and 15% Fisher. Has that changed?

WB: Started out looking for cigar butts with one puff left. There were lots available in the 1950’s. That approach does not work well with large amounts of money to invest. His philosophy has shifted slightly more toward Fisher. Berkshire currently has $150 billion in cash and investments. He met Charlie Munger in 1959 who argued for investing in wonderful businesses and sit with them as they get better over time. In 1951 WB picked up the Moody’s Manual for that year and found Western Insurance selling at ½ times earnings. A few years ago someone sent him a book entitled “Korean Stock Market”. He found 15 – 20 stocks selling for 2X earnings. It was like the old days. He has also made mistakes such as his 1968 purchase of Blue Chip Trading Stamps whose sales have dropped from $120 million at its peak to $18,000. Dexter Shoe was another bad business that he bought. You need to get on an 80 mph train that is speeding up.

(8) Question about the Omaha economy and more rural parts of the mid-west.WB: Omaha escaped much of the recession. Nebraska has the third lowest unemployment rate in the country. In the early 1980’s there was a recession and farm land crashed and many banks closed. Omaha used to be a major center for meatpacking and it was the fourth largest railroad center in the U.S. Now insurance is a major industry in Omaha. Entrepreneurs build businesses where they live and will continue to do so, spurring local economies. He always wanted to raise his family in Omaha, which is why he is there.

(9) Question about WB’s ability to evaluate management in place of companies he acquires.WB: In terms of evaluating management, it is very hard to do for public companies. You can look at the record (like baseball). When we buy a business it is for keeps. When someone comes to me and wants to sell a business and I hand him $1 billion, I have to decide if he’s going to have the same energy when he’s working for us as he had when building the business. We do not have any contracts with our managers. In the Fall of 2006 I received a 1 ½ page letter from a guy in Israel. I had not heard of the guy or his company before. He offered to come meet with me. After we met, I handed him $4 billion (Iscar) and was counting on him to run the business the same as before we gave him the money. Want managers to be passionate about their business. You cannot put passion into someone. It’s worked out most of the time. Every now and then we make a mistake. We want people who are in love with their business, not the money. (People who would say: “I’d rather go to work than anything else in the world”.) Our batting average is good and has probably gotten better over time. We are looking for the guy who is still in love with his business and for one reason or another, needs to monetize it. With respect to stocks, we are not interested in meeting with management. We do not want to see their projections. We look into their products and “moats” around the business.

(10) Question about advice in finding a job.

WB: Find the job that you would do if you were independently rich and not getting paid for it. He loves the job he is in. He jumps out of bed and tap dances to work. Upon graduation from Columbia (MBA), he offered to work for Ben Graham for nothing. Ben Graham said he was overpriced. He started selling securities in Omaha for three years. Then he was offered a job with Ben Graham. He never asked what his pay was. He didn’t know until he received his first pay check. Do what makes you tap dance. Take a job until you find the right job. Work for the person you admire most. Don’t wait for the dream job either. You should be close to a dream job 5 years out of school.

(11) What do you do everyday?

WB: He reads a lot, so does Charlie. They have been close friends for 52 years. They disagree, but never have any arguments. He reads books and 10K’s and 10Q’s. He now plays bridge over the Internet 12 hours per week, so he has less time for reading. He also watches YouTube.

(12) Question about China’s policies and impact on its growth.

WB: China changed its system and started to unleash the potential of its 1.2 billion people. In the last 30 years it has built its infrastructure. When forces are working together as they are in China, amazing things happen. The success the Chinese have achieved has reinforced what they are doing. They have come a long way. They have a long way to go. In the U.S. system, the right people are in the right jobs.

(13) Question about the Financial Regulation Bill.WB: We need something that will keep leverage under control. There is a natural tendency in a capitalist system to use leverage. Leverage is dangerous. If the financial regulation bill controls derivatives, it will be good. We also have the wrong incentives. If CEO’s succeed, they get doubly rich. If they fail, they are still rich. If a CEO needs big assistance from the government, then the CEO should go broke. At Berkshire we want a system that if Berkshire goes broke, so do Warren and Charlie. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae resulted in the greatest losses to taxpayers. They (Fannie and Freddie) were a big part of the problem.

(14) Earlier this month, Bill Gross was quoted as saying June 30 would be D-Day for investors with QE2 going away. What do you think Bernanke should do?

WB: No one could have done better than Bernanke. He (Buffett) would not be buying $20 billion of Treasuries every week as is being done now. In addition to government’s fiscal and monetary policy, capitalism has its own regenerative capacity. We have had 15 recessions in U.S. history. They were called “panics” in the 19th Century. The regenerative capacity of capitalism was demonstrated before fiscal and monetary policy were introduced. Our current budget deficit represents 10% of GDP. It is the largest it has ever been except for World War II when it equaled 30% of GDP. This led to a vibrant economy and price controls. We are, therefore, experiencing the second greatest stimulus in the history of this country. Monetary policy (stimulus) is not needed now. It is dangerous. The Federal Reserve has its foot to the floor. Bernanke will quit monetary stimulus on June 30. The economy is fine. This expectation is baked in (built into the market).

(15) When you have made a mistake, what steps did you take to determine what went wrong?

WB: His circle of competence is growing over time. When investing in stocks, there are no called strikes. He waits for the pitch he wants. The mistakes he has made resulted from thinking he understood a business when he did not. He prefers to learn from other people’s mistakes (not from his own). On Dexter Shoe, he issued shares in Berkshire that are today worth $3 billion. Dexter Shoe went to zero. He is wrong from time to time, but overall has a good batting average. One should focus on the future. Don’t dwell on mistakes. Do not make a mistake with respect to the person you marry.

(16) When looking to invest in a company, how much consideration do you give to moral issues, such as environmental impact?

WB: Doesn’t think there is a perfect answer. In marketable securities Berkshire will buy whatever is out there (e.g., stocks and bonds of cigarette and liquor companies). Thirty years ago he was invited to a southern state to meet with management who wanted to sell a chewing tobacco company. The moat around the business was fabulous (brand loyalty). Pretax margins of 40% with low capital requirements. There was far less incidence of cancer from chewing tobacco than there was from cigarettes. Charlie and Warren discussed whether or not to acquire this company. They decided against it. Berkshire owns stock in Wal-Mart which is the largest seller of cigarettes in the U.S. They own stock in a company that wholesales to Wal-Mart. They own shares in Costco which is the third largest retailer of cigarettes. But they will draw a line at buying the entire business of the manufacturer.

(17) How have your expectations for the U.S. recovery changed your capital allocation?WB: He thought that the government would take enough action to get us past the panic and get the engine going again and to gather strength. His first choice remains with wanting to buy a large business. Otherwise, his second choice would be to buy securities. That did not change in the crisis. In the three weeks after Lehman failed, he invested $15.5 billion in several preferred stocks. He never wants investments to keep him up at night. In that regard, he was ultra conservative during the financial crisis by selling part of his stake in Johnson & Johnson, even though he did not need to, in order to pay for the preferred stocks.

(18) Question about oil and the current situation in the Middle East.

WB: The Middle East has been and will continue to be an unstable place. If the supply of oil from Saudi Arabia is disrupted, it will have big consequences. The oil shocks of the 1970’s resulted in oil going from $3 per barrel to $30. We paid a huge tax to OPEC. He expects to see the usage of oil decline in our lifetime (although the current usage of 86 million barrels of oil a day may increase to 100-110 million barrels per day before the decline begins). There are 500,000 oil wells in the U.S., producing an average of only 11 barrels per day. If oil prices have a sustained increase, there will be a windfall profits tax in the U.S. Therefore, higher oil prices are not a signal to buy oil stocks.

(19) Question about GEICO’s insurance model.

WB: Insurance in this country began with marine insurance, which was followed by fire insurance, and then by property insurance. State Farm introduced a mutual insurance model for auto insurance. Sears Roebuck, through its Allstate Insurance, copied this model. Then USAA offered auto insurance to the military with no agents (lowest cost). A husband and wife left USAA and started GEICO in 1936 offering a similar model of direct, no agent, low cost insurance to the public. GEICO initially marketed its insurance through mail and then TV, and finally through the Internet. GEICO is offering the same product today as it was 60 years ago. This is similar to Coca-Cola offering the same product since 1886, and likewise for Wrigley’s chewing gum for over 100 years.

(20) Question about Berkshire selling put options.

WB: Berkshire sold equity puts due in 15 – 20 years. They were in four different indices around the world. It was an insurance type transaction and they were sold on an uncollateralized basis. Berkshire did not want to receive calls for collateral along the way. He made the judgment that the odds were about 80% that Berkshire would not have to pay out anything. This looked good then and it still looks good now. Berkshire would not enter a contract if it could cause them to go broke.

(21) Question about income inequality in the U.S.

WB: During recent years of economic growth in the U.S., income inequality has grown. It’s going to exist in capitalism and it should. If everyone is promised to come out equal in the end, then we would have a different world. Suppose that 24 hours before you were born a genie appears and gives you an incredible responsibility to design an economic, political, and social system in which you are to emerge. Whatever you decide is the society for you, your children, your grandchildren, etc. You then ask the genie, “what’s the catch”? The answer is that just before emerging you have to go to the barrel with 6.5 billion tickets, one for each person in the world, but you do not know which ticket you will get (ovarian lottery.) A society with equality and no production would not be good. You should think of output, providing incentives to people, an abundant society, a market system. In the U.S. per capita GDP equals $47,000. We want freedom from fear of not receiving health care and not starving to death. An abundant society will take care of people that get a lousy ticket. Inequality of the tickets is what you want to deal with. We are working toward that in this society. Social Security is an attempt at that in our society. In the last 20 years we have been moving in the wrong direction. According to the IRS, in 1992 the 400 highest incomes averaged $45 million. In 2009, they averaged $350 million. The rest of the U.S. went no place over these years. The average tax rate for the highest income earners has declined from 28% down to 16% over this time period. His average tax rate is 16% on $16 million of income, largely from dividends and capital gains which are taxed at 15%. He has no tax shelters and does not consult tax advisers. He credits George Bush and the U.S. Congress. We have moved away from equality to taking care of the rich. If you and a twin were competing for a ticket in the U.S. or Bangladesh (with no income tax), you might bid 70% – 80% (of future wealth) to get the U.S. ticket. He is lucky that he is alive now rather than thousands of years ago. Otherwise he would have been some animal’s lunch. It would not have done him any good then to say “I allocate capital”. We should have a society that will incentivize people to work hard and the ticket you pick doesn’t destine you for a poor outcome.

Full article, visit: http://blogs.rhsmith.umd.edu/davidkass/uncategorized/warren-buffetts-qa-with-university-of-maryland-mba-students-march-11-2011/

NewsHighlights (9)

by September 03, 2011

S-Reits and its investment opportunities

Apart from offering a high dividend yield of 6.5% currently, it also offers a stable yield that will keep growing



WHEN planning for the golden years, it is important to ensure that one's retirement nest egg is able to support one's ideal retirement lifestyle. In practical terms, that means putting the retirement funds to work, to make the funds last longer than it would otherwise. This also means that the retirement stash has to weather inflation, which can significantly erode the real value of the funds.

Inflation has averaged 2.8 per cent over the past decade. Therefore, it is important to protect one's retirement nest egg through investments that yield enough income to keep up with inflation. In addition, this income should be stable, with regular payouts, which can serve as additional income to supplement the retirement funds.

Attractive options

With these considerations in mind, Singapore real estate investment trusts (S-Reits) stand out as an attractive option for investors looking to stretch their retirement dollars. Apart from offering a high distribution (or dividend) yield of 6.5 per cent currently, S-Reits also offer a stable yield that is expected to continue growing.

Regular payouts are an added benefit: S-Reits have either quarterly or semi-annual distribution policies. S-Reits also allow investors to invest in a professionally managed portfolio of income producing real estate, indirectly allowing them to reap the rental income and growth in value of the underlying commercial properties that most investors would not otherwise have access to and without the hassle of having to manage the properties themselves. In addition, as S-Reits are traded in the equity market, it offers liquidity that one might not get as a landlord.

Encouraging results

As an equity class, while prices may fluctuate according to changes in market sentiment, share price performance of S-Reits have been encouraging as over the past two years, the FSTREI Index (a Reit Index which measures the price performance of S-Reits) has outperformed both the STI (Straits Times Index) and the FSTREH (Real Estate Developers Index) by 3 per cent and 10 per cent respectively.

S-Reits have also proven their mettle in the recent equity market volatility by falling only 5 per cent, in comparison to the 12 per cent and 20 per cent fall in the STI and FSTREH.

This relative out-performance, in our view, can be attributed to S-Reits' good income visibility, stability and their prospective high distribution yields. Current S-Reits yields of 6.5 per cent are attractive. Spreads of 5 per cent against the ten-year Singapore government bond which presently is at 1.6 per cent, is also higher than its historical average.

This is also higher than other yield benchmarks such as the Central Provident Fund (CPF) ordinary and special account interest rates of 2.5 per cent and 4.0 per cent respectively.

Adding to the appeal of S-Reits are tax regulations that make it mandatory for S-Reits to distribute 90 per cent or more of their taxable income to shareholders as dividends annually. This ensures a stable and regular income flow for investors. In actual practice, most S-Reits have maintained a 100 per cent payout ratio record. Moreover, the dividends are tax-free in the hands of individuals.

Hedge Instrument

S-Reits offer relatively strong income visibility for investors as their distributions are backed by rental income earned as landlords. S-Reits tend to derive rental income through the ownership of a portfolio of properties and having individual tenants each contributing to a small percentage of total portfolio earnings, thus further diversifying its income.

In fact, faced with a positive rental outlook, S-Reits are expected to continue growing its yields at an average rate of 5.2 per cent in 2011, which is above inflation rate, highlighting S-Reits' effectiveness as an inflation hedge instrument.

To complement their underlying portfolio growth, growing dividend yields are complemented by S-Reits ability to acquire assets that contribute to distributions over time. In this respect, we saw S-Reits being active in acquiring properties to expand their portfolios and this behaviour is a major contributor to the sector's earnings' growth potential.

Properties acquired are primarily in the Asia-Pacific region, and they range from commercial assets to logistic properties and retail malls. We also note that there have been more offshore acquisitions in the Asia Pacific region as S-Reits look to jurisdictions that offer higher asset yields, which is positive as apart from offering higher earnings growth, these overseas acquisitions also help to diversify their portfolio concentration in Singapore.

Underpinning the S-Reit sector's stability is a robust regulatory framework set by the Singapore authorities that emphasises transparency and financial prudence. S-Reits' balance sheets remain robust and hovers at a current financial leverage average of 34 per cent, which is low and compares favourably against the average longer term optimal gearing target of between 40-45 per cent. (S-Reits are able to leverage up to a high of 60 per cent if they have obtained a credit rating from any one of the credit rating agencies, if not leverage ratio will be subjected to a limit of 35 per cent).

The current prudent balance sheet position allows S-Reits to pursue acquisition opportunities or development projects in order to grow their portfolios through taking on further debt.

However, we believe that S-Reit managers, in complementing their growth strategy, will endeavour to continue to manage their capital wisely, apart from just utilising their debt headroom for acquisitions. They will also periodically tap the equity market for additional capital. This strategy in our view is a boon for income investors who are looking for a stable and regular source of income in the long term.

Hospitality, retail

Amongst the various S-Reit sectors, hospitality and retail Reits are expected to perform better than the rest.

We believe that rental growth stemming from exposures in the hospitality and retail sectors (with average distribution growths of 11 per cent and 6 per cent respectively) offer the highest earnings upside given their positive outlook after the opening of the two integrated resorts.

We continue to expect strong demand for rooms stemming from sustained record visitor arrivals in the coming months. As such, hotel earnings should continue to see upside. We also see retail Reits enjoying the spillover effect from the buoyant tourism outlook.

This comes on top of the current positive consumer sentiment, and should inevitably spur higher retail spending in the coming months.

In terms of stability, the outlook for industrial S-Reits remains one of the more stable ones amongst the various sectors owing to a larger proportion of longer-termed lease expiries from tenants who typically rent an entire industrial property (known as master lessee) or those who take larger spaces.

Looking ahead, we expect industrial landlords to enjoy a slight up-tick in earnings and distributions from expected positive rental reversions on the back of a healthy demand for industrial space, coupled with high tenant retention and high average occupancies at their properties.

Office Reits

Commercial office Reits should enjoy positive recent news flow of robust Grade A rental outlook as they look towards narrowing the spread between expiring and re-contracted leases, with newly completed buildings also seeing high take-up rates and those in the pipeline also reporting healthy pre-commitment rate and positive net absorption in 1H11.

However, we are less sanguine about its prospects in the nearer term as earnings recovery in office Reits would only be felt from 2012 onwards as they are currently renewing rents signed in the previous peak in 2007-2008.

What are the potential drawbacks? On the back of current market volatility, S-Reits unit share prices might fall to changes in market sentiment, but we have noted that while share prices have fallen recently, performance continue to remain more resilient compared to the STI and FSTREH.

In addition, rising interest rates might lead to higher interest costs and cut into the profits of S-Reits, however we believe that this risk is likely to be mitigated in the shorter term as S-Reit managers have taken the prudent step in locking in a majority of their loans into fixed-rated debt, thus any impact on rising interest costs is not likely to be excessive in our view.

In summary, we believe that S-Reits, with their high yields, stable income growth and regular dividends coupled with its effectiveness as an inflation hedge, is an attractive investment class that one should have as part of a retirement portfolio.

By Derek Tan
Analyst
DBS Vickers Securities

News highlights (8)

by June 29, 2011
What Is Warren Buffett's Investing Style?

If you want to emulate a classic value style, Warren Buffett is a great role model. Early in his career, Buffett said, "I'm 85% Benjamin Graham." Graham is the godfather of value investing and introduced the idea of intrinsic value - the underlying fair value of a stock based on its future earnings power. But there are a few things worth noting about Buffett's interpretation of value investing that may surprise you.


First, like many successful formulas, Buffett's looks simple. But simple does not mean easy. To guide him in his decisions, Buffett uses 12 investing tenets, or key considerations, which are categorized in the areas of business, management, financial measures and value (see detailed explanations below). Buffett's tenets may sound cliché and easy to understand, but they can be very difficult to execute. For example, one tenet asks if management is candid with shareholders. This is simple to ask and simple to understand, but it is not easy to answer. Conversely, there are interesting examples of the reverse: concepts that appear complex yet are easy to execute, such as economic value added (EVA). The full calculation of EVA is not easy to comprehend, and the explanation of EVA tends to be complex. But once you understand that EVA is a laundry list of adjustments - and once armed with the formula - it is fairly easy to calculate EVA for any company.

Second, the Buffett “way” can be viewed as a core, traditional style of investing that is open to adaptation. Even Hagstrom, who is a practicing Buffett disciple, or "Buffettologist," modified his own approach along the way to include technology stocks, a category Buffett conspicuously continues to avoid. One of the compelling aspects of Buffettology is its flexibility alongside its phenomenal success. If it were a religion, it would not be dogmatic but instead self-reflective and adaptive to the times. This is a good thing. Day traders may require rigid discipline and adherence to a formula (for example, as a means of controlling emotions), but it can be argued that successful investors ought to be willing to adapt their mental models to current environments.


Business

Buffett adamantly restricts himself to his "circle of competence" - businesses he can understand and analyze. As Hagstrom writes, investment success is not a matter of how much you know but rather how realistically you define what you don't know. Buffett considers this deep understanding of the operating business to be a prerequisite for a viable forecast of future business performance. After all, if you don't understand the business, how can you project performance? Buffett's business tenets each support the goal of producing a robust projection. First, analyze the business, not the market or the economy or investor sentiment. Next, look for a consistent operating history. Finally, use that data to ascertain whether the business has favorable long-term prospects.

Management

Buffett's three management tenets help evaluate management quality. This is perhaps the most difficult analytical task for an investor. Buffett asks, "Is management rational?" Specifically, is management wise when it comes to reinvesting (retaining) earnings or returning profits to shareholders as dividends? This is a profound question, because most research suggests that historically, as a group and on average, management tends to be greedy and retain a bit too much (profits), as it is naturally inclined to build empires and seek scale rather than utilize cash flow in a manner that would maximize shareholder value. Another tenet examines management's honesty with shareholders. That is, does it admit mistakes? Lastly, does management resist the institutional imperative? This tenet seeks out management teams that resist a "lust for activity" and the lemming-like duplication of competitor strategies and tactics. It is particularly worth savoring because it requires you to draw a fine line between many parameters (for example, between blind duplication of competitor strategy and outmaneuvering a company that is first to market).

Financial Measures

Buffett focuses on return on equity (ROE) rather than on earnings per share. Most finance students understand that ROE can be distorted by leverage (a debt-to-equity ratio) and therefore is theoretically inferior to some degree to the return-on-capital metric. Here, return-on-capital is more like return on assets (ROA) or return on capital employed (ROCE), where the numerator equals earnings produced for all capital providers and the denominator includes debt and equity contributed to the business. Buffett understands this, of course, but instead examines leverage separately, preferring low-leverage companies. He also looks for high profit margins.
His final two financial tenets share a theoretical foundation with EVA. First, Buffett looks at what he calls "owner's earnings," which is essentially cash flow available to shareholders, or technically, free cash flow to equity (FCFE). Buffett defines it as net income plus depreciation and amortization (for example, adding back non-cash charges) minus capital expenditures (CAPX) minus additional working capital (W/C) needs. In summary, net income + D&A - CAPX - (change in W/C). Purists will argue the specific adjustments, but this equation is close enough to EVA before you deduct an equity charge for shareholders. Ultimately, with owners' earnings, Buffett looks at a company's ability to generate cash for shareholders, who are the residual owners.

Buffett also has a "one-dollar premise," which is based on the question: What is the market value of a dollar assigned to each dollar of retained earnings? This measure bears a strong resemblance to market value added (MVA), the ratio of market value to invested capital.


Value

Here, Buffett seeks to estimate a company's intrinsic value. A colleague summarized this well-regarded process as "bond math." Buffett projects the future owner's earnings, then discounts them back to the present. Keep in mind that if you've applied Buffett's other tenets, the projection of future earnings is, by definition, easier to do, because consistent historical earnings are easier to forecast.

Buffett also coined the term "moat," which has subsequently resurfaced in Morningstar's successful habit of favoring companies with a "wide economic moat." The moat is the "something that gives a company a clear advantage over others and protects it against incursions from the competition." In a bit of theoretical heresy perhaps available only to Buffett himself, he discounts projected earnings at the risk-free rate, claiming that the "margin of safety" in carefully applying his other tenets presupposes the minimization, if not the virtual elimination, of risk.

The Bottom Line

In essence, Buffett's tenets constitute a foundation in value investing, which may be open to adaptation and reinterpretation going forward. It is an open question as to the extent to which these tenets require modification in light of a future where consistent operating histories are harder to find, intangibles play a greater role in franchise value and the blurring of industries' boundaries makes deep business analysis more difficult.

Study weighs words of lying CEOs

by December 27, 2010

This is an interesting news i stumbled upon. It talks about how to detect CEOs or boardmembers who are lying. Fits right into value investing under management studies. ENjoy .. =]

Study weighs words of lying CEOs
Posted: 20 October 2010 1207 hrs

WASHINGTON: As corporate financial statements are often opaque, and sometimes deceptive, two Stanford University professors have analysed oral presentations by thousands of US company chiefs and believe they know when they are lying.

"It's hard to know whether there's been accounting manipulation or not, just looking at the books," said David Larcker, a professor at Stanford Graduate Business School and a co-author of the study.

"There are certain models that people use but they don't work that well," he told AFP.

So Larcker and Anastasia Zakolyukina developed models for predicting deception in quarterly financial statements that draw on linguistics. They describe their findings in an unpublished paper entitled "Detecting Deceptive Discussions in Conference Calls."

Examining more than 29,600 transcripts of conference calls between 2003 and 2007 in which corporate leaders presented their quarterly results, the authors found that certain word choices and the way phrases are formulated can reveal deception.

Rather than use precise language in their talks, CEOs and financial directors with something to hide tended to opt instead for generalities.

They used more words that conveyed extremely positive emotions, and made fewer references to value being created for shareholders.

The personal pronoun "I" was replaced by the first person plural "we" in talks that later were found to be deceptive.

"The use of first person singular pronouns implies an individual's ownership of a statement, whereas liars try to dissociate themselves from their words due to the lack of personal experience," the study said.

Boasting is a common sign of duplicity. The use of "extreme positive emotions words significantly associated with deception," said Larcker, who advises scepticism when expressions like "things are fabulous" are thrown about.

To validate their theory, the researchers compared the CEO's presentations against restatements of financial results by their companies over the course of the following years through 2009.

Larcker said about 10 per cent of CEOs presented overly optimistic results that later had to be corrected.

Where there has been a large accounting restatement, he said, "the assumption that we are making is that these guys probably knew about it when they were talking about it during their conference."

He cited the case of former Lehman Brothers chief financial officer, Erin Callan. In a presentation in 2008 just months before the investment bank went under, she used the word "great" 14 times, "strong" 24 times, and "incredibly" eight times.

"By contrast, she used the word 'challenging' six times and 'tough' only once," the study noted. "This had the effect of conveying a positive tone without providing specific factual data to support her message."

There is also the case of Enron, the energy trading company that collapsed in scandal in 2001.

A short time before the company's implosion, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was interviewed by National Public Radio.

I think our core businesses are extremely strong. We have a very strong competitive advantage," he said. - AFP/fa

Some encouragement.

by November 21, 2010


Hoboken, NJ (PRWEB) November 10, 2010

Warren Buffett, John Bogle, George Soros, Peter Lynch, and John Templeton--they are famous investors whose names you know. And then there are the Warren Buffetts next door, those successful investors you have never heard of. According to Forbes Editor Matt Schifrin and author of THE WARREN BUFFETTS NEXT DOOR: The World's Greatest Investors You've Never Heard Of and What You Can Learn From Them (Wiley; November 2010; $29.95; 9780-470-57378-5, Hardcover), the Internet has truly been a game-changer for individual investors. Armed with technology and tools, previously only available to professionals, amateurs are now achieving professional results without professional commissions or fancy degrees from places like Wharton or Harvard. But not only are these outstanding self-directed investors trouncing market indexes, they are also taking control of their own capital in order to repair cracked nest-eggs and improve their lot in life. They don't seek the riches of Wall Street, but rather have more modest goals - being able to afford a family vacation every year, sending their kids to a good college, and having enough income to last them through retirement.

In his book, Schifrin provides case studies of 10 regular people who can pick stocks better than the vast majority of all professional advisors and money managers employed by firms like Merrill Lynch and Fidelity. Schifrin details their personal stories, along with their investment strategies, trading philosophies, and rules for investing.

Though Mike Koza lives about 1,350 miles away from Warren Buffett's Omaha, Nebraska, headquarters, the 51-year-old-civil engineer for the Sacramento County Department of Waste Management applies many of the same Graham & Dodd value principles in selecting stocks for his personal portfolio. Since February 2001, he has been able to achieve an average annual return of 34 percent per year. An investment in Berkshire Hathaway's stock would have netted 6 percent per year over the same time period. An investment in a well-run index fund like Vanguard Total Stock Market garnered less than 2 percent average annual return.

Koza is not alone. Another Warren Buffett wannabe named Chris Rees practices concentrated deep value investing from his ocean-view home on the north coast of the Dominican Republic. He has a verifiable 10-year average annual portfolio return of 25 percent. Former truck driver Jack Weyland of Reno, Nevada, has developed an expertise in health care and biotech stocks. He has had an average annual return of 36 percent since July 2002. Neither he nor Rees ever completed college, and Weyland spent much of his time picking stocks while on the road driving a tractor-trailer.

Another Warren Buffett Next Door, Alan Hill was able to secure a golden retirement with a single smart stock pick that created a windfall allowing him to build an adobe-style dream home in Placitas, New Mexico. But that was just the beginning, since his retirement in 2005, Hill is making more money investing than he ever did during his career as an executive in educational technology.

All the people profiled in THE WARREN BUFFETTS NEXT DOOR are risk takers but they are also supersensitive to losing their own hard-earned capital so their risks are carefully calculated. They come from all walks of life, but they demonstrate that the only real prerequisite to becoming a good investor is committing the time to educate themselves. They are out to make enough money to enjoy the lifestyle of their choosing. And that's exactly what they are doing.

THE WARREN BUFFETTS NEXT DOOR offers timeless advice and inspiration for any investor hoping to profit by investing in themselves.


Taken from:
For the original version on PRWeb visit: www.prweb.com/releases/prweb2010/11/prweb4767564.htm
Wirttern by
Matthew Schifrin is Vice President and Investing Editor at Forbes Media LLC

News Highlight 7

by April 15, 2010

How to find undervalued companies
Key points
Once you find a sound business whose value is greater than its price, buy it with confidence
Price is what you pay, value is what you get
Also in this section
Cutting edge: new ways to trade
Go for gold
Savvy investor....get a lot for a little
Gas stocks light up
Uranium take-off


Value buying requires you to do your homework.


How do you find undervalued companies? It's a challenge, the greatest one in share investing. Anyone who can consistently get this right will end up astonishingly wealthy. Just ask the "Oracle of Omaha", Warren Buffett, the world's richest investor who is worth around $US52 billion ($60 billion).

Buffett is the world's greatest exponent of so-called value investing. That is, seeking out and buying into companies with genuine business operations, sound fundamentals and good balance sheets — including low debt and high returns on equity — that are, for no particularly good reason, out of favour with the market and resultantly priced below their intrinsic value.

One of Buffett's great adherents in the Australian market is Roger Montgomery, managing director of listed funds manager Clime Asset Management. He bases his very long-term investment focus and company selection process on his mentor's model.

Montgomery says that once you find a sound business whose value is greater than its price, buy it with confidence, and buy lots of it. Furthermore, if the price falls further, he says you should buy even more.

Montgomery is not enamoured of widely-used valuation tools including CAPM (capital asset pricing model), beta (an indicator of short-term volatility and risk) or EMRP (equity market risk premium). He is particularly dismissive of pronouncements on a share's value based on its price-earnings ratio (PE).

This puts him at odds with many analysts and professional market commentators, who do place emphasis on a stock's PE ratio as an indicator of value. (The notion is, the higher the PE ratio, the more expensive the share, and therefore the greater the probability it is overvalued; the lower the PE ratio, presumably the more likely it is to be undervalued).

The main problem with PE ratios, says Montgomery, is that they only tell you about price. They don't tell you anything about value, because "value is independent of price. Price is what you pay, value is what you get. Valuing businesses and assets has nothing to do with observing where the price is, or where it has been, or where it is going."

An asset's price may be higher or lower than its value — the objective is to buy it, if it's worth buying at all, when its price falls below its separately determined value.

Montgomery determines a company's value using a number of inputs including return on equity (the higher the better), debt level (the lower the better) and dividend payout ratio.

Furthermore he needs to determine whether a target company has the ability to convert $1 of retained earnings into at least $1 of additional market value, and whether it has "competent management with integrity that acts more like an owner than a caretaker".

If all this comes up trumps, and the share price is below his conservative valuation, then it's a buy.

If you're thinking this all sounds pretty complex and intimidating, you'd be right. After all, if it was simple to pick value stocks everyone would be doing it and we'd all be rich.

Montgomery and Clime Asset Management do it using a software package, Clime's own, which incorporates the above inputs (plus more), called StockVal. This program, including ongoing price and performance updates, is available to the general public and costs $1595 for one year ($67 a month thereafter). See www.stockval.com.au for details.

For those investors reluctant to go down such a path, or for those of us who aren't all that proficient at reading company balance sheets, you can do what Greg Canavan, senior equity analyst at Fat Prophets, suggests when it comes to looking for value.

He recommends reading widely, noting the opinions of share analysts (not surprisingly) and favouring high-yielding, large-cap stocks with proven businesses and good management, while also taking note of their debt levels (the higher the debt, the riskier the company and the less appealing).

Russell McKimm, an executive director of Shaw Stockbroking, says to look for companies with sustainable earnings that are hopefully growing. He says profits drive share prices, but prices can get out of synch with fundamentals.

One way to find value is to look for sound companies that have taken market punishment due to a short-term glitch, but whose long-term prospects remain favourable. He points to Suncorp and IAG suffering a correction following the bad NSW June storms, but whose share price will bounce back as business returned to normal.

Newshighlight (6)

by August 05, 2009



Today's new highlights will be featuring companies with long history, how they managed to survive for so long and the tips and trades of doing so.
Boustead Singapore celebrates its 180th year of existence last year and continues to make record profit; remains today as the only Singapore-based company which can boast about their unbroken lineage of almost two centuries. The current chairman and group CEO Wong Fong Fui cities abaptability, business cycles have been getting shorter and tighter and a company's survivability depends largely on its ability to adapt to the changes thrown up by these cycles,' he says.
Mr Wong first bought up Boustead Singapore in 1996, the company then was a struggling gem having only earning of $1million out of $60million and was bought at a price of $85million when its net worth then was only $27million.
Mr Wong said’ This was a company with great history and pedigree, it was all about how it could be restructured to adapt to a new marketplace' I therefore was quick to set about the transformation of the company, building up its capabilities in design,engineering,resource management technology and specialist construction. According to Mr Wong, the survival of his company has been due to its ability to adapt to the new realities after each upheaval:"A company that succeeds does not simply accept its fate when it hits a very thick wall, instead it finds not one but several ways around the wall" Another expert on the subject Arie de Geus author of 'The living company' argues that successful surviving companies exhibited four key factors.

1) Is sensitivity to their operating environment which enables them to learn and adapt quickly to changes occurring around them.

2) Is a cohesion and identity. This defines a company's ability to create a strong sense of identity and persona for itself which is essential for survival amid challenges.

3) Longevity is also dependent on the company's ability to tolerate decentralisation of control and diversification, and yet maintain strong and cohesive relationships within and outside of itself.

4) Companies that survive tend to be those which are financially conservative. They are frugal and do not risk capital gratuitously. By keeping their proverbial gunpowder dry, they are well equipped to pursue new opportunities and also attract third party financiers. But Mr Wong adds more point

5) Being a master over Technology. By doing that, it propels your company forward and now can become an albatross around your neck for the next decade.

Going back to Boustead, Mr Wong says that his company was starting to change some parts of its business model yet again! Like Mr De Geus, Mr Wong is a believer in the theory of corporate evolution for survival."There are times when you have to let go of your pass glories" he explained "it is the same with companies; a highly successful product/service today may not be successful tomorrow. A stubborn company will try its best to hold onto those products and services even when they are irrelevant. The companies that enjoy longevity do things differently. They simply evolve creating different businesses each time and adapting to prevailing times.

Going on to another business Fj Benjamin, the one in charge says changes in the business environment are inevitable. The ability to adapt to these changes quickly however will determine if a business has staying power. Fj Benjamin has been around in Singapore for about 50 years. "After 50 years, we put in place policies and practices that will keep us nimble so that we can adjust swiftly to changes in our external environment. This principle of staying fleet=footed and fit for all cycles applies to all functions across our business" says the CEO of FJB.
During the 1997 crisis which taught them to never put their business in a position where sudden unexpected external events can threaten their future. They learnt to be conservative and to pay more attention to risk management. They learn also to be prudent with their capital (debt/equity) and to keep their gearing low. Not to reply inordinately on short-term credit or to be overly invested in assets that they do not need for our core business. Expansion is still vital to growth of any business. However businesses does not have to be BIF in order to survive, it has to be well managed, etc understanding the consumers' needs and be able to deliver what they are looking for, this means having strong leadership and key management who have their fingers on the pulse explains the CEO of FJB.
Investors could look out for some of these 'longevity' chacteristic before putting their hard earn money into their prospective companies, increasing therefore the chances of successful investing in the future.

News Highlights (5)

by July 13, 2009
Is there still trust in Reits?
Real estate investment trusts do look attractive in the long term at current prices, but investors must choose carefully and diversify their investments accordingly.

With lower prices, S-Reits (Singapore listed Reits) now offer dividend yields of around 12.4%, compared with around 7.3% a year ago and 4% in june 2007. Sibor rates have also fallen, from 2.7% in June, to the current 0.7%. Dividends yield premium has thus improved to 11.9%, from just 1.4% two years go. Prices of Reits are also at more affordable levels now. For etc, the prices of CMT (CapitalMall Trust), A-Reits and Mapletree were at $1.40,$1.59 and $0.56 respectively as at june 30 2009, around half the prices in june 2007. Do also note that, even though the prices of Reits have almost halved, it doesn't mean its a value buy because systemic perceived risk have more or less doubled in 2009 as compared to 2007. -Akat

Most importantly, the good and bad Reits are now easier to differentiate. How is this so? The lower "tide" (which means the current economical problems of the world) has exposed Reits that have bad assets and have been poorly managed making investment decisions easier then two years go.

Reits do look attractive in the long term at current prices, but investors must choose carefully and diversify their investments accordingly. Here are a few important factors to consider:

1)A Reit's (Not A-Reits) ability to raise funds, especially in times of turmoil, will determine its ability to thrive and survive. This is an important factor. In good times, most Reits will enhance their yields through higher leverage , but only well managed ones will be able to reduce this leverage, in challenging time or risk being challenged themselves. Without this ability, badly managed Reits will find it difficult to refinance or raise sufficient equity to repay their loans, putting them in danger of liquidation.

2)The quality of assets is another important factor, and Reits that own properties beyond just Singapore would be a plus. Too much emphasis has been put on dividends and too little on assets. Investors must bear in mind that they are buying the underlying assests hen investing in Reits-the dividends are the result of the ownership and management of the assets.

However, good assets can produce poor returns if poorly managed.

3)The quality of the managers or management is therefore another vital factor. Good managers will continuously enhance the yield of the assets and use an appropriate debt-equity mix at all times.

A sudden fall in rental revenue (poor assests? or business model), rental collection issus (High recievables) and below average rental yields (Industry not resilient) are some signs of poor management. Such Reits should be avoided.

4)Last but not least, investors must check if a counter is a Reits or a business Trust, such as CapitalMall Trust vs India Bulls Property Investment trust. The difference between the two is that the former is required to pay 90% of distributable income to unit holders, the latter has no such requirement, thus investors should therefore look closely at what they are picking to ensure the counter they choose is in line with their investment intention.

Article written by Roger Tan as at 11th July 2009

News highlight (4)

by July 05, 2009
Heading for inflation or deflation?
Senior correspondent Teh Hooi Ling says that specialists and experts on these topics are divided and are most likely unsure which notion will take place in the future, therefore it is sensible for investors to hedge their bets. She goes on to say that those in the deflation camp are befuddled by reports of Singaporeans queuing and rushing to snap up new properties. The enthusiasm is lifting the prices of resale properties off recent low. Leaning more towards the deflation camp, her basis is that demand is too weak to fuel inflation, in addition the horrible unemployment rate in the US with a staggering 9.5% in the month of june, suggests that inflation and unemployment are inversely related (when inflation is up , unemployment is down and vice-verse).


However she adds that as of May 2009, deposites of non-bank customers with domestic banking units and finance companies amounted to $374billion, with another $158.6billion with CPF board, in total, the sum of these three cash hoards is equivalent to the total market capitalization of all the stocks listed on the Singapore exchange. To some fund managers , a high cash holding relative to stock market capitalization is an indication of market UNDER-VALUATION.
The rally of the past few mths has brought the ratio back to levels seen at the end of 2003, when Singapore then was emerging from the slowdown caused by SARs. But now despite relatively high cash holdings, investors are not rushing into the stock market and rightly so, given the uncertain economic outlook.
Things are also never crystal clear at ths part of the recovery because by the time they are, markets would have moved even higher, leaving those on the side lines to either hope for another retracement in prices or regret not having to act fast.

Ms Teh then advice the sensible thing to do is hedge your bets, positioning your portfolio to cater to an inflationary environment and some to deflationary.
Gold commodities and inflation-linked bonds and real estates (Reits too) are natural inflation hedges.
Good Reits to consider are CapitalMall Trust/Ascendas Reits/ Frasers Centre point Trust/ and CapitalCommerical Trust are expected to be the most resilient against external shock.
But in a deflationary environment , cash and cash equivalents are king.

News information was collect from Business Times as of 04 july 2008, writers by Teh Hooi Ling/Wong Sui Jau and S&P data

News Highlight (3)

by May 31, 2009
Mature man earns $800,000 in capital gains and more
Full time retail investor Isaac Chin, 60 , was waiting on the stock market sidelines with $3million in cash when the local benchmark STI sank to a record low in march.
He decided that the market has bottomed out and backed his judgement by investing the full $3m in four REITs that month.

"When the STI hit 1,457 i bought heavily into A-Reits, CapitaMall Trust (CMT), Suntec Reits and CapitalCommerial Trust (CCT) he claims. "At that time, my friends advised me to wait for better bargains should the STI hit the 1260 level as predicted by soo many" My rationale was that a further 'discount' of 200 points was good but unnessary as the STI had dropped from about 3900 a year ago. I was proven correct.
The sum of $3million came from loans from two banks in August last year against his thee condominium units , which werw valued at about $6million then. Based on the interest charge of 2% on the loan, the monthly instalment works out to about $20,000. This amount includes the principal and interest repayment for 14 years.

"I pay a 2% interest on the loan based on the reducing valance. The four were bought at very attractive prices with dividend yields averaging 10-12%. Simple mathematics taught me that i can make a difference of at least 8% per annul with a further potential for enormous capital gains when the economy and share prices recover in a few years' time", he said.

He said that he had bought A-Reits at $1.03, CMT at 97c , Suntec Reits at 65c and CCT at 0.62c a unit. He added that he liked the four Reits as their dividends are non-taxable and they represent prime real estate here. As of Friday 29Th May 2009 , all Four Reits rose in share price giving him a capital gain of about $800,000.
Taken from Weekend Business Times 30-31May 2009
Possible lesson learnt from here.
1) Have guts, to invest when others are fleeing
2) Find low interest borrowing methods and invest in financial instruments that give high yields
3)Benefit then from the spread.
4) Know what you re doing. In terms of weigthing risks and returns

News Highlight (2)

by May 17, 2009
Value Hunting
Since the start of the sub-prime meltdown, investors' confidence has been at an all time low. In fact, investors' risk aversion has never been so low in the past decade. The US $/Jap Yen cross rate used often as a risk aversion barometer by the market, reached a historic low earlier this year. For a value investor, such times represent a once in a decade (if not a lifetime) chance to pick up beaten stocks at very cheap valuations. It's like your favorite departmental store offering more then 50% discount. In the financial market however, there appears to be a tendency for investors to go against such a logic. They tend to buy only as prices rise, however they will be better off behaving like the rational departmental store shopper and buy only when assets are on sale.

A tired and proven method of successful investing is to buy stocks selling at a low multiple of their earnings. Earnings are what a company has left after it has paid its expenses, a company selling at low earnings multiples is very often a better value pick then say another which is selling at a high earnings multiple.

Of course we have to compare the price-earnings multiple to its peer companies in the same industry( or/and its historical PE ratios) and also the broader indices to determine whether this company us indeed a value buy. Also a company's price to book value (PBV) is an important measure of a company's value.... those companies trading at a very low price to book ratios tend to outperform those with a high price-to-book ratios over the long run (then again, the chances of a low PBV survival rate for the next 5-10years is lower then those with a higher PBV).

And as many good old value investing books will tell you, having a "margin of safety" is imperative, especially in markets like this where it is possible to buy way below your perceived value of the stock if one is patient. This will not only minimise your gains in the long run when the market recovers-as long as one is patient and disciplined enough to follow this strategy religiously.

Many investors aim to buy only at the market bottom (especially those with limited capital), but many fail simply because it if often harder to predict the market bottom then to chose a value stock. Instead given the current conditions right now when many fundamentally strong stocks are priced at cheap valuations, it might be time to start nibbling on some of these value stocks, rather than attempt to catch the market at its bottom and risk missing out on this opportunity entirely.

Value investing is no rocket science, but it requires more effort than brains to discover the best value stocks out there. Just be warned that value investing is not for those looking for a quick gain. Only those who are patient enough to see out the end of this entire sub-prime crisis and the start of the next bull run will make a decent gain on the value stocks that they have picked up today. Caveat emptor.

Writtern by Jason Low end of 2008

News highlight (1)

by May 11, 2009
News highlight, a special feature to be included in my blog, where i pick certain phrases/paragraphs of notion/ideas/good advise from the news , stored it up for future reference and debates. :] Enjoy..

"Should we be invested at this stage of the equity market? The past may shed some light in helping us to strategies our move. According to a study done by Fidelity, it is shown that historically,bear market inevitably give way to bulls (Duh..) The 12mths following bear market troughs have always with one stock returns averaging nearly 46%. The implication is that we cannot afford to miss out investing during the first year of a bull market. However, we do not know if or when the market has hit its trough, therefore dollar cost averaging is the way to go. My conclusion is that investing should be based on strategy. Look at time-tested and proven strategies such as dollar cost averaging, diversifying to instruments that carry different risks and returns, locking in profits in a systematic manner and letting time win the war for you. Stay away from the new and exotic financial instruments that sounds to good to be true (probably time is need to test how good this investment product actually is) and do not try to maximise your returns . Do not be fixated with a strong view and place all your investment or a significant amount into a particular asset. The stock market will make a complete fool of us at some point. Try not to take an all-or-nothing approach. For example, in the current market conditions, when there are conflicting views on whether the market has hit a bottom, a sensible strategy would be to allocate 50% of your investment to a regular investment programme into growth funds and 20% into regions, countries or sectors that you think have hit the bottom and are now recovering on a firm uptrend. Hold the balance 30% in cash as spare capital. This is to wait for the "real" bottom, in case the market has yet to do so. Using this strategy, investors will benefit regardless of whether this is a bear market rally or the start of the next bull market because you already have investment exposure.

To highlight one final point, i will quote Mr Buffett : "No matter how great the talent or effort, some things just take time. You can't produce a baby in one mth by getting nine women pregnant" Investment requires time in the market."

Writtern by Albert Lam
Invesmtnet Director
IPP Financial Advisor
Powered by Blogger.