One of the greats of investing. And a value investor. It's all about the profits, not the growth.
Munger is gone, Bogle is gone, Buffett is 93. Who takes up the mantle of value investing now?
Munger is gone, Bogle is gone, Buffett is 93. Who takes up the mantle of value investing now?
This is passive investing, not value investing.
Value investing is very much active investing, otherwise how would you select the undervalued assets?
Value investing is about finding undervalued companies and buying them while avoiding the properly valued or over valued companies. It has nothing to do with ETF's or index funds.
The first way it's used is to describe buying stocks that are cheap relative to their current financial characteristics (price to book, price to earnings, price to FCF, etc). This approach is usually contrasted with "growth", which would refer to investing in companies with a compelling thesis and bright future ahead of them.
A second way the term "value investing" is used is to describe the approach of Buffett/Munger where the investor compares the current price to the present value of the future cash flows and seeks a margin of safety above that.
You can do passive investing in the first approach. Just go buy ETFs that weight towards value metrics, like Vanguards $VTV value ETF. You can't really do passive investing in the second approach, aside from investing money in the funds of people who do that for you.
Whether appropriate or not, the term “value investing” is widely used. Typically, it connotes the purchase of stocks having attributes such as a low ratio of price to book value, a low price-earnings ratio, or a high dividend yield. Unfortunately, such characteristics, even if they appear in combination, are far from determinative as to whether an investor is indeed buying something for what it is worth and is therefore truly operating on the principle of obtaining value in his investments. Correspondingly, opposite characteristics—a high ratio of price to book value, a high price-earnings ratio, and a low dividend yield—are in no way inconsistent with a “value” purchase."
Excerpt from (my non-monetized blog): https://sileret.com/projects/buffett-shareholder-letters/199...
Original 1992 shareholder letter here: https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1992.html
An S&P500 index does stock selection too, it's just picking large-cap stocks instead of value stocks.
That's not completely true. The indices can involve plenty of human judgement, the S&P500 does, for example.
Yes, that's correct. They are orthogonal concepts.
Stock prices go up and down, but usually your goal is to buy stocks low and sell them high.
Growth investing looks to trending sectors and companies and lets say 'bets' on a certain future playing out and thus being good for certain companies.
Value investing is an investment strategy where you deep dive on the financial fundamentals of a company and determine your own measure of worth, or what is sometimes called a fundamental value. In essence your own financial calculations give you a fundamental value that you think the stock is "actually" worth.
Having done this for a number of companies you then keep track of the market, and when, and only when, the stock price drops below your own fundamental value price then you buy.
Munger and Buffet would pair this approach to also planning to hold the stock for the long term and see themselves as owning part of the business over many years.
Often a stock might drop when the growth story turns against it (eg. AI is more exciting than crypto stories now), and this is likley when Value investors would get into a stock as it was now below their fundamental valuation and hence predicted on their models to go back up over time.
Mutual fund managers can often be classified as having a value or growth or index approach (and others). And for most normal investors it's usually good advise to take advantage of diversification and back a few different approaches in building a long term focussed portfolio.
I've seen Growth and Technical investing be contrasted to Value. Growth being looking for companies which have not actualized revenue goals but appear to be able to do rapidly(they're growing, look for the ones that grow fastest), Technical is looking at trends and patterns (they're trending, catch the trend and get off before others do).
In my lay understanding Value investing looks for margins of safety through companies which are worth more on the books than they're shares are selling for, or where their cashflows make them look attractive relative to bonds of their equivalent grade. An example might be if AAPL took a nose dive and was selling for less than $167B (which is their cash on hand) that'd be an excellent Value play.
Or assume their equivalent bond rate was Single-B (Currently 9.5%) and their Price to earnings rate was less than 10.5 --> Buying AAPL would be similar to buying a Grade B bond for less than the current market rate.
Value by contrast is looking at current earnings.
Both are predictions of the future value, one just weights the current earnings high. While you often have a bias to one, generally you should consider both. Don't buy current income if growth says the company will collapse. Don't buy growth if the company won't grow to support the value in the future.
Value stocks are by definition boring and unknown. Think iron ore mines, regional banks, house builders, carpet makers, and other yawn-fest-profit-machines.
Back in the '60s and '70s, stock market capitalization grew roughly in line with GDP. But from the 1980s onwards, it grew at a level that far outpaced GDP growth [0]. So investors who were already wealthy in the '60s had the capital necessary to take advantage.
[0] The Big Bang: Stock Market Capitalization in the Long Run, 2022: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2021.09.008
Oh baloney. I signed up for a Schwab account and started buying stocks at my first job long before the internet. My dad started buying stocks in the 1940s on his military pay (never much). Elevator boys were famously buying stocks in the 1920s.
All the "reach" required was some get-up-and-go to sign up for a brokerage account. It didn't cost anything. They didn't check your tax returns or do a credit check.
The whole point of the stock market was to sell stock to anyone who would buy it.
Historically you typically bought shares in blocks of 100 and the transaction fees were also meaningful.
You couldn't easily buy 1 share of a $20 stock. If you had to buy 100 shares @ $20, that's $2,000 - in 1970 that was a lot of money.
Now, of course, you can buy fractional shares with no transaction fees. (Ignoring things like payment for order flow, etc.)
I also had an ancient car and a cheap apartment, and didn't spend money on booze.
Average new car prices were $14,000 in 1982. I bought my car for $800. So yeah, I'd say investing $1,000 was well within common man finances.
Correct me if wrong, but I don’t think index funds come under that paradigm.
An index constructed specifically using value measures as the criteria for inclusion can be (at least arguably so).
Click on "value indexes" here: https://www.crsp.org/indexes/ to see some underlying value indexes, and funds like this one track the Large Cap version of it: https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/92290... (perhaps not surprising, the fund's largest holding is Berkshire B shares)
https://github.com/openlink/Virtuoso-RDFIzer-Mapper-Scripts/...
/? query XBRL https://www.google.com/search?q=query+xbrl
https://github.com/topics/xbrl
But then also a fund or an index fund or an Index ETF wouldn't be complete without ethical review for the sustainable competitive advantage given e.g. GRI+#GlobalGoal sustainability reports.
When you own enough of a company to bring in a new team.
https://pandas-datareader.readthedocs.io/en/latest/remote_da...
Now pretty much the only way for investors to (legally) beat the market is to do proprietary research in ways that others can't easily copy. You need information that no one else has.
To test whether markets are perfectly efficient, just look for large movements over time. If a stock goes up 20% in a year, the market might have undervalued it last year, or is overvaluing it this year. It's unlikely the it was correctly valuing it at both times. In the absence of a Covid-19 pandemic, act of god, etc. of course.
You could say that the market just takes "investor sentiment" into account, and is therefore still efficient. But value investing is a strategy that looks for misplaced investor sentiment and exploits it. If that's the way you define an efficient market, than I'd say an efficient market is no obstacle to a value investor.
Or the company has grown its revenue by 20% in 1 year which isn't necessarily unheard of. Or they significantly beat the expectations of analysts / their own guidance. In all of those cases the stock could have been correctly valued & still experienced growth.
If you say that value investing still works then where is the evidence?
This is technical analysis not value investing.
People have been saying for decades that value investing is not possible since the market is too efficient. My point is that it is not efficient enough to prevent value investing from being a successful strategy.
The research does say that value doesn't work quite as well as it did decades ago.
This strategy was actually pioneered by buffets mentor Benjamín graham. By just blindly following a formula you would do value investing by calculating NAV vs market cap.
Buffet took it one step further. He calculates another type of value called intrinsic value and that relies on other factors rather not just the ratio of assets to cap. Part of it relies on consistency of revenue, growth and qualitative aspects of the business as well.
For a while, Yahoo was famously worth less than its stake in Alibaba. But it was also not clear whether shareholders could get management out of the way to stop destroying value.
Plenty of companies trade at a discount to book value. I found over a thousand with a stock screener.
Bogle was not a value investor. He was a low(er)-costs advocate (and not even necessarily passive/index investing: e.g., Vanguard has active funds).
There were very, very few people who could do what he did.
I found this out the hard way when I saw an email from vanguard saying they would be charging me $25/year/fund unless I signed up for e-delivery AND moved all my accounts over to their brokerage.
Vanguards death by a thousand nickle-and-diming-cuts has begun.
Seth Klarman
David Einhorn
Howard S. Marks
Joel Greenblatt
There are alot of famous and very good value investors who are at the top of their game right now.
Why would it be important that a particular flavour of investor (wealth accruer) is around?
In the annual letter to shareholders on 2014, it was suggested that both [Ajit] Jain and Greg Abel could be appropriate successors for Warren Buffett as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway.
The only older than elders writing off the youth is the youth proving them wrong. Let's hope some follow Charlie's quote instead: "If you've got anything you really want to do, don't wait until you're 93. Start now, and don't stop!"