SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2008 - VOL. CCLII NO. 140

Archive for the ‘Joel Greenblatt’ Category

Security Analysis: Sixth Edition Coming in September

In Benjamin Graham, Charlie Munger, Joel Greenblatt, Martin Whitman, Net Current Asset Value, Security Analysis, Seth Klarman, Warren Buffett on June 30, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Sound investment policy will by its terms yield satisfactory performance over many years and through various market conditions. One of the first books to outline such a policy was Graham & Dodd’s Security Analysis. Some of its key points: (1) fixed income obligations must be viewed “from the standpoint of calamity,” i.e. normalized EBIT should cover interest payments by at least seven times; (2) preferred shares lack both the safety of bonds and the appreciation potential of common shares and should thus be purchased only at large discounts from par, when they are “friendless;” (3) net working capital approximates the minimum liquidating value of a business; thus common stocks selling below net working capital and showing a satisfactory record of earnings are likely to be attractive bargain purchases; (4) common stocks should be valued from the standpoint of a private owner, since companies selling below this value are likely to be purchased by a private owner; (5) hedging and arbitrage commitments fall within the scope of intelligent investment; and (6) the investor should allocate less of his portfolio to common stocks when the market is high, based on various technical standards. These rules have withstood major financial developments over nearly 75 years—due at bottom to Graham’s emphasis on quantity, measurement and utility.

Continue Reading

Mathematical Expectation of Securities

In Arbitrage, Benjamin Graham, Bill Ackman, Charlie Munger, Joel Greenblatt, Martin Whitman, Net Current Asset Value, Security Analysis, Seth Klarman, Warren Buffett on June 22, 2008 at 3:44 am

My observation has been that analysts, money managers, OPMIs, bloggers, etc., cannot consistently select issues with above-market returns. I believe this is due to a feature inherent to all parimutuel systems, viz., calculations of expectancy should vary only slightly from one person to another—with any major difference resulting from some unknowable factor. The selection of securities is often akin to a shell game.

We should not conclude from this that securities markets are strong-form efficient. On the contrary, investors with access to material non-public information have earned high returns without bearing commensurately high risk. In 1925 Ben Graham learned that Northern Pipeline—selling at only $65 per share—had “$95 in cash assets for each share, nearly all of which it could distribute to stockholders without the slightest inconvenience to its operations.” Major brokerage firms were never aware of this information; Graham found it at the Interstate Commerce Commission in Washington, D.C. A more recent example is Bill Ackman’s MBIA short position, which is predicated on special knowledge of reserve adequacy, unusual insurance transactions, etc. (Ackman supposedly went through 140,000 pages of internal documents.)

Allied to the foregoing are situations involving neglect of public information. This has been especially persistent in the field of distressed debt, where vulture investors profit from claimholders unwilling to interpret bankruptcy documents. (Seth Klarman, Michael Price and Marty Whitman owe a great portion of their returns to this activity—and not to common stock investments exclusively.) Many of the opportunities mentioned on stableboyselections.com tend to be neglected because they fall outside the scope of traditional equity investment.

I do not believe that passive “value investors” as a class will yield above-average returns by focusing on large U.S.-based companies. The investment community has wised up to the extent that apparent bargains now involve greater risk. This is a natural consequence of the increasing popularity of “value investing,” which seems to have reached an historical peak over the past few years. (Most worrisome is the crowding in such stocks as USG, SHLD, FMD and Mortgage Originator X, Y, Z.) You can take it as an axiom that strategies become less effective as they become more popular.

The really spectacular returns will come from investors who discover unpublicized or underpublicized inefficiencies. At present, auction-rate securities, distressed debt, arbitrage and certain Chinese stocks seem to offer the most favorable mathematical expectation.

“If the reader interjects that there must surely be large profits to be gained from the other players in the long run by a skilled individual who, unperturbed by the prevailing pastime, continues to purchase investments on the best genuine long-term expectations he can frame, he must be answered that there are, indeed, such serious-minded individuals. But we must also add that… investment based on genuine long-term expectation is so difficult today as to be scarcely practicable. He who attempts it must surely lead much more laborious days and run greater risks than he who tries to guess better than the crowd how the crowd will behave; and, given equal intelligence, he may make more disastrous mistakes.”
- J. M. Keynes

Wide Ranging Expected Value, A Binary: LEAPS vs. Common Stock

In Benjamin Graham, Joel Greenblatt, Security Analysis on April 14, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Loan originators are either worth (a) nothing; if banks continue to refuse financing loans, alternative methods of lending are not used, etc. or (b) far more than current market capitalizations; if conditions reverse. If the probability of each scenario is 50%, originators have positive expected value. And under these assumptions, LEAPS are more attractive than common stock. Take the following as an illustration:

First Marblehead is currently selling at $360 million, or $3.60 per share. If banks regain the willingness to finance student loans, a conservative valuation for FMD might be $2 billion, or $20 per share. (The company earned $159 million in 2005, and conditions in 2009 might resemble those in 2005.) A person who buys 100 shares at $3.60 stands to lose $360 or to gain about 4.5 times this amount.

Continue Reading

▶ View 20 Comments

Magic Formula Investing Is Unsound (Though It May Have Been Sound Before It Was Discovered)

In Benjamin Graham, Joel Greenblatt, Security Analysis on December 24, 2007 at 1:05 pm

In 1996, an obscure money manager named James O’Shaughnessy published What Works on Wall Street. He claimed that from 1954 to 1994 an investor could have turned $10,000 into $8 million—beating the S&P 500’s return ten times over—by purchasing stocks with (1) the highest one-year returns, (2) five straight years of rising earnings and (3) share prices less than 1.5 times their corporate revenues. O’Shaughnessy obtained a patent for his automated strategy and launched four mutual funds. By early 2000, all of them had underperformed the S&P 500 and O’Shaughnessy retired. Even Ben Graham—one of the greatest investors in history—achieved poor returns when he used mechanical methods of stock selection in lieu of security analysis.

I believe that the change in “Magic Formula Investing” results is not accidental. It demonstrates an inherent characteristic of trading formulas in the fields of business and finance. Those formulas that gain followers do so because they have been adapted to the statistical record of the past. But as their acceptance increases, their reliability tends to diminish. The moral seems to be that any approach to moneymaking in the stock market which can be easily described and followed by a lot of people is too simple to last.

Continue Reading

▶ View 3 Comments