"Hey, the market didn't do too badly this week...maybe the worst is over..."

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

The market moves in fits and starts.

During a bull market, as prices go up, there are periodic sell-offs as some people take profits. Then, the market resumes its upward path.

The same is true during bear markets. As prices go down, there are periodic run-ups as bargain hunters buy and short sellers cover their shorts. When the bargain hunters--who are a small minority--and short sellers are done, the market resumes its downward path.

In my opinion, that's all that happened this week. The Fed's reaction (more accurately: people's reaction to the Fed), bargain hunters (all 12 of us) and short covering led the market to remain roughly flat this week.

But, that's just a temporary reprieve. The fundamentals behind the market haven't changed. The housing market is still going downhill fast, with no end in sight. Credit markets are still tight. Banks are still struggling to rebuild their balance sheets. Bond insurers are still in trouble. Employment still looks weak. Retail sales are still poor. Industrial activity is still slowing. The fundamentals haven't changed one iota.

In my opinion, after this "clearing rally" is over, the market will resume its downward path. And, I think it will take years to hit bottom. In the meantime, there are a few great bargains to be had out there, and I've been selectively shopping and buying.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

"Are we there, yet, Dad?"

The stock market seems to be finally reflecting economic weakness. The bond market reflected it some time ago, but the stock market only now seems to be coming around.

The question now is: how much farther do we have to go?

I'll be the first to admit, I don't know. But, I do have an opinion on whether we've reached bottom, yet, or not.

It seems hard to imagine that the fallout from a steeply declining housing market and the seizure of credit markets will wash out in less than a year.

Remember the wash-out that resulted from the dot.com bubble? It took from 2000 until 2003 to really hit bottom and turn back up.

Does it seem reasonable to expect the stock market to hit bottom so soon and with so little damage when housing and credit markets are much bigger pieces of the economy than technology? I don't think so.

No, I think we still have some way to go.

First, the subprime mess will continue to spread. A lot of floating interest rate mortgages will reset, and a lot more people will punt their homes to lenders. Credit card debt, auto loans, etc. will also fall apart as credit markets further reflect housing turmoil. That, by itself, will take another year or more to work out.

Next, credit markets will have to absorb all those losses and downwardly spiraling asset prices. That will take another year or so.

Then, a bunch of politicians and lawyers will ride to the rescue, further highlighting the misdeeds of the housing and credit markets. That will take another year or so, too.

In my opinion, we still have at least a couple of years to go on this.

That doesn't mean stock prices won't hit bottom beforehand. They usually do.

That also doesn't mean there aren't good investments to be found. I'm finding some outstanding bargains now and expect that list to grow over the next year or two.

My goal is to be greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy. The latter kept me out of the housing and credit down-spiral. The former is what I'm looking forward to, but I don't think others are quite fearful enough, yet, to call the bottom.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Recession seems imminent

More troubling economic news this week.

First, the Institute for Supply Management reported that it's manufacturing survey index showed a contracting industrial sector. Any reading below 50 means contraction. The reading was 47.7 last month. The last time it was this low was in April 2003, coming out of the last recession. Readings below 45 usually indicate a recession is occurring. We're not there, yet, but we seem to be on the way.

Next, residential construction spending showed a 2.5% decline in November. The housing market is dropping, that's no surprise. But, it's impact on the economy as a whole still seems under-acknowledged.

Then, initial jobless claims fell 21,000, but the 4-week moving average, which better indicates labor market trends, was up to 343,750. This number is usually up around 400,000 in a recession, meaning we may not be there, yet. The last time the 4-week moving average was this high was in the summer of 2004, during the slow recovery from the previous recession.

Next, shipments of factory goods excluding petroleum and coal showed its fourth decline in 6 months. This indicates that, other than higher energy costs, shipments of factory goods is in a downward trend.

Today, payroll employment came out at +18,000 jobs. That may sound good, but a large part of that number is based on assumptions about jobs being created by small companies. Large revisions in this number are normal, especially at turning points in the economic cycle.

The payroll employment report was accompanied by a report of the civilian unemployment rate at 5.0%. Unemployment hit a cycle low of 4.4% just last March. When the civilian unemployment rate rises from its cycle low to 0.4% above that rate, a recession is usually imminent. 5.0% is 0.6% above 4.4%.

The stock market finally seems to be noticing with the S&P 500 down over 10% from the recent all-time high it hit last October. Although a 10% drop may not seem bad, recessions frequently cause 40% declines in the stock market.

It's not all doom and gloom, though. Although the economy may be rolling over into a recession, this is a normal part of the business cycle. As long as our government doesn't do stupid things to try to "solve" this "problem," we will soon see an upswing in the market and economy.

Usually, the stock market drops long before the economy does. This time, it seems a little behind schedule. Despite this, the stock market also tends to lead the economy as we come out of a recession. Considering that most recessions don't last more than a few quarters, this could very well mean the stock market could end up for the year.

That means this year could very well be an excellent year for bargain hunting!

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

2007 Year in Review

2007 was a very satisfactory year for me.

I generated significant market out-performance, and that came mostly by avoiding the things that did badly this year.

After waiting since 2004, this was finally the year when the mortgage bankers, mortgage insurers, bond insurers and other financial institutions reaped the consequences of their poor business practices. Although I did not short these investments, I was able to generate significant out-performance simply by avoiding the group.

Unfortunately, several of the Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) I invested in were also taken to the woodshed this year. In each case, I think the REITs I've chosen are the babies getting thrown out with the bathwater, and will almost certainly be market out-performers in the years to come.

I look forward eagerly to 2008 and beyond, when I think my out-performance will be generated not just by avoiding bad investments, but also because I've chosen great investments.

I believe 2008 will be another volatile year, as uncertainty about the economy and slowing corporate profits will lead to significant market moves both up and down. It should be a good year to be a bottom-up stock picker.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Recession storm-clouds gathering

Although the latest GDP report showed the US economy grew at a blazing 4.9% in the 3rd quarter, the data looking forward is looking increasingly weak.

The Index of Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) has gone into negative territory. Our economy has gone into a recession every time the LEI has gone negative, except for once in the late 1960's.

The credit crunch, brought on by lax lending standards to subprime borrowers, is spreading to every credit market. Banks are taking HUGE write-offs, and being forced to make fewer loans as they rebuild their balance sheets.

The employment market looks to be rolling over. The four-week moving average of initial jobless claims has risen to 343,000, the highest since June 2004 (except for the spike due to Hurricane Katrina). In June 2004, it was on the way down after the 2001 recession. It's currently on the way up.

Retail sales are looking to be worse Christmas season since the last recession.

Volatility in the bond and stock market has risen dramatically.

Copper prices have been falling.

UPS and Fedex have announced disappointing results looking forward, and the Dow Jones Transportation Average has been diving.

Financial indexes have been tanking, and in a finance-based economy like ours, that's a bad sign.

The one big thing that hasn't confirmed all these dark clouds is the stock market. Either stock investors are more prescient and no recession will occur, or they are deluding themselves into believing things will be okay or the recession won't last long.

My guess is that most stock investors are being overly optimistic, and aren't looking at coming earnings shortfalls.

When companies begin to report earnings next January, I think investors will get an initial shock. Over time, more information will pour out that the economy is in a recession. By the time this evidence is conclusive, the economy will probably be recovering.

Most investors will be scared when they should be greedy. In other words, by the time investors are scared about a recession, stock prices will be low, and it will be a great time to invest.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

You can't get something for nothing

The market seems to be absolutely focused on the Fed.

Everyone seems to think the Fed has the power to make or break the economy, get lending moving again, support the dollar, etc.

The fact is, the Fed doesn't have that much power. If you don't believe me, go read John Hussman's article on the subject, or read any of his recent weekly commentaries that address the issue.

The thing that surprises me is how many people believe the Fed can take action with no seeming repercussions. As if the Fed could move interest rates, or lend money to banks without any adverse reaction.

The reality is that the Fed can only take action with consequences, just like the rest of us mortals.

When the Fed offers liquidity, they are printing money and creating inflation.

In the long run, the Fed doesn't matter much, although they do have a short term psychological impact on the market.

Even worse than that, the Fed's actions almost always come with some downside, and that long term impact can be profited from by smart investors.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Concentrated money managers beat everyone else

Money managers who concentrate on a few well-researched ideas beat indexers and money managers who are closet indexers (those who mirror the index closely and try to tilt their portfolios in one direction or another).

Although I've long known this, it was nice to see this confirmed in a recent academic article.

The authors of the article created a unique measure for finding out how actively a money manager differs from an index.

Their research results indicated that money managers who differed significantly from an index in their holdings had a significantly higher chance of out-performing the index.

This may seem obvious to you, but many managers try to avoid risk by hugging an index. Such managers do this because they lack the skill to pick the best companies to invest in. Unfortunately, these managers still charge active management fees. Not surprisingly, their lack of conviction leads their investor to under-perform the index after fees.

This just goes to show what I always tell people: you should either index to match the market at minimum fees or find an investor who can beat the market after fees. Such managers are rare, but, if they can out-perform an index over the long term, they not only pay their fees, but lead their clients to reach significantly higher levels of wealth.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Catching falling knives

One of the most difficult tasks in investing is to buy things as they go down. Psychologically, its no fun.

Hence, some investors refer to this as catching falling knives: you may do it right, but you may also get cut.

The payoff in investing can be huge. Buying companies that most people think will go bankrupt can be very profitable--if they don't go bankrupt. There's the rub, as Shakespeare put it.

How do you know the company in question won't go bankrupt? There are very smart people out there who know enough about certain businesses, bankruptcy, etc., who can pull this off. But it's not for the faint of heart any more than catching literal falling knives.

This question occured to me because a lot of very smart value investors are looking hard at mortgage and bond insurance companies (which I wrote about here and here).

Mortgage guarantee companies like Triad and Radian and bond insurers like Ambac and MBIA have been taken out to the woodshed recently, in terms of their stock prices. This seems justified considering they seem to insure a lot more than they could pay out.

Such investments were great as long as you assumed a housing recession or deep economic recession never hit. That doesn't seem like a very wise bet, now, nor did it beforehand.

The question is how will these investments do going forward? It seems hard to imagine the government will let the rating agencies downgrade their insurance ratings, for this would surely put them out of business and leave the financial markets in one heck of a mess (tons of investors have their money insured by these entities and would lead to a major dislocation).

But, do you want bet on that? That's the question. Will the government save these entities? Should their shareholders get off scott-free instead of bearing the risk they took? Will this encourage moral hazard (I can answer that last one--YES)?

Although I believe a ton of money could be made by investing in bond and mortgage insurers at these prices, I'm not expert enough to catch these falling knives. Do I know enough about the risks they've assumed and the capital they can use to support claims and the cozy relationship between rating agencies/the government/such insurers?

I don't. And not many do.

Perhaps that's why it might be best to leave catching falling knives to the experts.

As Warren Buffett put it, I don't try to find 7 foot fences to jump, I look for 1 foot fences to step over. Bond and mortgage insurers look like a 7 foot fence to me.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Will the Fed cut rates?

The market certainly seems to think so.

Just look at interest rate futures and you'll see investors are expecting a 25 to 50 basis point cut in the Fed Funds Rate.

Or, more meaningfully, look at the gold market. Gold prices spiked to over $785 an ounce, today.

That's up 17% over the last month and 31% over the last year.

Why does the gold market indicate a cut in the Fed Funds Rate?

Because the Fed does not create growth--they do not possess some magical fairy dust that makes the economy run faster.

The Fed prints money to decrease interest rates. And, when the Fed prints money more quickly than the economy grows, they create inflation.

Gold prices are going up because gold investors believe the Fed will print money, also known as cutting the Fed Funds rate, thus creating inflation.

Gold is going up because investors are guessing the Fed will create inflation by cutting rates.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Comparing apples and oranges

What would you say if I told you the market was over-valued by 30%? Would you think I was full of it?

What if I told you that this over-valuation were based solely on market commentators comparing apples and oranges?

When someone says the market is fairly valued or over-valued, what do they mean by that? What standard are they comparing it to? This may seem like a pie-in-the-sky question, but it's very important.

Why? Because market commentators are frequently saying the market is fairly valued by comparing apples and oranges! And, the two are off by 30%.

You see, many say the S&P 500 is fairly valued because they are comparing the S&P 500's forecast, operating earnings to the S&P 500's actual, reporting earnings. But that's comparing apples and oranges.

This may seem like technical minutia, but it makes a big difference. In fact, operating earnings of the S&P 500 have been 20% higher than reported earnings over the last 5 years. And, forecast earnings for the S&P 500 have been 10% higher than actual earnings.

In other words, when commentators say that the S&P 500 is trading at its historical average, they are comparing apples (forecast, operating earnings) to oranges (actual, reported earnings). And, those apples are 30% overstated compared to the oranges.

Next time you hear someone say the market is fairly valued, ask them if they are comparing apples to oranges. Are they comparing forecast, operating earnings to the historical average of actual, reported earnings? If so, tell them to adjust their numbers and get back to you when their figures are fairly comparing apples to apples.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Did credit market turmoil rattle equity markets...again?!

I watched with fascination as short term government interest rates plunged on Wednesday and Thursday. But, to my surprise, equity markets barely reacted.

Then along came Friday.

I don't think the anniversary of the 1987 stock market crash had a thing to do with it, but I do think interest rates had something to do with it--like they did in 1987.

When I see short term Treasuries surging in price and their yields plunging, that means that someone, somewhere is scared and they are running to the safest securities they can find--US Treasury securities of short duration.

Whenever this happens, like it did in August, it means risk is becoming more expensive. And, when that happens, equities will almost always dive.

Why did it take a couple of days to work out? I don't really know.

Perhaps the same people running to safety were hoping things would cool off, but they didn't. And when risk continued to be more expensive, then they started selling equities.

Perhaps some leveraged investors, like hedge funds, were squeezed by the people who lent them money as credit markets seized up again.

Who knows?

But, I do know you could see it coming, and it didn't surprise me (except that it took so long).

Its amazing to watch this because it shows how integrated financial markets are.

Anyone watching short rates plunge on Wednesday and Thursday had to scratch their head and wonder why equities weren't tanking. That is, until Friday--when they did.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

My latest client letter is available

For those of you interested, my latest client letter just came out today.

In it, I discuss client account performance, my projections for the market over the next 6 years and my opinion on the economy, Part III of my assembling portfolios segment dealing with investment probabilities, an investment spotlight on Microsoft, a segment on why the subprime mortgage market impacted equity markets, and my section on admirable business people covering Benjamin Graham--the father of value investing.

If you get a chance to read it, please tell me what you think and what could be improved.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Does everyone believe the market will continue to climb from here?

Not John Hussman. Hussman makes his case in his latest Weekly Market Comment.

Although Hussman gets very close to attempting market timing, which I don't believe anyone can do successfully, he does make some very good points about why the market's returns from here may not be very exciting.

Luckily, we don't need to invest in the market per se, and it's possible to get significantly better returns in the right investments.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Stick to the fundamentals

Although I tend to write here about the economy and markets in general, I must admit such opinions affect my investment process very little.

I don't buy and sell based on what the market is doing or might do. I don't buy and sell based on my assessment of the overall economy.

I buy when I find businesses selling significantly below assessed value and sell when the businesses I've bought are selling significantly above assessed value.

I pay attention to secular trends, such as energy prices and the expansion of cable into phone and broadband Internet, but I don't use such trends as a starting point in my investment process.

I spend my days researching individual companies. I look for businesses with good economics--with sustainable competitive advantages. I look for businesses with great management, who are competent and rational, act as trustees for shareholders, and hold a significant stake in their company. Then, and only then, do I assess business value.

When the market is tanking or roaring ahead, it's important to keep this in mind.

The best way to succeed in investing is to buy good businesses below their assessed business value and sell only if price exceeds valuation. To do this, you must stick to the fundamentals--you must primarily focus on business economics, management and valuation.

When the market is diving, it may be an opportunity to buy, but only if prices go below assessed value. When the market is rising, it may be an opportunity to sell, but only if prices go above assessed value.

The focus is always on the business fundamentals primarily, and only secondarily on prices. What the market and economy are doing should take a distant, and almost completely unimportant, third.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

If the US economy slows, will the world economy slow, too?

Many market watchers believe that even if the US economy slows (as it looks like its doing), the global economy will stay in the growth lane because emerging markets like China, India, Brazil and Russia will more than make up for US slowing.

A look at historical information and the global yield curve seems to contradict this. William Hester, CFA of Hussman Funds wrote a great article addressing this subject.

The global yield curve is a way of looking at the yield offered by government bonds around the world at different maturities. By comparing short to long term bond yields, one accesses one of the most reliable predictors of economic growth.

You see, when short term rates are equal to or higher than long rates, this almost always signals economic slowing and, usually, a recession. When short rates are equal to long rates, that's referred to as a flat yield curve. When short rates are higher than long rates, that's called an inverted yield curve.

Using global bond yields, as Hester does, a flat or inverted yield curve usually precedes a recession by a year or two. As he shows, the global yield curve turned flat last July, perhaps signaling that global earnings growth may slow, too.

Although the yield curve is not a fool-proof method of determining future economic growth, it's been reliable enough that it shouldn't be ignored, either.

Although it looks like the world economy is currently humming right along and will easily weather the US slowdown, the yield curve is telling a different story.

As Hester suggest, this has historically been a bad time to be in industrial, consumer discretionary or energy stocks, and a good time to be in materials and consumer staple stocks.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

The Fed's interest rate cut hurts the prudent

For those who think the Fed's recent interest rate cut is an unmitigated good, read Allan Sloan's recent Fortune article titled, "Heads I Win, Tails I Get Bailed Out; The reckless are getting relief from Bernanke. How does that work?"

I've blogged in the past about the moral hazard implicit in the Fed cutting rates. I believe the Fed's large rate cut encourages imprudent risk taking.

But, I didn't highlight how the rate cut hurts the prudent, and Allan Sloan does a great job of that. As Sloan puts it, the "recent interest rate cut has done a lot of harm to those of us who've managed our finances prudently."

The Fed cut rates to calm market turbulence, and this was directed to helping the "players in the biggest trouble," those "who'd taken the biggest fliers in junk mortgages, ultra-risky leveraged buyouts, and other financial esoterica that proved to be malignant."

But, this rate cut not only helped the imprudent, it hurt the prudent. It hurt "those of us who keep score in dollars and didn't need to be bailed out" because we are now "less wealthy than we were in terms of anything other than our home currency."

Why? Because the rate cut "contributed heavily to the dollar's recent sharp drop in the currency markets...and to the price spike in hard assets like gold, silver, copper, and oil." In other words, prudent people's wealth, in terms of dollars, is worth less relative to the things we want to buy with dollars.

Added to this, the rate cut caused long term and fixed mortgage rates up. Once again, this benefits the imprudent who gambled on floating rate loans and punishes the prudent who may be seeking fixed rate loans at what are now higher rates.

Those investors who stayed away from toxic waste and invested prudently are also being punished because the Fed's bailout is helping toxic waste investors to the relative detriment of those who avoided subprime mortgage risks of all sorts (whether bonds, CDO's, stocks, swaps, etc.).

Finally, the prudent get to bail out the imprudent in that our tax dollars will be used to bail out subprime borrowers, subprime lenders (like Countrywide), subprime investors, and the investment banks and rating agencies who should have known that subprime investments were junk.

As Sloan puts it, the Fed's bailout allows the imprudent to play "heads I win, tails I get bailed out" whereas prudent investors get stuck with depreciated wealth, higher fixed rate loans, worse relative investment performance, and a higher tax burden.

If you've been imprudent over the last several years, you probably think the Fed's rate cut is wonderful. But, for those of us who were prudent enough to avoid bad risks, the Fed's rate cut is bad news.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Thank you Wall Street Journal for calling the bottom on Wal-Mart

Let me say at the get-go that both I and my clients own shares in Wal-Mart, so I'm anything but unbiased on this subject.

I've blogged in the past about how frequently the popular press reflects popular sentiment instead of reporting news that can be used to make good investment decisions. Well, here's another example.

Today, a Wall Street Journal article by Gary McWilliams may have called the bottom on Wal-Mart. The article is titled, "Wal-Mart Era Wanes Amid Big Shifts in Retail; Rivals Find Strategies To Defeat Low Prices; World Has Changed."

My point here is not to dispute the article's facts or conclusions, but to highlight that stock prices are a reflection of popular sentiment. By the time "news" hits the front page of the popular press, stock prices almost certainly already reflect that "news." I believe this to be the case here, too.

You see, everyone knows that Wal-Mart same store sales are low.

Everyone knows that Wal-Mart is perceived to treat its workers unfairly.

Everyone knows that competitors like Target, Whole Foods, Kroger, etc. have been growing more quickly than Wal-Mart.

Everyone knows that Wal-Mart's suppliers like Pepsi, Proctor and Gamble, etc. are tired of being squeezed by Wal-Mart's ever-present desire to wring costs out of the system.

Everyone knows that Wal-Mart pulled out of Korea and Germany and is struggling in Japan.

Everyone knows that Wal-Mart's store expansion has cannibalized older store sales.

Everyone knows that Tesco is entering the US market and will probably compete fiercely with Wal-Mart.

I don't think the article reports on a single piece of information that hasn't already been frequently and widely reported in other places.

In other words, the article isn't news, it's simply the reflection of what everybody already knows. And, all of this supposedly bad news had already been priced into the stock.

When articles like this, summarizing what everybody already knows, hits the front page of the popular press, calling for the end of whatever or the ultimate dominance of whatever, it's almost always a sign that things are about to reverse.

And, I believe this to be the case here, too.

The time to sell a company is not when the popular press reports that its era has passed. By then, it's too late. You should probably be buying.

The time to buy a company is not when the popular press reports that it has become completely dominant. By then, it's too late and you should probably be selling.

No, when the popular press decisively concludes that the end of a company's era has arrived, it's almost certainly the time to buy.

And, I'll bet that in a few years I'll be writing a blog saying that I've sold Wal-Mart because the popular press is reporting that Wal-Mart is back at the top of its game again.

Thank you popular press for making the timing of my purchases and sales easier.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Contrary to popular belief, firms that pay return on capital to investors are better investments than those that reinvest capital back into the business

A recent paper by James Montier brilliantly highlighted this issue.

For example, a recent McKinsey paper showed that corporate executives know 17% of their invested capital went toward underperforming investments that should have been terminated and 16% of their investments were a mistake to have financed in the first place.

Many corporate managements do a terrible job of investing corporate capital.

When asked how accurately such executives could forecast corporate investments, 70% of managers said they were too optimistic about the time to complete a project, 50% said they were too optimistic about the impact an investment would have, and 40% were too optimistic about the costs involved.

It's not surprising that management is overly optimistic about their pet projects.

Even worse, 40% of managers admitted that they "hide, restrict, or misrepresent information" when submitting capital investment proposals, and 50% of subordinates working on such capital investment projects said it was important to avoid contradicting superiors.

No wonder most companies are bad capital allocators--managers are rarely honest with themselves about their pet projects, and they discourage dissent when discussing potential results.

In other words, companies that retain capital instead of paying dividends or buying back stock and debt tend to be worse investments than those that tend to pay out return on capital to shareholders. Here's the proof:

A study by Anderson and Garcia-Feijoo showed that low capital expenditure companies outperformed high capital expenditure companies by up to 10% per year.

The companies that returned capital to shareholders beat the companies that pumped capital back into the business.

Another way to look at it was highlighted in a study by Cooper, Gulen and Schill, who showed that companies with low asset growth, in terms of cash, property, plant, equipment, etc. returned as much as 20% per year more than companies with high asset growth.

I think these findings are counter-intuitive to what most investors believe, and certainly to what many professional investors think, too.

It's a rare company that can allocate capital effectively, and the proof is clear that companies, on average, that retain capital for investing aren't necessarily good investments. It's important to realize, too, that not all companies are bad capital allocators.

This is why I pay so much attention to return on incremental capital invested when I research businesses to invest in.

I stay away from any company that rewards management for retaining capital, especially when management has a bad track record of effectively reinvesting those dollars.

But, I love to see a management that wisely returns capital to investors when they don't have opportunities and have great track records for adding value when capital is retained.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

In investing, beware the halo effect

People frequently--and incorrectly--attribute wonderful characteristics to something that has succeeded. Just because something has succeeded does not necessarily mean it's specifc attributes are also excellent.

This issue is succinctly highlighted in the third part of Michael Mauboussin's Legg Mason article.

The "halo effect is the human proclivity to make specific inferences based on general impressions." This was first noted over 80 years ago by psychologist Edward Thorndike and was recently described in detail in Phil Rosenzweig's book, The Halo Effect.

What Thorndike found by studying military officer reviews was that superiors tended to attribute overwhelmingly positive specific attributes to subordinate officers who they had good overall impressions of. In other words, they assigned impossibly high ratings to their intelligence, physique, leadership, etc. based on their high overall opinion.

This tendency can be particularly dangerous in picking investments. Those who attribute outstanding specific characteristics to Apple or Google simply because they have done well in the past and everyone seems to love them may be in for a rude surprise if they invest in these companies at current prices.

The same can be true on the downside as well. People tend to assume that companies whose stock has performed poorly or whose profitability has lagged have universally negative specific characteristics. This is unlikely to always be the case.

The halo effect partly explains why popular stocks tend to under-perform and unpopular stocks tend to out-perform.

People tend to assume that popular stocks have great specific attributes, reflecting popularity more than excellence. When an inevitable blemish appears, the stock tanks because it was priced for perfection

In reverse, people tend to assume that unpopular stocks have universally negative attributes. When it turns out the business isn't as bad as everyone believed, the stock takes off because it was priced for bankruptcy.

In selecting investments, it's very important to gain a clear view. Popularity is no way to judge an investment. Look critically at every investment opportunity, no matter how much people love it. And, companies that everyone things are doing poorly may be a great place to invest because good characteristics may have been overlooked.

To avoid the halo effect, look for disconfirming evidence--evidence that conflicts with the popular view. Work hard to understand both the good and bad characteristics of an investment. This will help you rationally assess its prospects, and almost certainly lead to better investment results.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

"If only I had..."

The psychology of regret can be very useful in investing.

A recent article by Michael Mauboussin, of Legg Mason, points this out beautifully.

You see, psychologists refer to the tendency to consider what would have happened if you had taken a different action as counterfactual thinking. This way of thinking can work to your benefit, but it can also create traps.

One example of a trap is called inaction inertia. Inaction inertia occurs when you initially fail to take advantage of an investment opportunity, say buying Microsoft in 1996, and subsequently pass over the same opportunity in the future, say buying Microsoft in 1997, because its price has run up from where it was in 1996.

If an investment opportunity is good right now, you should buy regardless of the price you could have gotten if you'd acted earlier. I learned this the hard way with Leucadia in 2002, 2003 and 2004 when I didn't purchase because the price had gone up, but then finally got it right in 2005.

A benefit of the psychology of regret results from learning about errors of action versus errors of inaction. You see, some regret is good because it encourages future changes in behavior.

Most of us tend to focus on short term regrets related to action. Like, I wish I hadn't eaten that whole platter of brownies.

But, it can be equally beneficial to also focus on regrets related to inaction. Warren Buffett is famous for bemoaning the investments he didn't make more than the investment he did make. He knows his greatest investment errors were sins of omission rather than commission.

If you consider both the investments you've made as well as the investments you haven't made, you can learn from your mistakes and become a better investor.

One of the biggest psychological traps investors fall into is due to their psychological immune system. This system exists to help bad situations seem better, but they can lead to big investing mistakes.

"First, we tend to explain away situations in a way that makes us feel better." Like, someone who gets turned down for a job and tells themselves they didn't want it anyway. This kind of thinking leads to investing errors that aren't learned from. Don't explain away errors dismissively, try to understand what went wrong.

"Next, we seek facts that support our views and disavow or dismiss factors that don't back us up. This is known as the confirmation bias." If you read every article that says that Google or Apple is the greatest investment ever, but fail to read the articles critical of those companies, you probably won't make good investment decisions. Look for evidence that your investment ideas may be flawed.

"We also exhibit hindsight bias. Once an event has passed, we tend to believe we had better knowledge of the outcome before the event than we actually did." How many people insist they knew an investment would do well but failed to act. Did they really know it beforehand, or are they just convincing themselves they knew after the fact? Write down your thinking beforehand and you'll find out what you really thought instead of what you hazily remember you thought.

"Finally, when we make a prediction or take an action that doesn't work out, we believe we were almost right--the close-call counterfactual." If I had a dime for every investment I almost made and went up, I'd have a lot more money than I do. Once again, write down what you think beforehand, then you can check to see whether your close-call wasn't just a rationalization after the fact.

To avoid making mistakes with the psychology of regret, "be aware of how the mind works and the suboptimal behaviors that may ensue." If an investment is good, make it regardless of the price you could have paid if you'd invested earlier. Be sure to consider your inaction as well as your actions. There may be a lot to learn from what you didn't do.

Also, "be careful not to kid yourself." Don't just explain away situations in a way that makes you feel better. Look for disconfirming as well as confirming evidence. Write down what you think will happen beforehand so you can check whether you are suffering from hindsight bias or the close-call counterfactual.

Understanding the psychology of regret just may make you a significantly better investor. It sure has helped me.

Nothing in this blog should be considered investment, financial, tax, or legal advice. The opinions, estimates and projections contained herein are subject to change without notice. Information throughout this blog has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed.