Pencils Blog

Home    About     Pencils Blog    Pencils Fund    Articles    Video    Company  Summaries    Valuation    Contact 

What I've Learned So Far

December 1, 2006

I've learned a lot about investing since getting started last July, and my style's evolved somewhat as well.

Right now I'm in the position where I have to sell positions in my stock holdings to get money for new ones. I've been doing this over the past month, only if I see a better place for my money elsewhere. This is actually the position Warren Buffett was in during his teen years after getting started investing at 11 years old by investing in Cities Service Preferred. I know this both from what I read, and from a personal response from a letter I wrote to him this summer. Buffett replied to my question: I can report that in addition to Cities Service Preferred, I also owned quite a few stocks in my young teens. Every time I bought a new one I had to sell the old one, since my funds were limited in the first few years. It actually hasn't been disappointing with me to part with some of my first holdings, because I felt I could do better with different businesses. Flamel Technologies, a French drug company that I never understood, was a no-brainer when I needed extra funds. CDW Computer, primarily an online retailer of computer and computer parts, no longer made much sense to me on a long-term scale, because there are many places to buy computers and I'd never heard of CDW before getting into the stock market. I think this is where it does make sense not to get emotionally attached to your investments, but normally I do see myself as a fellow owner and plan on staying a shareholder of the company for a long time. But, the stocks I've been selling aren't ones I'd researched before buying, and they no longer looked attractive to me, either on a valuation or business level.

Beating the market is something that many Wall Street analysts use as a reason for the individual "small" investor to stick with index funds or mutual funds. They say individual stocks are impossible for the small investor to use as a tool to beat the indices. I'd never bought this argument in the first place, but something recent made me feel this argument was downright bogus and complete fluff. I have nothing against funds, but it's the argument that someone not on Wall Street can't do well with individual stocks that really annoys me. Let's use the Pencils Fund as an example with this. Soon after making Hansen my largest position of the Pencils Fund, it tanked on several pieces of news and analyst takes. So, my largest holding (which made up more than 13% of the portfolio) was down nearly 15%. And you know what? The Pencils Fund was still beating the S&P 500 from its inception. The Pencils Fund has only been active seven months so this probably doesn't prove much, but mutual funds have had absolutely dismal performance over the long-term, with less than 15% of them actually beating the market as of 2002. Don't let the managers who can't beat the market convince you to go put your money with them and get charged for keeping your money with them in the meantime. Heck, a good amount of companies pay their shareholders for investing with them in the form of dividends.

I think the key to beating the market over the long run is to find great businesses that are either in the early stage of growth with large potential or finding stocks that are undervalued for reasons that won't hurt the intrinsic value of the business for long or not at all. I think a market beating technique would be to simply invest in your favorite companies that you believe in and hang onto them for 15 years. I thinks it is very foolish to not have money in stocks if you have a timeframe of at least ten years. Ten years gives a business time to sort out its troubles, gives time to get the stock noticed by Wall Street (often the turning point for a stock's share price), and it gives time for the company to expand and strengthen its brand name. The only ten-year period that the S&P 500 has underperformed bond yields was the 1930-1940 period. All other periods, 1940-1950, 1960-1970, etc., have seen the S&P 500 beat bond yields. The very least you can do is stick money into an index fund tracking the S&P. But, I feel individual stocks can be a much better long-term investment, because rather than betting on 500 different businesses, you can choose a focused portfolio of stocks that you feel have great long-term potential. Their is a company behind every stock, and the small investor can analyze that business as easily as any Wall Street professional. The smartest analyst is yourself.

Diversification is a topic that my views have changed with. My strategy with the Pencils Fund has been to simply invest in the best opportunity I see when I have funds available. What I like to call this strategy is "focused diversification." I try not to get too overloaded in one industry or company, unless the opportunity is just too great to pass up, and you'll get these opportunities plenty of times with stocks. I start with small positions and add at better value points in the future. Sometimes, like with Hansen recently, it's only three weeks time when the value gets better, and sometimes it'll probably be one or two years. You wait for the opportunities, you don't force them. With the Pencils Fund, I invest in companies that I am so comfortable with and like so much that I jump at the opportunity when the value gets significantly better from my previous purchase.

Keeping an investing journal is a huge help to my decisions. With the Pencils Fund purchase write-ups, I write why I invested in the company that I did. This is so that I'll know in five years the exact reasons why I invested in the company when I did. I think the reason so many people are impatient with their stocks is because they don't know how to follow them. I believe keeping an investing journal is the most important aspect to follow stocks, even the ones that you don't own. Make a note of financial changes or recent news that you feel will be important to remember in the future, so that you really understand the business. Many people buy stocks without knowing why, and three months later they're wondering why they are all of a sudden really confused with their holdings. This is what causes impatience, blind investing, it's where it does make sense for the individual investor to stay out of individual stocks. But it isn't hard to keep a journal, write down why you invested in what you did, and jot down important notes. I don't think you need to do this more often, although I think the more often you can the better.

I believe a good strategy is to open small positions in companies you are interested in, are very comfortable with, at a share price you're comfortable with, and keep a journal of their recent movements and happenings as often as you can. This helps you understand the companies behind the stocks even more, helps you establish good value points and target prices, and brings out the fun of stocks: watching great businesses evolve, or crappy businesses deteriorate. You learn as you go.

Tags: beating the market, investing, pencils fund, sp 500, stocks, strategy


Posted at: 03:37 PM | Add Comment RSS | Digg! | del.icio.usdel.icio.us

Brent said...

You are very smart!!Are you really only 14 years old? (Ha,ha,)I just bought a Mutual fund because this one has beat all my stocks and etf for the YTD return and I'm going to put equal amounts of money into it and all my stocks and see what returns I get. Really David I've been buying stocks and ETF's all along, AND all my ETF's are really beating my individual stock! I have 15 stocks and 8 ETF's and all 8 Etf's are returning more money than my 15 stocks.( I'm wondering how I can back test for 20 years BUT ETF's haven't been out that long!)Keep up the great work!

Posted December 2, 2006 06:36 AM | Reply to this comment

John C. Angus said...

Hi David, Been reading through your blog with great interest. You definitely have me curious about Select Comfort. However, in this essay you succumbed to a common error in evaluating the historical stock market. You wrote "The only ten-year period that the S&P 500 has underperformed bond yields was the 1930-1940 period. All other periods, 1940-1950, 1960-1970, etc., have seen the S&P 500 beat bond yields." Between 1900-2006 there have actually been 97 ten year periods you could evaluate, starting with 1900-1909, followed by 1901-1910, followed by 1902-1911...1996-2005, followed by 1997-2006. I grant you that your point that the SP500 has beat bond returns in the majority of those years is accurate; however, that does not necessarily lead to the logical conclusion that equities or indexing are a good idea in todays market. Today's S&P has a P/E of roughly 20 (20.1 per Morningstar as of January 5, 2007) which translates to earnings yield of 5%. The difference between equities and bonds is that the coupon on the bond is fixed going forward, but earnings in companies are expected to expand. I know you are familiar with Buffett's writing and understand this concept of stocks being "equity bonds" with expanding coupons. If not an afternoon reading Buffettology (quick 200 page book by Mark Buffett) explains it very clearly. However, eventhough earnings grow, in order to truely enjoy returns from equities greater than the bond yield, those earnings need to rise AND the P/E expand. But there is the rub, because in those 97 historical 10 year periods only a small percentage of periods starting with P/E's over 20 gave better than 5% returns (CAGR). The majority of those came in the last part of the 1900's and not during the majority of the history of the US equities market. Every great bear market in history started with a P/E over 19, and all the great Bull markets started with P/E less than 12. Sure earnings tend to rise over time, but the irrationality of market forces gives differnt value to those earnings at different times. Historically it is much more likely for P/E to contract from 20 than to rise. For a much clearer explanation of what I am talking about (the history of secular bull/bear markets and the danger of indexing in high P/E periods), check out the very clearly written "Unexpected Returns" by Ed Easterling. He borrows heavily from Robert Shiller's "Irrational Exuberance" but is a much better writer. Shiller may be a brilliant man and good speaker, but his book is colossally dull reading. For a quick look, follow the link below to the crestmont research website and check out their tables of returns in the SP over any period from any year starting in 1900. http://www.crestmontresearch.com/content/Matrix%20Options.htm All that said, if we are in a secular bear market (which I think we have been in since 2001), that does not mean rush to bonds and flee equities, but instead exactly what you said...pick quality companies at a good price and keep an investment journal to stay on top of changes. Beware of irrational exuberance and avoid indexing in high P/E environments. I definitely agree with you about opening a small position in a stock that catches your eye. Until you have some real money invested, you don't pay close enough attention to a company. Then add more when you become convinced of the fundamentals (or close it out when it becomes apparent that it wasn't a good idea after all). Keep up the good work. John (aka Future Monkey on the Motley Fool boards)

Posted January 7, 2007 10:10 PM | Reply to this comment

Add Comment

Your Name: (Required)
Comment:

Please enter the 4 to 6 character security code:

(This is to prevent automated comments.)