Article

Why Compounding is The Best Kept Secret of Investing Success

by

It has been a while since I wrote here, and the reason was that I was away for a nice family vacation. It was a truly wonderful experience, in the midst of good weather, the beauty of nature and great company – a meeting of like minds, a time to relax, the agenda being no agenda.

It made me wonder whether having no agenda is the reason one enjoys vacations so much more than work. 🙂 We had a number of long unhurried discussions on everything from work, investing, achievements to marriage, travel and life itself. That brings me to one of the topics we discussed and the key topic of today’s post – the stark similarity between what I reckoned to be the driver of success in investing as well as achievement – the single magic phenomenon of compounding.

einstein-compound-interest-rule-of-72Everyone knows that Einstein called compound interest the eighth wonder of the world. Most people would also have heard the story of the poor farmer who robbed the rich king in less than three months, when he asked to be given food starting with a single grain today, just doubling the number of grains every day. A recent book called “Outliers” had a similar “Compounding” explanation for super achievement. The author argued that there was no real secret to superlative achievement – people whom he called “Outliers” going by the statistical term. While we always like to give credit of super success to things like inborn talent, genius or luck, the answer in the author’s view was a set of circumstances that simply led the “Outliers” to put in the number of hours required to be “Outliers” – and in his view, what looks like genius starts surfacing after 10000 hours of working at the same thing.  Which means most “Outliers” need to start early in life in their area of work, need to really love that thing a lot to be able to put in the necessary daily grind, and need to consistently keep at it for a long time to reach a level of excellence that looks like genius to other normal individuals.

That does not seem too different from the drivers of investing success. For compound interest to work, one needs to give it sufficient runway, which means start early. Secondly, unless one really loves finding a good deal or is wired with the right temperament to go through inevitable ups and downs of the economy, one is unlikely to keep at it. And finally, the true effects that start looking like investing genius, sometimes simply due to the mathematical magic of compounding – will start coming in only when keeps doing it for a long period of time.

So the key takeaway is that – whether it is compounding for investment success, or compounding of effort for super achievements, there seem to be three common drivers:

Start Early, Love the Journey, Keep at It for long periods of time.

The sad reality is very few people are so placed to be able to meet all the three drivers perfectly. That is, perhaps, the reason why we have so few super achievers and so few super investors.

Why Having Fixed Income is Important for Portfolio Goals

by

The best portfolio strategy for an individual investor is to start by setting a prudent desired asset allocation between risky equity assets and fixed income that the investor is comfortable with and is sustainable, and implementing it by a continuous timely re-balancing of the portfolio. This would mean selling a certain percentage of the equity part when equities have done well, and buying the equivalent fixed income part, thereby resetting the asset allocation to the desired level, and vice versa.

fixedbondsstocksOne of the requirements of implementing this strategy is to have substantial holding of the portfolio (50% to start with) in fixed income or debt funds. Unless one has that holding, it is not possible for the investor to take advantage of low market levels with timely re-balancing. One of the chief advantages of this strategy is not purely mathematical or higher returns, but psychological – related to the mental stability that the average individual investor will experience in the face of falling markets. And if he is in that state, it is likely that he will not only continue investing, but if he has the temperament and discipline, he will also shift fixed income instruments to equity at a time when market levels are low – thus enhancing long-term portfolio returns. This strategy of holding fixed income to some extent when equities are going through the roof also will give him the ammunition to do the right kind of re-balancing when equities tank, and will ensure that like other investors hurt in the crash, he will not run away from the market.

But that also means that when equities are running high, the investor has to be content (and can get a bit impatient) with lower returns due to the debt component. This will take considerable will power and temperamental maturity to stick to, even for the most disciplined individual investors – at least in the initial years of their experience.

So does fixed income play a role or is it only for fuddy-duddy’s to hold? That is a question best answered by the investor himself. But in my experience it does play a role – though that role diminishes as the equity portion of the portfolio increases specially after the investor has seen a couple of economic cycles. So the best path may be to start with an ideal, conservative allocation of 50:50 in the initial few years of investing. The investor will inevitably face the mentally tough situations of large market falls, and get tested. In such situations, the investor is likely to experience and observe his own behavior – whether he falls prey to market vagaries by selling his equity holdings, and stopping further equity investments; or whether he focuses on his asset allocation and shifts some of his debt holdings to equity to re-balance, thus taking advantage of lower market levels. Similarly, he is also likely to go through easier, seemingly feel-rich market situations when equities go through the roof, and see for himself whether he has the mental orientation to sell equities and shift to debt, or ends up going with the crowd increasing his equity exposure.

After having gone through a few such situations in the initial few years, the role that debt funds play in an individual investor’s portfolio is likely to be self-evident. In case he is actually investing regularly with increasing income levels with time, and has gone through a couple of market cycles, it may then be prudent for such an investor to progressively reduce the percentage allocation to debt. Simply because he is confident that he can handle market volatility easily, and secondly because, his portfolio is likely to have reached a size where the effects of re-balancing will likely give diminishing returns.

So yes – debt funds or other fixed income instruments do play a definite role throughout an individual investor’s lifetime. It plays a larger role in the initial years when the effect of asset allocation and re-balancing need to be proven and seen by the investor himself. Unless an investor has fixed income investments, it is not possible to take advantage of market falls by making tactical shifts to equity – thus losing out on long-term portfolio returns. Beyond the first few years, fixed income will still play a similar role where it acts as an income earning store of booked past profits, as well as a pool to access when lower market levels warrant a shift to equity. But the investor can potentially afford to be a bit more confident of his ability to handle market volatility at that stage, and progressively reduce the allocation to fixed income to enhance returns – while still maintaining the percentage of fixed income assets to a significant level. It may be prudent to start with 50:50 allocation initially, and over years and experience of making regular investments, and implementing the asset allocation and re-balancing strategy, progressively reduce the fixed income allocation – but perhaps, never dropping it below 25%. As market vagaries will still continue, and he will still need a store to take advantage of it – and in larger quantities to make an impact as his portfolio size increases.

Selecting Mutual Funds for Investment: What to and What not to look for

by

For the equity part of their portfolio, individual investors have the choice of either directly buying stocks or following the equity mutual fund route. Many individual investors, including myself earlier on in my investing life, make the mistake of evaluating mutual funds similar to stocks. The way to evaluate funds is quite different from evaluating stocks for investment.

whichmutualfundWhy is that? While direct stock investment involves researching and valuing businesses, and buying/selling them at the right price, mutual funds are pools of stocks where the fund manager takes those calls. Hence, what is important to evaluate is the ability and track record of the fund manager to take those calls, and whether that results in performance that is worth paying a fee for. The markets already do stock selection for you in the form of an Index for free. So what the fund investor needs to evaluate is whether the fund manager is worth paying the fees to – so as to get returns that are better than the Index on a consistent basis.

What to base your decision on:

Mandate: As mutual funds are a vehicle and have a role to play in the portfolio, it is important to ensure that the mandate of the fund is in line with your objective, and that the fund has a record of sticking to the mandate, despite changes in ownership or fund managers.

Costs: The disadvantages of high costs of research and fund management can tend to surpass the advantages of better performance of actively managed funds, specially over long periods of time. So choosing funds with low costs is important. Index funds typically have the lowest costs, and guarantee returns in line with the Index. So an actively managed fund’s higher costs need to be compensated by its better long-term performance.

Performance versus Index: This is often exaggerated as a standalone metric, specially over short periods of time. An investor should resign himself to the possibility of even his best fund choices not being the top performer at least some of the time. Even the best performing funds over long periods of time will have periods of under-performance. It is also difficult to predict which fund will deliver better performance in the future, even though it may have done so in the past. So rather than constantly shifting to the best performing fund, it may be better to choose one that has a record of beating the Index or being in the top 10% most of the time, and sticking to it over long periods.

choosingmfWhat not to base your decision for:

Price: The price or NAV of the unit is completely irrelevant, and depends largely on the starting point of the fund. This feels counter-intuitive to most individual investors, and takes a while to understand. An investor should not even look at the NAV of the fund or compare it to others before purchasing it.

Dividends: Dividends paid by the stocks held by the fund are reflected in the NAV. Dividends paid by the equity mutual fund are simply a reflection of profits booked by the fund for you and paid back to you. Again this is counter-intuitive for most investors to understand, and lot of fund companies perpetuate this fallacy by marketing their funds based on historical dividends paid. An investor has no reason to feel anything positive about a fund because it pays dividends regularly. If at all, it may even be a negative specially if the fund is booking profits prematurely and not in line with the mandate of compounding capital appreciation.

So broadly, while choosing individual equity mutual funds to fit into his portfolio, the individual investor should neglect price and dividends, and evaluate funds based on adherence to mandate, low costs, and consistent performance versus index; and based on the same, construct a diversified mutual fund portfolio to meet goals.

Gold and its Glitter: Role of Gold in Portfolio Asset Allocation

by

“You can fondle it, you can polish it, you can stare at it. But it isn’t going to do anything.”

That’s what Warren Buffett had to say about gold. Essentially it is a useless commodity. But it has gone up every year for the last 10 years. It has given returns that are, perhaps, better than almost all asset classes over the last decade, including stocks and real estate.

goldimagesFor investors like Buffett, having gold in their portfolio may not make sense, but for an individual investor, it might make some sense to have a part of his money in gold. The reasons are not far to see.

As an asset class, gold is a funny asset which is difficult to understand and value. It has no inherent value as such. Neither does it produce anything useful, nor does it go as input into producing anything useful in a meaningful way.

Gold is different from other metals or commodities. To some extent, commodities and metals have material value as inputs to something, and their prices can vary based on supply and demand cycles. You may not like the extent to which they may fluctuate, but at least there is some basis on which someone can say that it does not make sense to pay so much for a particular commodity, or that it is cheap at a particular price.

Gold is also different from stocks – which are productive business activities and have the potential to give you both dividends and capital gains if selected well. There are multiple ways in which you may value stocks or companies, but there is a clear economic rationale for each of these. Opinions may never reach a common point, due to which you have markets and all the related volatility, but at least one can have an opinion based on a method of valuing stocks or businesses on their own.

Gold is different from real estate too – in the sense that one can broadly estimate the cost of constructing a property including land and material prices as the base minimum value,  a potential rental income based on economic conditions as the minimum rate of income return, and add capital gains which are broadly in line with inflation as the long-term returns from real estate. It is possible to, at least, broadly value it.

It is even possible to value currencies – based on the country’s macro-economic situation and speculation on what might happen.

goldeggimagesBut Gold? How does one value it? It is just there. One can calculate the cost of mining it as the base – but it is far too low, and not increasing at the rate at which gold prices are. Gold has historically been a hedge against almost everything. Most of the time it is useless as a productive asset. It may at best match inflation, thereby growing at a rate at which currency falls. But in times of crisis, it tends to become a currency of its own. Specially when people want to sell all their stock and run (not exactly that – but are jittery in general), are not confident of real estate prices going up due to some reason, and also do not believe in the value of currencies due to huge economic problems, the thing they seem to rely the most on is Gold. For some reason, some of these fears have been around in the global economy for the past few years, and perhaps will stay on for a few more. So Gold has risen, and may keep doing so – till those conditions continue.

Individual investors should still have stocks, real estate and cash/fixed income as core to their assets. But have a bit of gold too – anywhere from 5% to 20% based on your preference. A chaotic environment favors gold, and if it subsides, you anyway have the other assets. Gold will help provide some stability when others are unstable. Purely as an insurance and for diversification, there is still some truth in grandma’s advice to buy some gold.

The Projection and Protection Approaches to Stock Selection

by

“Researching and selecting your own stocks is not necessary; for most people, it is not even advisable. However, some investors do enjoy the diversion and intellectual challenge of picking individual stocks – and, if you have survived a bear market and still enjoy picking stocks, then nothing that Graham or I could say will dissuade you.”

That’s a comment made by Jason Zweig on Graham’s writings on Stock Selection Criteria in his legendary book “The Intelligent Investor”.

With this backdrop in mind, assuming that you still want to take a shot at individual stock selection, there are, perhaps, two broad mindsets or approaches towards stock selection – the approach of projection and the approach of protection. And which approach to apply when, is dependent on the investor and the object of analysis, namely the company, itself.

The stock selection criteria that the investor chooses therefore is a combination of three factors: Firstly, fundamentally what type of investor you want to be, Second, what bucket of the market does the company you are considering belong to, and Thirdly, whether you should apply the projection or the protection approach.

past-present-futureJust to clarify this a bit further, here it what this distills to.

If you have made a choice to be a ‘defensive’ investor and still want to select individual stocks, your attention should largely be restricted to the small universe of companies that have adequate size, performance history and dividend record. Some degree of projection can then be applied, simply because there is a long historical record on the basis of which projection can be justified. You are unlikely to get these companies selling really cheap, except in exceptional circumstances, because they are likely to be established good businesses that the market values at a premium. These would generally include Index or Large Cap Non-Index companies. So, your attempt should be to purchase good businesses of adequate size and historical performance (i.e. high margins and return on equity, low debt compared to equity, and dividend paying record), when they are available at reasonable valuations.  The mindset being that of projection that these companies will continue with the same in the future.

If you have made a choice to be an ‘enterprising’ investor, your choice of stocks can, then, be from an unlimited universe. The same criteria of projection will continue to be applied by you when looking at large, established good businesses. But once you step out of that bucket of the market, your mindset needs to be essentially that of protection rather than of projection.  Purchases in these businesses should be made when the downside is protected both from an earnings and assets perspective (Low Price/Earnings and Price to Book Value), thus using the approach of protection.

The largest mistakes that investors make are not of buying good businesses when market levels are high, or buying not-so-good businesses when market levels are reasonable or low. But they are when they buy not-so-good businesses at high market levels and are stuck with them. i.e. applying the projection approach on non-established businesses. Hence, outside of the ‘projection’ bucket of the market, the mindset of protection should be dominant – the primary assumption being that, in normal course, most of these businesses are likely to be non-existent after a few years.

Broadly the approach of projection boils down to buying good businesses at reasonable prices, and the approach of protection boils down to buying reasonable businesses at good prices. It is debatable which one works best in terms of investment results – but it is disastrous when an investor mixes the two.

Are Markets Efficient and does it matter?

by

A lot of investing debate and styles of investing are supposed to emanate from this question. The roots of this debate are in an old financial theory called the Efficient Market Hypothesis – which says that all that is to know about a stock is reflected in its price at any point in time, so it is futile to analyze stocks as no one can do it. The very theory challenges human nature so much that it is no surprise that, depending on who you are and what your place is in the financial services industry, you are almost compelled to take a view on it – one way or the other.

marketefficient-garfield_dont_care_black_shirtBut for an individual investor, is it really relevant? Does it matter whether markets are efficient or not, or is it just another debate to confuse him? Again – like so many other things in investing, this may be a great question for experts to debate on, but for an individual investor, a wrong question with many right answers. For an individual investor, letting go on this debate on whether markets are efficient is the best choice. “I don’t know” and “It doesn’t matter” are the best responses. The answer to this question is said to determine whether you as an individual or a fund manager who manages your money can beat the market or not. Again – this is perhaps the wrong question. What if I decide that the markets are efficient and hence invest in Index funds, and then later (at the end of  a year or two) realize that there are lots of funds beating the Index? On the other hand, what if I decide the market are not efficient and hence invest in an Actively Managed fund or decide to manage my money myself, and then later realize that it has not beaten the Index? In other words, the market turned out to be not efficient, but so did my fund manager and my investing techniques!

So actually the prudent answer for an individual investor to the question on whether the markets are efficient or whether I or my fund manager can beat the Index is “I don’t know and it doesn’t matter”. Because the reality is, irrespective of whether they are efficient or not, it is practically impossible to predict in advance whether and/or which stock or which fund manager will beat an Index. Hence – “I don’t know and it doesn’t matter”. Well – I don’t know is fine, but an individual investor may ask why “it doesn’t matter”? It doesn’t matter because what matters more is to have an investment plan, asset allocation and re-balancing strategy in place. What forms part of those assets once you have a plan in place does not matter that much. So whether you choose an Index fund, or an individual stock or an actively managed fund within that asset allocation and re-balancing plan based on your answer to the question “Are markets efficient” may not matter much, at least if you are broadly close to market averages, and in so far as reaching your financial goals are concerned.

So – leave the debate of whether market are efficient to the experts to fight over and resolve. Post that, let them decide whether to focus on large caps versus mid caps; or to use fundamental analysis or technical analysis. For you as an individual investor, what matters more is a proper investment plan to reach your goals that is in line with risk profile, has the right asset allocation and re-balancing strategy in place, and the discipline to stick to it. Post that, you are free to keep deciding what assets to put into that plan, based on performance every year or every couple of years. If the markets turn out be efficient, you are free to move the actively managed fund and individual stocks out of that plan, and hold an Index fund.  If the markets are not efficient and you end up with a good fund manager (or if you yourself are able to beat the market) , good for you, as the stocks and funds you hold may beat the Index. And finally, if you realize that markets are not efficient, but your investment style or fund manager turn out to be equally inefficient :-), you are free to move that money to an Index fund!

So let the debate on Market Efficiency continue, and let the experts argue and make a case for your money. You as an individual investor are in an enviable position, because when asked your view, you can continue saying – “I don’t know and it doesn’t matter.”

Sunk Costs should not affect decision making

by

I had gone for a music concert yesterday evening with my wife. It was a great show – but it rained quite heavily a couple of hours before the show, and there were real chances of the show getting cancelled due to it. While at my house before starting, it was natural for us to think whether the show would happen, and if we should go – specially the distance being long, and traffic chock-a-block while the drizzle had subdued a bit. But the one thing that tilted the decision in favor of going was the fact that we had paid for the tickets in full already.

sunkCostSo what’s the point? Well – the point is that the fact that we had paid for the tickets should not have been the deciding factor. If the rains were heavy, and we had no chances of making it – that alone should have been the criterion. Because the money was gone anyway. It was a different matter that in the end the rain stopped completely, we got there on time despite the traffic, and the show was superb, and hence the risk was worth it – but sometimes it may not work out that way. And even if it does, the reason we took the decision should have been based on whether there was any risk in going or not – rather than because we had paid for the tickets. This is a common ‘sunk cost’ fallacy that a lot of investors are victims of.

Pretty similar situations are likely to arise very often in an investing lifetime. If you are stuck in a situation where a stock you bought falls a lot, assuming you are able to handle the notional fall, your immediate urge is to ‘average the price’ and takes over your thinking. In some cases, it may be the right decision, in fact over time, it may work out and end up being a smart move. But very often, the fact that you bought the stock earlier at a higher price weighs so heavily on you, that you do not evaluate, in enough detail, whether the fundamentals of the company have deteriorated, and if there is a higher risk in buying the stock now, even at the dropped price. There may be real reasons for the fall – and hence averaging out may not be the best strategy. But the ‘sunk cost’ trap comes into play, and affects your decision-making, urging you to average out – rather than buying as a result of a more rational analysis where a purchase at a lower price is deemed to be a sound investment decision irrespective of earlier transactions.

Similarly, assume that you are faced with a situation where you bought stock A and stock B for an equal amount, and a year later, you need 20% of the money invested for some reason. Stock A has gone up 30% and Stock B has fallen 10% by that time. It is likely that you will try to meet your requirements by selling Stock A – simply because you bought it at a lower price and it is 30% up. Again – that may be the ‘sunk cost’ phenomenon at play. The ideal way would be to evaluate the stocks again and then take a call on which one to sell in what quantity. If that is not possible, perhaps selling both to raise an equal amount may be a more rational decision. But the sunk cost paid for the stock weighs so heavily on the mind of the investor that it affects his decision-making, and more likely than not, he will raise money from the stock in which he is in at least some profit.

So what’s the way out of avoiding sunk cost traps? Looking at individual investments in isolation is the problem here – looking at the portfolio as a whole will likely lead to avoiding sunk cost traps. Re-balancing the portfolio (i.e. selling part of your winners and moving them to other assets) is a great long-term strategy, but only if it is set out as a deliberate strategy, and not if it is a result of a sunk cost trap. Hence, it is best if one makes a conscious effort to recognize the sunk cost behavioural trap, and ensure that decision-making is not being affected by the same. Like so many things in investing and finance, unfortunately, there is no clear answer here – on what exactly to do – but it is left best to an investor and his situation to come to a conclusion based on a clear awareness of the possibility of getting into a sunk cost trap.

Insurance is not Investment

by

It is an indication of the sorry state of affairs in investor education that market linked insurance schemes get more fund inflows than mutual funds in India. The war between the capital market and insurance regulators was never fully resolved, though it led to some changes in structure of market linked insurance plans, and perhaps a lesser complex cost structure. It did not solve the issue of higher commission payouts to insurance salesmen, though it left mutual fund companies in the lurch – due to their inability to pay commissions to their distributors. Of course, a smaller evil cannot be a solution to a larger evil – and the world is not a perfect place – so while things have improved, the fact remains that investor education is still so low that financial products get sold rather than bought.

insurance-notinvestmentThe fact of the matter is that everyone needs insurance, and everyone needs investment solutions. More important than that, everyone needs an ability to differentiate between the two, and a discipline to stick to the differences. Nobody except the companies selling them needs market linked insurance products. An individual needs adequate levels of low cost insurance, and a clear investment plan. A mixed product like market linked insurance product simply combines the two, adds some complexity to make it a nice sales pitch, and eventually depends on the investor’s confusion and the salesman’s skills to collect the premium.

Insurance is a game where you take a bet on your longevity, and pay a premium to protect against unexpected death or loss of earning power. The only basis for selecting insurance should be a product where the odds are in your favour – in the form of a low premium for a large insured sum, preferably at a young age. Investment is a game where you take a bet on the future earning capacity of an asset, and pay a price which you think is lower than the sum of future earning capacity. These are two unrelated things – and combining savings or investment plans with insurance – is like adding apples to oranges. The only excuse to go for a market linked insurance product instead of a mutual fund can be an investor’s lack of discipline which an insurance product provides no escape from, unlike a mutual fund or stock which can be sold in panic. But that is more an investor’s problem to solve through better education and self-discipline rather than locking himself to a high cost product.

If an investor has education and self-discipline, there is no reason whatsoever for him to go for a market linked insurance scheme – which is simply high cost investment in disguise. And in the absence of education and self-discipline, it is unlikely that anything can help him.

We have met the enemy, and he is us: Are you being your own enemy?

by

April 22 is Earth Day – and this was the slogan used on a cartoon poster on the first Earth Day in 1970, with the character Pogo saying – “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” While it still holds true in the context of mankind being the earth’s biggest enemy due to multiple reasons, I think the statement is strikingly true even when it comes to investors.

In market crashes, there is this unending search for who is to blame for it, and multiple theories abound on whose actions led to it. Every time the reasons for the crash are different in terms of the context of the economy, from Harshad Mehta to Technology Dot-com boom to Sub-prime crisis, but the culprits blamed are many, and the enemy is still not to be found. Investors lose money, get out of the market thinking that I cannot find the enemy here, I do not understand this game, and I am not playing it – in most cases, not quite realizing that the enemy can often be found within themselves.

The biggest enemy of an investor is the investor himself. And that has got to do with the emotions of fear or greed, and a lack of a plan (or if it exists, a lack of discipline to adhere to it). The reality is that investment is less about which stocks will rise or which funds to buy, and more about what is your plan and whether you are willing to stick to it. If the investor focuses his attention away from the markets and more towards what his plan is, with respect to his goals, he is making every effort to ensure that he stops being his own enemy. A simple plan that is not dependent on market movements charted out to meet his goals, and the discipline to adhere to it through thick and thin are his best friends.

We all play games like cricket or monopoly – and most players or teams will increase their chances of winning if they have a plan and stick to it. Some times one will have to make slight changes when unexpected things happen and your ability to withstand pressure will matter then, but the importance of a plan and sticking to it cannot be undermined and is paramount. For example, for a game of cricket, you may have a plan to go for the slog in the first 15 overs and then consolidate your position for the next 25 with wickets in hand, and then go for the kill in the last 10 overs. You may lose a few wickets more than expected, and have to modify the plan a bit, but if you still manage to hold on to the plan, you are more likely to reach your target. Or in monopoly, the plan is simply to buy sites, houses, exchange them for hotels, and wait for people to land there and keep paying you rent or buying it from you – so that you get rich. You may get unlucky, and someone else might get the prized sites sometimes, but there is a clear plan to take if you want to win.

In the investment markets, the reason most people are their own enemies is because they do not have a clear plan. So the answer is simple – figure out what strategy or strategies work best for you given your goals, make a plan around them, and have the discipline to stick to that plan. Market prediction becomes irrelevant when an investor has a plan prepared. Market movements help him then only to the extent of assessing if any actions are needed in the context of his plan when the movements happen – and in most cases, irrespective of whether they are up or down – they are likely to be more than welcome for the investor. The search for an enemy will then reduce, as he is likely to see none!

Ranjit’s Newsletter