价值投资 惠特尼 蒂尔森

Introduction What Is Value Investing? • Attempting to buy a stock (or other financial asset) for less than it’s worth • Contrast with greater-fool investing • False distinction between growth vs. value investing o “All intelligent investing is value investing.” – Charlie Munger • Intrinsic value • Margin of Safety • Does not necessarily mean buying lousy businesses at low valuation ratios Three Steps to Evaluating Stocks • Circle of competence o Do we understand this company and its industry deeply? o Can we make reasonable projections about the company’s future? o Keep it simple. Good investment ideas can usually be explained in 30 seconds • Company and industry evaluation o Is this a good business? Does it have sustainable competitive advantages? High returns on capital? Solid, steady growth? Healthy balance sheet? Strong free cash flow? o Often involves company visit, management and customer interviews. o Is this a good industry? Are the trends favorable? What are the competitive dynamics? o Look for an informational edge, often via proprietary sources or scuttlebutt research. • Evaluation of management o Are they good operators? o Are they good capital allocators? o Are they trustworthy and shareholder friendly? Trembling With Greed • Is the stock really, really cheap? • What is your variant perception? Focus Investing • When you get an easy pitch, swing hard o Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of non-market risk of just owning one stock o Four stocks eliminates 72% of the risk o Eight stocks eliminates 81% of the risk o 16 stocks eliminates 93% of the risk o 32 stocks eliminates 96% of the risk o 500 stocks eliminates 99% of the risk Introduction-Page 1 of 25 • Buffett’s 20-punches analogy • Sizing shorts and options Variant Perceptions • “The hardest thing over the years has been having the courage to go against the dominant wisdom of the time, to have a view that is at variance with the present consensus and bet that view. The hard part is that an investor must measure himself not by his own perceptions of his performance but by the objective measure of the market. The market has its own reality. In an immediate, emotional sense, the market is always right. So if you take a variant point of view, you will always be bombarded for some period of time by the conventional wisdom as expressed by the market.” – Michael Steinhardt • “It’s much warmer inside the herd.” – Jean-Marie Eveillard • “If you just do what other people do, you will get the results other people get.” – Bill Miller Gaining an Edge • Three ways to beat the market: better stock picking, better market timing or more portfolio leverage. • Size • Time arbitrage o “Time arbitrage just means exploiting the fact that most investors – institutional, individual, mutual funds or hedge funds – tend to have very short-term time horizons, have rapid turnover or are trying to exploit very short-term anomalies in the market. So the market looks extremely efficient in the short run. In an environment with massive short-term data overload and with people concerned about minute-to-minute performance, the inefficiencies are likely to be looking out beyond, say, 12 months.” – Bill Miller • Concentration • Analytical • Experience • Emotional • Informational Traits of Successful Money Managers The right approach 1. Think about investing as the purchasing of companies, rather than the trading of stocks. 2. Ignore the market, other than to take advantage of its occasional mistakes. o “Basically, price fluctuations have only one significant meaning for the true investor. They provide him an opportunity to buy wisely when prices fall sharply and to sell wisely when they advance a great deal. At other times, he will do better if he forgets about the stock market.” – Ben Graham Introduction-Page 2 of 25 3. Only buy a stock when it is on sale. o “To distill the secret of sound investment into three words, we venture the motto, MARGIN OF SAFETY.” – Ben Graham 4. Focus first on avoiding losses, and only then think about potential gains. o “We look for businesses that in general aren’t going to be susceptible to very much change. It means we miss a lot of very big winners but it also means we have very few big losers.... We’re perfectly willing to trade away a big payoff for a certain payoff.” – Buffett 5. Invest only when the odds are highly favorable -- and then invest heavily. 6. Do not focus on predicting macroeconomic factors. o “I spend about 15 minutes a year on economic analysis. The way you lose money in the stock market is to start off with an economic picture. I also spend 15 minutes a year on where the stock market is going.” – Peter Lynch 7. Be flexible! It makes little sense to limit investments to a particular industry or type of stock (large-cap growth, mid-cap value, etc.). o “We employ no rigid industry, sector, or position limits.” – Bill Miller 8. Shun consensus decision-making. o “My idea of a group decision is looking in a mirror.” – Buffett The right person Most successful investors have the following characteristics: 1. They are businesspeople, and understand how industries work and companies compete. o “I am a better investor because I am a businessman, and a better businessman because I am an investor.” – Buffett 2. They have a lot of intellectual horsepower. o However, “investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with the 130 IQ” – Buffett 3. They are good with numbers -- though advanced math is irrelevant -- and are able to seize on the most important nuggets of information in a sea of data. 4. They are simultaneously confident and humble. 5. They are independent, and neither take comfort in standing with the crowd nor derive pride from standing alone. 6. They are patient. (“Long-term greedy,” as Buffett once said.) Templeton noted that, “if you find shares that are low in price, they don’t suddenly go up. Our average holding period is five years.” 7. They make decisions based on analysis, not emotion. 8. They love what they do. o “I’m the luckiest guy in the world in terms of what I do for a living” and “I wouldn’t trade my job for any job” and “I feel like tap dancing all the time.” – Buffett Introduction-Page 3 of 25 Thoughts on Value Investing Why will investors wait for a better deal on a car, but not a stock? Whitney Tilson discusses the elusive but vital topic of value investing in his first Fool on the Hill column, trying to hammer down not only what it is -- but what it isn’t. By Whitney Tilson Published on the Motley Fool web site, 11/7/00 (http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2000/foth001107.htm) With the suspension of the Boring Portfolio, I’ll now be writing in this space every Tuesday. Since many Fools may not have spent much time in the backwaters of the Bore Port, I’d like to use this, my first Fool on the Hill, to introduce myself. (I don’t have much space here, so I’ve included links to many of my favorite articles below; links to all 45 Motley Fool columns I’ve written over the past year are on my website.) Unlike pretty much every other writer for the Fool, I don’t work for the Fool. I’m a money manager in New York City, though I’m about as far from the fast trading, Wall Street stereotype as you can get. I’ve been a consultant and entrepreneur (many times over), and have an MBA, but have never worked for a financial firm. In fact, not too long ago I was an individual investor just like you. I taught myself how to invest my reading voraciously, then began to manage my own money, then some for my family, and eventually started my own firm. What is value investing? I am a value investor, though if you looked at my portfolio, you might scratch your head and wonder. I’d like to use the rest of this column and the next one to share my thoughts on value investing, especially as it applies to the New Economy. Very simply, value investing means attempting to buy a stock (or other financial asset) for less than it’s worth. In this case, “worth” is not what you hope someone else might pay for your stock tomorrow or next week or next month -- that’s “greater fool investing.” Instead, as I wrote in Valuation Matters, “the value of a company (and therefore a fractional ownership stake in that company, which is, of course, a share of its stock) is worth no more and no less than the future cash that can be taken out of the business, discounted back to the present.” Buying something for less than it’s worth: What a simple and obvious concept. Charlie Munger said it best at this year’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting: “All intelligent investing is value investing.” Bargain hunting is pretty much what everyone tries to do when buying anything, right? How many people walk into an auto dealership and say, “I want to buy your most popular car, and I don’t care about the price. In fact, if the price has doubled recently, I want it even more.”? Conversely, why would someone be deterred from buying if the dealer had recently marked down the price by 25%? And how many people would buy a car based on a stranger’s recommendation, without doing any of their own research? So why do so many people behave like this when buying stocks? The answer lies in part, I suppose, in the realm of human psychology -- the assumption that the crowd is always right, and ©1995-2005 The Motley Fool, Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction-Page 4 of 25 the comfort of being part of the herd. Also, there’s the thrill of gambling and the hope of a big score. (I intend to return to the topic of behavioral economics -- the subject of my first Motley Fool column, The Perils of Investor Overconfidence -- in future columns.) Another factor is that valuation is tricky -- it’s hard to develop scenarios and probabilities to estimate a company’s future cash flows. But that’s no excuse. As I argued in perhaps my most controversial column, The Arrogance of Stock Picking, if you don’t have the three T’s -- time, training and temperament -- that are the basic requirements for successful stock picking, then you’re very likely to be better off in mutual funds (or, better yet, index funds). As I noted in my follow-up column, More on The Arrogance of Stock Picking, “I think it’s a sign of the times that this [point of view] would be considered by some to be controversial or insightful. Heck, I’d give you the same advice were you to undertake any challenging endeavor: piloting a plane, teaching a class, starting a business, building a house, whatever. But when it comes to investing, people are bombarded with messages that they should jump into the market and buy stocks, and of course there is no mention of the risks involved or the skills required to invest properly.” I think my arguments largely fell on deaf ears during the madness earlier this year. With the unfortunate pain many unsuspecting investors have experienced since then, maybe now there will be a more receptive audience. What value investing is NOT Many people think that value investing means buying crummy companies at single-digit P/E ratios. Ha! While some value-oriented investment managers have fallen into this trap (the subject of my column, Should Warren Buffett Call It Quits?, which compared Warren Buffett with the Tiger Funds’ Julian Robertson), I’m skeptical that there’s much genuine value in companies trading at low multiples but with poor financials and weak future prospects. Buffett agrees. In his latest annual letter, he wrote: “If the choice is between a questionable business at a comfortable price or a comfortable business at a questionable price, we much prefer the latter. What really gets our attention, however, is a comfortable business at a comfortable price.” Nor does value investing rule out taking risks. If the potential payoff is high enough, even the risk of total loss is acceptable. For example, every value investor I know of would jump at the chance to invest at least a small portion of their assets in a coin toss, where heads would pay 5x, but tails would yield a total loss. (I make similar calculations when I make venture capital investments.) Unfortunately, however, as I argued last month in Perils and Prospects in Tech, many people take tremendous risks -- often unknowingly -- by buying high-flying stocks in the belief that they are making such a bet, when in fact the odds are far worse. This does not mean that value investing excludes all companies with high P/E ratios (though I would argue, as I did in Cisco’s Formidable Challenge, that very few businesses of any size are likely to be undervalued if they trade above 50x earnings and certainly 100x). For example, I bought Intel early last year at approximately 25x trailing earnings. That may not sound like a bargain, but I felt that this exceptional company would generate enough cash over time to justify its price. Despite its recent hiccups, my opinion hasn’t changed and I’m still holding. ©1995-2005 The Motley Fool, Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction-Page 5 of 25 As this example shows, I don’t believe that value investing precludes buying the stocks of technology companies. While Buffett is famous for his aversion to such stocks (the subject of my column, Why Won’t Buffett Invest in Tech Stocks?), he does not deny that there can be wonderful bargains in this arena. He simply says: “I don’t want to play in a game where the other guy has an advantage. I could spend all my time thinking about technology for the next year and still not be the 100th, 1,000th, or even the 10,000th smartest guy in the country in analyzing those businesses. In effect, that’s a 7- or 8-foot bar that I can’t clear. There are people who can, but I can’t. Different people understand different businesses. The important thing is to know which ones you do understand and when you’re operating within your circle of competence.” (1998 annual meeting) I urge you to think about your circle of competence. Understanding it -- and not straying beyond it -- is one of the most critical elements of successful investing. Another critical element is a firm grasp of Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Conclusion Value investing is very simple in concept, but very difficult in practice. The market, for all its foibles, tends to be quite efficient most of the time, so finding significantly undervalued stocks isn’t easy. But this approach, done properly, offers the best chance for substantial long-term gains in varied markets, while protecting against meaningful, permanent losses. Next week I will continue with some thoughts about why, despite being a value investor, I embrace rather than shun the tech sector. -- Whitney Tilson Whitney Tilson is Managing Partner of Tilson Capital Partners, LLC, a New York City-based money management firm. Mr. Tilson appreciates your feedback at Tilson@Tilsonfunds.com. To read his previous columns for the Motley Fool and other writings, click here. ©1995-2005 The Motley Fool, Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction-Page 6 of 25 Three Steps to Evaluating Stocks A disciplined approach to evaluating stocks is especially important today given the market’s recent turmoil. In this article, Whitney Tilson shares his own three-step process: identifying his circle of competence and eliminating companies that fall outside it, running the numbers, and looking into such “soft stuff” as a company’s management, culture, and sustainable competitive advantage. By Whitney Tilson Published on the Motley Fool web site, 9/25/01 (http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2001/foth010925.htm) I’d like to add one more trait to my list of personal characteristics and professional habits I believe can be found in successful investors, and it’s one I believe is more critical now than ever given the market’s recent turmoil: a disciplined approach to evaluating stocks. Investors typically encounter many investment ideas each week from reading business publications, using stock screens, talking to other investors, and so forth. Analyzing these ideas quickly and accurately is critical to success in stock picking. My approach, no doubt only one among many that can work, is a three-step process. Circle of competence Berkshire Hathaway’s (NYSE: BRK.A) Charlie Munger, who along with Warren Buffett has formed one of the great investing teams of our time, once said: “The game of investing is one of making better predictions about the future than other people. How are you going to do that? One way is to limit your tries to areas of competence. If you try to predict the future of everything, you attempt too much.” What simple -- yet widely ignored -- advice! Defining your circle of competence, however, is easier said than done. I’m not sure I can succinctly define mine, for example, though I think I have a good understanding of it. I feel to some extent like the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who admitted he could not formulate a coherent standard for obscenity but wrote, “I know it when I see it.” I’m sure most investors believe that they know and stay within their circle of competence, but I really wonder what percentage of investors in such companies as Cisco (Nasdaq: CSCO), Juniper (Nasdaq: JNPR), and JDS Uniphase (Nasdaq: JDSU) really understand these companies’ technologies, products and competitors. This isn’t to say all tech stocks are outside the circle of competence of average investors, however. I don’t consider myself a technology expert, but have gotten comfortable enough to own the stocks of certain companies whose businesses I think are reasonably easy to understand, such as Lexmark (NYSE: LXK), Dell (Nasdaq: DELL), and American Power Conversion (Nasdaq: APCC). (I only own the former at this time.) I’ll let Warren Buffett have the last word on this topic (from the 1998 Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting): ©1995-2005 The Motley Fool, Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction-Page 7 of 25 “I don’t want to play in a game where the other guy has an advantage. I could spend all my time thinking about technology for the next year and still not be the 100th, 1,000th, or even the 10,000th smartest guy in the country in analyzing those businesses. In effect, that’s a seven- or eight-foot bar that I can’t clear. There are people who can, but I can’t. “The fact that there’ll be a lot of money made by somebody doesn’t bother me really. There’s going to be a lot of money made by somebody in cocoa beans. But I don’t know anything about ‘em. There are a whole lot of areas I don’t know anything about. So more power to ‘em. “I think it would be a very valid criticism if it were possible that Charlie [Munger] and I, by spending a year working on it, could become well enough informed so that our judgment would be better than other people’s. But that wouldn’t happen. And no matter how hard I might train, I still couldn’t. Therefore, it’s better for us to swing at pitches [that are easy for us].” As I concluded in a March 2000 article, ”Different people understand different businesses. The important thing is to know which ones you do understand and when you’re operating within your circle of competence...Understanding it -- and not straying beyond it -- is one of the most critical elements of successful investing.” Run the numbers Once I determine that a company is within my circle of competence, I go to the financial statements to answer two questions: Is this a good business, and is the stock cheap? Regarding the former, the most important things I’m looking for are high margins and returns on c