All articles

Common Investing Pitfalls

Investing can be hugely rewarding. But we need to be able to navigate behavioural tendencies that may cause poor investing decisions.

Taking control of your own finances can be hugely rewarding. But it is also permeated with investing mine traps that could potentially derail your returns. 

Even seasoned investors and professional portfolio managers are not immune to these pitfalls.

Many of these are innate behavioral human tendencies that create delusions and lead to investment errors.

Jason Zweig, the author of the best selling book, Your Money and Your Brain, said, “Humankind evolved to seek rewards and avoid risks, but not to invest wisely. To do that. You’ll have to outwit your impulses – especially the greedy and fearful ones.”

With that said, here are three common human tendencies that may impact our investing.

Making gross generalisations

The human brain makes sense of the world by recognising patterns. But when it comes to investing, assuming a pattern when there really isn’t one could be detrimental.

Carolyn Gowen, a well-respected financial advisor, recently wrote in her blog that “in investing, we often mistake random noise for what appears to be a non-random sequence.”

To lower the chance that we mistake a random sequence for a pattern, we should look for real economic reasons behind a correlation.

Second, never rely on short-term data. Investing should be viewed in decades, rather than months or years.

Herd mentality

Humans are social creatures. We want to be included and accepted. It is, therefore, not surprising that herd instinct is a common phenomenon in investing.

Investors need positive reinforcement to make decisions. We want to be verified by advice and what others are doing.

The end result is an investment decision that is not the result of individual choice. The tulip mania is a classic example of herd mentality. Towards the end of the 16th century, the demand for Dutch tulips skyrocketed. Investors, eyeing a quick buck, flocked in to buy tulip futures. The price of tulips skyrocketed before the bubble finally burst in 1937.

John Huber, manager of the Saber Capital Fund said, “My observation is that independent thought is extremely rate, which makes it valuable… Understanding this reality and being aware of our own human tendencies is probably a necessary condition to investment success in the long run.”

Self-serving bias

The self-serving bias is a common cognitive bias that distorts an investor’s thinking. In essence, the self-serving bias leads us to credit ourselves for successes but blame failures on other causes.

This delusion perpetuates poor investing decisions and limits our ability to learn. Not knowing what you don’t know is probably the single most dangerous flaw in investing.

The best defense against this cognitive bias is to review each investment decision and see if your investment thesis had played out in the first place. Were your investment successes built around solid fundamental reasoning or was it pure luck?

Keeping an investing journal can help us keep track and review our investing decisions.

The Good Investors’ Conclusion

Billionaire hedge fund manager, Seth Klarman, once observed:

“So if the entire country became security analysts, memorized Ben Graham’s Intelligent Investor, and regularly attended Warren Buffett’s annual shareholder meetings, most people would, nevertheless, find themselves irresistibly drawn to hot initial public offerings, momentum strategies, and investment fads.

Even if they somehow managed to be long-term value investors with a portion of their capital, people would still find it tempting to day-trade and perform technical analysis of stock charts. People would, in short, still be attracted to short-term, get-rich-quick schemes.”

Being rational is easier said than done. We humans are built in a way that has helped us survive for thousands of years by making decisions based on fear and greed. So going against these human emotions is innately difficult.

But to be good investors, we need to appreciate and overcome these human emotions and biases. By overcoming our emotions and biases in investing, we are more likely to make sound investing decisions that give us the best chance of long-term investing success.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Why I Own Berkshire Hathaway Shares

I’ve owned Berkshire Hathaway shares for more than eight years. There are good reasons why I continue to hold shares of Warren Buffett’s conglomerate.

Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK-B) is one of the 50-plus companies that’s in my family’s portfolio. I first bought Berkshire shares for the portfolio in August 2011 at a price of US$70 and again in September 2015 at US$130. I’ve not sold any of the shares I’ve bought.

The first two purchases have performed well for my family’s portfolio, with Berkshire’s share price being around US$223 now. But it is always important to think about how a company’s business will evolve going forward. What follows is my thesis for why I still continue to hold Berkshire shares.

Company description

Berkshire is one of the most fascinating companies I have come across.

The story starts in 1965, when Warren Buffett took over the company because of anger. Back then, Buffett was a hedge fund manager. He had bought Berkshire shares a few years prior because they were cheap compared to the company’s assets.

In 1964, Berkshire’s then-leader, Seabury Stanton, offered to buy Buffett’s shares for US$11.50 each. Buffett agreed to sell. But Stanton’s official offer was slightly lower, at US$11.375 per share. Buffett was livid about being lied to, to the extent that he amassed a controlling stake in Berkshire to fire Stanton.

Berkshire was merely a struggling textile manufacturer when Buffett became its leader. But over the years, Buffett has thoroughly transformed the company through numerous inspired acquisitions and deft stock market investments.

Charlie Munger joined Berkshire in 1978. But for many years prior, he and Buffett were already collaborating. In fact, Munger helped Buffett to refine his already formidable investing prowess. 

Today the 88-year old Buffett and 95-year old Munger continue to lead Berkshire as chairman and vice-chairman, respectively. The company can also be rightfully described as a truly diversified conglomerate, with more than 60 subsidiaries across a wide range of industries. Here’s a sample of the companies under Berkshire’s umbrella:

  • Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group – provider of insurance products to other reinsurers and property, casualty, life, and health insurers globally
  • GEICO – second largest insurer in the US auto insurance market (share of 13% at end-2018)
  • Burlington Northern Santa Fe – one of the North American continent’s largest railroad companies
  • Berkshire Hathaway Energy – one of the largest energy utilities in the US, and the second-largest residential real estate brokerage firm in the same country
  • IMC International Metalworking Companies – among the top three manufacturers of consumable precision carbide metal cutting tools in the world 
  • Precision Castparts – manufacturer of metal parts and components that go into aircraft
  • Borsheim’s – fine-jewellery retailer
  • Nebraska Furniture Mart –  furniture retailer (as its name suggests) 
  • See’s Candies – chocolate and confectionary producer 

Berkshire’s reach extends beyond its subsidiaries. It also has a massive investment portfolio that is worth more than US$220 billion as of 30 September 2019. The portfolio consists of shares of more than 40 publicly traded companies that are mostly listed in the US. Some of them are also in my family’s portfolio, such as Apple, Amazon.com, and Mastercard. The investment portfolio is overseen by Buffett, Munger, Todd Combs, and Ted Weschler. 

Investment thesis

I had previously laid out my investment framework in The Good Investors. I will use the framework, which consists of six criteria, to describe my investment thesis for Berkshire.

1. Revenues that are small in relation to a large and/or growing market, or revenues that are large in a fast-growing market

Berkshire is already a massive company, with US$247.8 billion in revenue in 2018. But I believe there’s still plenty of room to run for the conglomerate, although I’m not expecting rapid growth. 

I think a growth rate in the high single-digit or low double-digit percentage range for Berkshire is reasonable. This is because Berkshire’s diversified collection of US stocks and high-quality subsidiaries puts it in a great position to ride on the US’s long-term economic growth.

There are a few points I want to expand on. First is regarding the US economy. Over the years, Buffett has not been shy in sharing his enthusiasm about the US . In Berkshire’s 2018 shareholders’ letter, Buffett wrote:

“Charlie and I happily acknowledge that much of Berkshire’s success has simply been a product of what I think should be called The American Tailwind.

It is beyond arrogance for American businesses or individuals to boast that they have “done it alone.” The tidy rows of simple white crosses at Normandy should shame those who make such claims.

There are also many other countries around the world that have bright futures. About that, we should rejoice: Americans will be both more prosperous and safer if all nations thrive. At Berkshire, we hope to invest significant sums across borders.

Over the next 77 years, however, the major source of our gains will almost certainly be provided by The American Tailwind. We are lucky – gloriously lucky – to have that force at our back.”

(Do read the “The American Tailwind” section of Buffett’s 2018 letter.)

To build on Buffett’s American Tailwind idea, I want to highlight that the working-age population in the US is estimated to increase by 13% from today to 2050. That’s one of the brightest demographics among developed economies across the world. Here’s a chart from Morgan Housel showing this:

The second point I want to expand on is the quality of Berkshire’s subsidiaries. If you’re a long-time observer of Berkshire, you’ll know that a durable competitive advantage is one of the key qualities that Buffett seeks when making acquisitions. 

There are numbers to prove this point: Berkshire’s manufacturing, service, and retailing businesses earn healthy after-tax returns on net tangible assets while holding plenty of cash and using very little debt. The table illustrates this from 2012 to 2016 (the last year that Buffett reported the after-tax return on net tangible assets employed by this group of businesses).

Source: Berkshire Hathaway annual reports

A last note from me on Berkshire’s room for growth: Buffett and Munger are, in my eyes, two of the best investors in the world today, and they’re still constantly looking for bargains in the stock market and private businesses to acquire to strengthen Berkshire’s portfolio. 

2. A strong balance sheet with minimal or a reasonable amount of debt

As of 30 September 2019, Berkshire’s balance sheet has US$102.2 billion in borrowings – that’s a fair amount of debt. 

But Berkshire also has a massive cash hoard of US$128.2 billion, including US$53.4 billion in short-term investments in US Treasury bills, which can be considered as cash for liquidity purposes. So Berkshire does have tremendous resources to invest for growth as well as withstand shocks.

There are huge insurance businesses within Berkshire. So I think it’s also important for me to watch the company’s ability to payout huge insurance claims from time to time. 

Buffett believes that “the annual probability of a US mega-catastrophe causing [US]$400 billion or more of insured losses is about 2%.” For perspective, a US$400 billion insured-loss is nearly four times the highest amount that the US has seen since 1980. This is illustrated in the chart below (the dark blue bars indicate insured losses in each year):

Source: Insurance Information Institute

In the event that US$400 billion of insured losses happen in a year, Berkshire’s share would be just US$12 billion or so. This is a huge sum of money. But it is far less than the annual earnings the company expects from its non-insurance businesses. For context, Berkshire’s non-insurance businesses generated US$20.8 billion in pre-tax income in 2018, up 24% from 2017. Although Berkshire will be bruised by a US$400 billion mega-catastrophe event in the insurance industry, most other insurers would go bust according to Buffett. 

The diversification present in Berkshire adds another layer of financial resilience. I mentioned earlier that the conglomerate controls over 60 subsidiaries across many industries. This is also true of Berkshire’s investment portfolio. The 40-odd stocks in the portfolio belong to technology, banking, media, consumer products, and more.

3. A management team with integrity, capability, and an innovative mindset

On integrity

Buffett’s overall reputation, in business and in life, is pristine. The excerpt below, taken from Berkshire’s latest official proxy statement released in March 2019, will also shine tremendous light on the integrity of Buffett and Munger (emphases are mine):

“Due to Mr. Buffett’s and Mr. Munger’s desire that their compensation remain unchanged, the Committee has not proposed an increase in Mr. Buffett’s or Mr. Munger’s compensation since the Committee was created in 2004. Prior to that time, Mr. Buffett recommended to the Board of Directors the amount of his compensation and Mr. Munger’s.

Mr. Buffett’s annual compensation and Mr. Munger’s annual compensation have been [US]$100,000 for more than 25 years and Mr. Buffett has advised the Committee that he would not expect or desire such compensation to increase in the future…

...Mr. Buffett will on occasion utilize Berkshire personnel and/or have Berkshire pay for minor items such as postage or phone calls that are personal. Mr. Buffett reimburses Berkshire for these costs by making an annual payment to Berkshire in an amount that is equal to or greater than the costs that Berkshire has incurred on his behalf.

During 2018, Mr. Buffett reimbursed Berkshire [US]$50,000. Berkshire provides personal and home security services for Mr. Buffett. The cost for these services was approximately [US]$290,000 in 2018. Berkshire’s Board of Directors believe that in light of Mr. Buffett’s critical role as Berkshire’s CEO and given that Mr. Buffett spends a significant amount of his time while at home on Berkshire business matters that such costs represent bona fide business expenses.

None of Berkshire’s named executive officers use Company cars or belong to clubs to which the Company pays dues. It should also be noted that neither Mr. Buffett nor Mr. Munger utilizes corporate-owned aircraft for personal use.”

Buffett and Munger earn their riches predominantly from their ownership of Berkshire shares. As of 6 March 2019, Buffett controlled Berkshire shares that are worth around US$90 billion at the current price; Munger’s stake also makes him a billionaire (around US$1.5 billion). These high ownership stakes give me comfort that their interests are aligned with mine.

Although Buffett and Munger’s philanthropic actions are not directly-related to investing, I think they speak volumes about the characters of the two elder statesmen of business. The actions also inspire me, so I want to include a brief discussion. In 2006, Buffett pledged to donate more than 99% of his wealth to charitable causes during his lifetime or at his death. Since then, Buffett has already given more than US$34.5 billion to charities. Munger, meanwhile, has given hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 30 years toward the building of school facilities.

On capability

On the topic of capability, Berkshire’s track record of growth since 1965 has been nothing short of stunning. More on this soon.

On innovation

For a long time, Buffett was averse to technology stocks because he couldn’t understand them (he first broke the duck by investing in IBM in 2011, and of course Berkshire now has a big stake in Apple). So it’s no surprise that Berkshire is not the first name that comes to mind if we mention the word “innovation.”

But what Berkshire lacks in technological innovation, it makes up for with a unique mindset in business.

Let’s first talk about Buffett’s view toward acquiring companies. I want to discuss this because acquisitions will be one of Berkshire’s key growth drivers in the years ahead. The excerpts below from Berkshire’s 2008 shareholders’ letter are instructive (emphases are mine):

Our long-avowed goal is to be the “buyer of choice” for businesses – particularly those built and owned by families. The way to achieve this goal is to deserve it. That means we must keep our promises; avoid leveraging up acquired businesses; grant unusual autonomy to our managers; and hold the purchased companies through thick and thin (though we prefer thick and thicker).

Our record matches our rhetoric. Most buyers competing against us, however, follow a different path. For them, acquisitions are “merchandise.” Before the ink dries on their purchase contracts, these operators are contemplating “exit strategies.” We have a decided advantage, therefore, when we encounter sellers who truly care about the future of their businesses.

Some years back our competitors were known as “leveraged-buyout operators.” But LBO became a bad name. So in Orwellian fashion, the buyout firms decided to change their moniker. What they did not change, though, were the essential ingredients of their previous operations, including their cherished fee structures and love of leverage.

Their new label became “private equity,” a name that turns the facts upside-down: A purchase of a business by these firms almost invariably results in dramatic reductions in the equity portion of the acquiree’s capital structure compared to that previously existing.

A number of these acquirees, purchased only two to three years ago, are now in mortal danger because of the debt piled on them by their private-equity buyers. Much of the bank debt is selling below 70¢ on the dollar, and the public debt has taken a far greater beating. The private equity firms, it should be noted, are not rushing in to inject the equity their wards now desperately need. Instead, they’re keeping their remaining funds very private.”

I believe that Buffett’s mindset of wanting to be long-term (eternal?) owners when acquiring companies, alone, is a competitive advantage in the private markets that is not easily replicable. Berkshire has walked the talk of being a responsible long-term owner of businesses and implementing decentralised management – these traits have made the conglomerate a preferred buyer when owners of good private family-built businesses are looking to sell. In his 2018 shareholders’ letter, Buffett again emphasised that Berkshire wants to be a long-term owner of the businesses that it acquires:

“You may ask whether an allowance should not also be made for the major tax costs Berkshire would incur if we were to sell certain of our wholly-owned businesses. Forget that thought: It would be foolish for us to sell any of our wonderful companies even if no tax would be payable on its sale. Truly good businesses are exceptionally hard to find. Selling any you are lucky enough to own makes no sense at all.” 

Some of you reading this may be wondering, “Is Buffett’s competitive advantage in acquiring companies really so simple? Isn’t that easy to replicate?” My response will be something Munger once said: “It is remarkable how much long-term advantage people like us have gotten by trying to be consistently not stupid, instead of trying to be very intelligent.”

Next, Buffett also does not push for short-term gains at the expense of Berkshire’s long-term business health. A great example can be seen in Berkshire’s excellent track record in the insurance industry: Its property and casualty (P/C) insurance business has recorded an underwriting profit for 15 of the past 16 years through to 2018. In contrast, the P/C industry as a whole often operates at a significant underwriting loss; in the decade ended 2018, the industry suffered an underwriting loss in five separate years.

4. Revenue streams that are recurring in nature, either through contracts or customor-behaviour

There are two main components to Berkshire’s operating businesses: Insurance, and non-insurance companies.

The insurance part consists primarily of GEICO, Berkshire Hathaway Reinsurance Group, and Berkshire Hathaway Primary Group. Insurance is a service that organisations and individuals require on an ongoing basis, so there’s high levels of recurring activity there. GEICO, in particular, focuses on auto insurance, and that’s something drivers need every year.

For the non-insurance portion, two big entities are Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Berkshire Hathaway Energy. The former runs railroads in North America and the latter is an energy utility. Physical products will regularly need to be transported across the continent while energy (such as natural gas and electricity) is something that organisations and individuals require daily.

5. A proven ability to grow

Buffett is quite possibly the best capital allocator the world has seen to-date. The table below is taken from Berkshire’s 2018 annual report, and it shows the incredible 18.7% annual growth in the company’s book value per share since 1965, the year Buffett assumed control. ‘Nuff said.

Source: Berkshire Hathaway 2018 annual report 

In my explanation of this criterion, I mentioned that I’m looking for “big jumps in revenue, net profit, and free cash flow over time.” So why the focus on Berkshire’s book value per share? That’s because Berkshire’s main assets for many decades were public-listed stocks. Although, it’s worth pointing out that the company’s book value per share is increasingly losing its relevance as a measure of the company’s intrinsic economic worth  – Berkshire’s main value now resides in its subsidiaries.

It must also be said that Berkshire’s no slouch when it comes to free cash flow. The table below shows the record of the conglomerate’s annual growth in free cash flow of 11% going back to 2007. I picked 2007 as the starting point to show that Berkshire was still gushing out cash even during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-2009.

Source: Berkshire Hathaway annual reports  

6. A high likelihood of generating a strong and growing stream of free cash flow in the future

Berkshire has excelled in producing free cash flow from its businesses for a long time and has The American Tailwind on its back. So, I don’t see any reason to believe that Berkshire’s ability to generate cash from its businesses will change any time soon.

Valuation

In Berkshire’s 2018 shareholders’ letter, Buffett wrote:

“I believe Berkshire’s intrinsic value can be approximated by summing the values of our four asset-laden groves and then subtracting an appropriate amount for taxes eventually payable on the sale of marketable securities.”

The four groves Buffett mentioned refers to Berkshire’s (1) insurance operations, (2) non-insurance businesses, (3) ownership stakes in a quartet of companies – Kraft Heinz, Berkadia, Electric Transmission Texas, and Pilot Flying J – that it shares control with other parties, and (4) treasury bills, cash, and fixed-income investments.

I like to keep things simple in the valuation process, so I’m going to use an even simpler but sound heuristic to value Berkshire: Its price-to-book (P/B) ratio.

Earlier, I mentioned that Berkshire’s book value per share is losing relevance in being a proxy for the company’s true economic worth, so there’s a contradiction. I believe the contradiction can be resolved by simply allowing Berkshire to be seen as a bargain even if its PB ratio is significantly higher than 1. Buffett’s recent actions suggest this makes sense too.

For several years, Buffett had a standing order for Berkshire to repurchase shares if its P/B ratio fell below 1.2. But the order was amended by Buffett in July 2018: Now Berkshire can repurchase its shares at any time when he and Munger believe that the share price is “below Berkshire’s intrinsic value.”

Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence

Buffett publicly stated in his 2018 shareholders’ letter that over time, Berkshire is likely “to be a significant repurchaser of its shares, transactions that will take place at prices above book value but below our estimate of intrinsic value.” From the third quarter of 2018 to the third quarter of 2019, Berkshire has spent a total of US$3.48 billion to repurchase 2,744 Class A shares and 12.04 million Class B shares. These buybacks have happened when the company’s PB ratio was clearly higher than 1.2 and averaging around 1.4.

The risks involved

Succession is the biggest risk I’m watching with Berkshire. Buffett and Munger are both getting on in years – I will be truly sad the day they are no longer around.

Berkshire has very capable senior leaders who are supporting Buffett and Munger, including Ajit Jain (head of all insurance operations), Greg Abel (head of all non-insurance operations), and the investing duo of Todd Combs and Ted Weschler. All four are much younger too, with ages ranging from 46 to 67. Buffett has also tasked his son, Howard Buffett, to assume a non-executive chairman role in Berkshire when Buffett-senior eventually departs. The younger Buffett would be responsible for protecting and nurturing Berkshire’s culture.

I am confident in Buffett and Munger’s succession plan. But it remains to be seen whether Berkshire’s dealmaking prowess, competitive advantages, and culture will diminish when the octogenarian and nonagenarian leave the scene.

A massive catastrophe is another key risk I’m watching. I mentioned earlier that Berkshire is able to brush off a US$400 billion industry-wide catastrophe event in the US. It will take a huge disaster to result in insured losses of US$400 billion. For context, the sum is nearly four times the highest amount that the US has suffered since 1980, as I already mentioned. But there’s no upper limit to Mother Nature’s wrath, especially given the alarm bells that scientists have been ringing in recent years on climate change.

The Good Investors’ conclusion 

Berkshire is not the fastest-growing company around, and its rapid-growth days are clearly over. But what it lacks in pace, it makes up for in stability. The conglomerate excels against my investment framework by having (1) the American Tailwind behind its back; (2) a diverse collection of excellent businesses; (3) a robust balance sheet and finances; (4) strong recurring revenues; (5) a great track record of growth; and (6) two brilliant leaders at its helm who have been there for decades – Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger – and who are as safe a pair of business-hands as anyone can find.

Every investment has risks, and so does Berkshire. Succession (because of the advanced age of Buffett and Munger) and major disasters (because a big part of Berkshire’s business is in insurance) are two big risks for the conglomerate that I’m watching.

But on balance, I believe that Berkshire is one of the lowest risk stocks there are in the world for producing a long-term annual return in the low-teens range. 

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Does Your REIT Manager Have Your Interests at Heart?

REITs are a popular investment vehicle that provide regular cash flow. But REIT managers may pursue goals that end up harming investor returns.

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are increasingly popular in Singapore. Besides providing exposure to real estate at a low starting capital outlay, REITs also offer portfolio diversification, enjoy tax incentives, and offer relatively high yields. 

But REITs are by no accounts perfect.

One flaw is that some REITs’ managers may not be specifically incentivised to increase their REITs’ distribution per unit- the metric that is most important to unitholders.

Because of this misalignment in interest, REIT managers may be tempted to pursue goals that end up harming unitholders. I did a quick review of some REITs in Singapore to compare how their managers are incentivised.

Misaligned interests?

For instance, Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust’s manager is paid a performance fee that is 5% percent of the REIT’s annual distributable income. Mapletree Industrial Trust and Keppel REIT’s managers are paid a performance fee of 3.6% and 3% of the net property income, respectively.

At first glance, investors may think this is a fair practice, since it encourages the managers to grow their respective REITs’ distributable income and net property income. But the reality is that an increase in either of these may not actually result in an increase in distribution per unit (DPU).

In some cases, the net property income and distributable income may rise because of the issuance of new units to buy new properties, without actually increasing DPU.

Keppel REIT is a prime example of a REIT whose unitholders have suffered declining DPU in the past while its manager enjoyed high fees.

Performance fees aligned with unitholders

That said, there are REITs that have good performance fee structures. 

For instance, Sasseur REIT and EC World REIT’s managers are paid a performance fee based on 25% of the difference in the DPU in a financial year with the DPU in the preceding year. In this way, they are only paid a performance fee if the DPU increases.

ESR-REIT has an even more favourable performance fee structure. They are paid 25% of the difference between this year’s DPU and the highest DPU ever achieved.

Base fees

We should also discuss base fee incentives. Besides performance fees, REIT managers are also typically paid a base fee.

The base fee may be pegged to asset value, distributable income, or net property income. The base fee helps the manager cover the cost of its operation. A base fee pegged to the size of the assets makes sense since a larger portfolio requires more manpower and overheads to maintain.

In my opinion, the base fee should be there to help cover the cost of managing the REIT, while the performance fee should be the main incentives for the REIT managers.

Based on a quick study of base fees, ESR-REIT and Mapletree Industrial Trust are two REITs that pay their managers a relatively high base fee of 0.5% of the deposited asset value. Sasseur and EC World REIT’s managers are paid a base fee structure based on 10% of distributable income.

Typically, investors should look for REITs that pay their manager a low base fee, which in turn incentivises the manager to strive to achieve its performance fees. 

Conflicts of interests

As you can see, managers and minority unitholders of REITs may end up with conflicts of interests simply because of the way REIT managers are remunerated. If a manager is incentivised based solely on net property income, it may be tempted to pursue growth at all costs, even though the all-important DPU may decline.

On top of that, REIT managers’ are also often owned by the REIT’s sponsor. This might result in an additional conflict of interests between sponsors and REIT minority holders. 

But having said all that, conflicts of interests may not always end up being bad for investors. Even if remuneration structures and interests are not aligned, an honest and fair sponsor might still feel obliged to treat minority unitholders fairly.

The Good Investors’ Conclusion

As retail investors, we have little power over the decision-making processes in a REIT. We depend almost entirely on the REIT manager. It is, therefore, essential that we invest in REITs who have managers that we trust will do what is right for us. So how do we do that?

The first step is to study the REIT’s manager’s remuneration package. Ideally, the REIT manager should be remunerated based on DPU growth. If the manager has poorly-aligned interests, you then need to assess if it has a track record of making honest decisions. Look at the REIT’s DPU history. Has it allocated capital efficiently and in a way that maximises DPU? 

Too often investors overlook how important it is to have a manager that has the interests of minority unitholders at heart. Hopefully, this article brings to light the importance of having a good and honest sponsor and manager.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

6 Things I’m Certain Will Happen In The Financial Markets In 2020

Investing is a game of probabibilities. But there are still six things I’m certain will happen in 2020 that investors should watch.

There are no guarantees in the world of investing… or are there? Here are six things about investing that I’m certain will happen in 2020.

1. There will be something huge to worry about in the financial markets.

Peter Lynch is the legendary manager of the Fidelity Magellan Fund who earned a 29% annual return during his 13-year tenure from 1977 to 1990. He once said:

“There is always something to worry about. Avoid weekend thinking and ignore the latest dire predictions of the newscasters. Sell a stock because the company’s fundamentals deteriorate, not because the sky is falling.”

Imagine a year in which all the following happened: (1) The US enters a recession; (2) the US goes to war in the Middle East; and (3) the price of oil doubles in three months. Scary? Well, there’s no need to imagine: They all happened in 1990. And what about the S&P 500? It has increased by nearly 800% from the start of 1990 to today, even without counting dividends.

There will always be things to worry about. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t invest.

2. Individual stocks will be volatile.

From 1997 to 2018, the maximum peak-to-trough decline in each year for Amazon.com’s stock price ranged from 12.6% to 83.0%. In other words, Amazon’s stock price had suffered a double-digit fall every single year. Meanwhile, the same Amazon stock price had climbed by 76,000% (from US$1.96 to more than US$1,500) over the same period.

If you’re investing in individual stocks, be prepared for a wild ride. Volatility is a feature of the stock market – it’s not a sign that things are broken. 

3. The US-China trade war will either remain status quo, intensify, or blow over.

“Seriously!?” I can hear your thoughts. But I’m stating the obvious for a good reason: We should not let our views on geopolitical events dictate our investment actions. Don’t just take my words for it. Warren Buffett himself said so. In his 1994 Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ letter, Buffett wrote (emphases are mine):

“We will continue to ignore political and economic forecasts, which are an expensive distraction for many investors and businessmen.

Thirty years ago, no one could have foreseen the huge expansion of the Vietnam War, wage and price controls, two oil shocks, the resignation of a president, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a one-day drop in the Dow of 508 points, or treasury bill yields fluctuating between 2.8% and 17.4%.

But, surprise – none of these blockbuster events made the slightest dent in Ben Graham’s investment principles. Nor did they render unsound the negotiated purchases of fine businesses at sensible prices.

Imagine the cost to us, then, if we had let a fear of unknowns cause us to defer or alter the deployment of capital. Indeed, we have usually made our best purchases when apprehensions about some macro event were at a peak. Fear is the foe of the faddist, but the friend of the fundamentalist.

A different set of major shocks is sure to occur in the next 30 years. We will neither try to predict these nor to profit from them. If we can identify businesses similar to those we have purchased in the past, external surprises will have little effect on our long-term results.”

From 1994 to 2018, Berkshire Hathaway’s book value per share, a proxy for the company’s value, grew by 13.5% annually. Buffett’s disciplined focus on long-term business fundamentals – while ignoring the distractions of political and economic forecasts – has worked out just fine.

4. Interest rates will move in one of three ways: Sideways, up, or down.

“Again, Captain Obvious!?” Please bear with me. There is a good reason why I’m stating the obvious again.

Much ado has been made about what central banks have been doing, and would do, with their respective economies’ benchmark interest rates. This is because of the theoretical link between interest rates and stock prices.

Stocks and other asset classes (bonds, cash, real estate etc.) are constantly competing for capital. In theory, when interest rates are high, the valuation of stocks should be low, since the alternative to stocks – bonds – are providing a good return. On the other hand, when interest rates are low, the valuation of stocks should be high, since the alternative – again, bonds – are providing a poor return.

But if we’re long-term investors in the stock market, I think we really do not need to pay much attention to what central banks are doing with interest rates.

There’s an amazing free repository of long-term US financial market data that is maintained by Robert Shiller. He is a professor of economics and the winner of a Nobel Prize in economics in 2013. 

His data includes long-term interest rates in the US, as well as US stock market valuations, going back to the 1870s. The S&P 500 index is used as the representation for US stocks while the cyclically adjusted price earnings (CAPE) ratio is the valuation measure. The CAPE ratio divides a stock’s price by its inflation-adjusted average earnings over a 10-year period.

The chart below shows US long-term interest rates and the CAPE ratio of the S&P 500 since 1920:

Source: Robert Shiller

Contrary to theory, there was a 30-plus year period that started in the early 1930s when interest rates and the S&P 500’s CAPE ratio both grew. It was only in the early 1980s when falling interest rates were met with rising valuations. 

To me, Shiller’s data shows how changes in interest rates alone can’t tell us much about the movement of stocks. In fact, relationships in finance are seldom clear-cut. “If A happens, then B will occur” is rarely seen.

Time that’s spent watching central banks’ decisions regarding interest rates will be better spent studying business fundamentals. The quality of a company’s business and the growth opportunities it has matter far more to its stock price over the long run than interest rates. 

Sears is a case in point. In the 1980s, the US-based company was the dominant retailer in the country. Morgan Housel wrote in his recent blog post, Common Plots of Economic History :

“Sears was the largest retailer in the world, housed in the tallest building in the world, employing one of the largest workforces.

“No one has to tell you you’ve come to the right place. The look of merchandising authority is complete and unmistakable,” The New York Times wrote of Sears in 1983.

Sears was so good at retailing that in the 1970s and ‘80s it ventured into other areas, like finance. It owned Allstate Insurance, Discover credit card, the Dean Witter brokerage for your stocks and Coldwell Banker brokerage for your house.”

US long-term interest rates fell dramatically from around 15% in the early-to-mid 1980s to 3% or so in 2018. But Sears filed for bankruptcy in October 2018, leaving its shareholders with an empty bag. In his blog post mentioned earlier, Housel also wrote:

“Growing income inequality pushed consumers to either bargain or luxury goods, leaving Sears in the shrinking middle. Competition from Wal-Mart and Target – younger and hungrier – took off.

By the late 2000s Sears was a shell of its former self. “YES, WE ARE OPEN” a sign outside my local Sears read – a reminder to customers who had all but written it off.” 

If you’re investing for the long run, there are far more important things to watch than interest rates.

5. There will be investors who are itching to make wholesale changes to their investment portfolios for 2020.

Ofer Azar is a behavioural economist. He once studied more than 300 penalty kicks in professional football (or soccer) games. The goalkeepers who jumped left made a save 14.2% of the time while those who jumped right had a 12.6% success rate. Those who stayed in the centre of the goal saved a penalty 33.3% of the time.

Interestingly, only 6% of the keepers whom Azar studied chose to stay put in the centre. Azar concluded that the keepers’ moves highlight the action bias in us, where we think doing something is better than doing nothing. 

The bias can manifest in investing too, where we develop the urge to do something to our portfolios, especially during periods of volatility. We should guard against the action bias. This is because doing nothing to our portfolios is often better than doing something. I have two great examples. 

The first is a paper published by finance professors Brad Barber and Terry Odean in 2000. They analysed the trading records of more than 66,000 US households over a five-year period from 1991 to 1996. They found that the most frequent traders generated the lowest returns – and the difference is stark. The average household earned 16.4% per year for the timeframe under study but the active traders only made 11.4% per year.

Second, finance professor Jeremy Siegel discovered something fascinating in the mid-2000s. In an interview with Wharton, Siegel said:

“If you bought the original S&P 500 stocks, and held them until today—simple buy and hold, reinvesting dividends—you outpaced the S&P 500 index itself, which adds about 20 new stocks every year and has added almost 1,000 new stocks since its inception in 1957.”

Doing nothing beats doing something. 

6. There are 7.7 billion individuals in the world today, and the vast majority of us will wake up every morning wanting to improve the world and our own lot in life.

This motivation is ultimately what fuels the global economy and financial markets. There are miscreants who appear occasionally to mess things up, but we should have faith in the collective positivity of humankind. We should have faith in us. The idiots’ mess will be temporary.

To me, investing in stocks is the same as having the long-term view that we humans are always striving collectively to improve the world. What about you?

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

What Should Frasers Commercial Trust Unitholders Do Now?

Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust is proposing to acquire Frasers Commercial Trust. Here’s a breakdown on possible scenarios and what actions to take.

Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust has proposed to acquire Frasers Commercial Trust in a shares plus cash deal. In essence, Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders will receive 1.233 Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust units and S$0.151 in cash for every unit of Frasers Commercial Trust they own.

In light of the proposed deal, I had previously shared my thoughts on what it means for Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust’s unitholders. Below are my thoughts on what the merger means for Frasers Commercial Trust’s unitholders.

Scenario 1: The proposed deal goes through

Existing unitholders of Frasers Commercial Trust can accept the offer tabled to them. In exchange, they will receive cash and units of the new REIT. This outcome could be fairly rewarding.

For one, there are reasons to believe that the new REIT can provide solid returns for unitholders. If the deal does go through, Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders will be able to participate in the new REIT’s potential upside.

The new REIT is expected to provide a 6% distribution yield (if you consider the market price at the time of writing of S$1.23 per unit). The enlarged REIT will benefit from a diversified portfolio with the potential to grow its rental income organically. 

The deal will also enable Frasers Commercial Trust’s unitholders to cash out a portion of their holdings, due to the cash portion of the acquisition.

Scenario 2: The proposed deal gets rejected

If the deal gets rejected by either party, it will not go through. In that case, Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders get to keep their stake in the existing REIT. 

I think the main reason why Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders may reject the deal is that they may not view the purchase price to be high enough. They will also be receiving new units of the enlarged REIT at fairly high prices. Based on current market prices, the new units will be issued at a 29% premium to book value.

Scenario 3: Unitholders can sell their units now

Unitholders of Frasers Commercial Trust can also sell their units before the results of the deal. By selling your units, you can get the cash out immediately and reinvest elsewhere.

This option is for unitholders of Frasers Commercial Trust who do not want to hold on to the units of the newly formed REIT.

This is a reasonable action to take if you have found an investment that is better suited for your portfolio.

Scenario 4: Looking for arbitrage opportunities

The fourth option is to make use of the deal as an arbitrage opportunity.

Although I encourage long-term, buy-and-hold investing, mispricings in the market, especially after a deal has been proposed, can result in the opportunity to make an immediate profit.

To understand how to do this, we must first look at the mechanics of the deal. Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders will be getting 1.233 Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust units plus 15.1 Singapore cents.

At the time of writing, Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust shares trade at $1.23 per unit. As a result, the market value of what Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders will receive ($1.667 per unit) is slightly lower than the current market price of $1.67.

As such, investors can instead choose to sell their holdings in Frasers Commercial Trust and purchase Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust. Of course, they should factor in whether it still makes sense after including any transaction costs (it might not, depending on the broker you use).

The Good Investors’ Conclusion

The proposed acquisition of Frasers Commercial Trust has given its unitholders a lot to think about. Should you simply wait for the deal to pass and enjoy the upside of the enlarged REIT? Or should investors take active steps to achieve a better return by seizing the current arbitrage opportunity? The risk of trying to maximise returns through arbitrage is that the deal falls through.

Additionally, unitholders who do not want a stake in the enlarged REIT can also choose to encash their units now.

Personally, I think trying to make an arbitrage profit is too much effort for too small of an upside (this may change if either REIT’s unit price moves dramatically, which is unlikely as arbitragers will force the price to equilibrate). So for now, I think it is best for Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders to simply wait for the outcome of the deal.

There are potential pros and cons to either outcome. If the deal goes through, exiting Frasers Commercial Trust unitholders can enjoy distribution per unit-accretion, if they reinvest the cash portion of the deal into Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust. The new trust will also enjoy potential economies of scale, access to cheaper debt, and potentially trade at higher valuations. The downside is that the new units are being issued at a fairly high valuation of 1.29 times book value and the purchase price is fairly low.

Conversely, if the deal falls through, unitholders will continue to hold onto their Frasers Commercial Trust units, which also has a good portfolio of properties, low gearing, and could potentially pay out higher distribution per unit in the future. However, unitholders will miss out on the yield-accretion and the potential to participate in the growth opportunity of a larger, more liquid REIT with access to cheaper debt and equity.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

3 Essential Investing Lessons From a Top-Performing Fund Manager

John Huber’s fund has more than doubled the S&P500 index. Here’s a compilation of three investing lessons from his annual letters and blog posts.

John Huber is one of the top-performing fund managers of the decade. His Saber Investment fund has achieved a gross annualised return of 20.66% since 2014. That puts his fund well ahead of the S&P 500 which has annualised at 10.89%.

I spent my weekend studying some of Huber’s letters to shareholders and blog posts. Here are three investing lessons from his writings.

Time is a valuable edge

Fund managers often get asked the question, “what is your edge”? The two main responses that institutional investors look for are some sort of “information” or “analytical” edge.

However, Huber believes that in an era of easily-accessible information, both these edges do not exist anymore. Huber explains:

“I’ve observed over the years that whatever information an investor believes to be unique is almost always understood by many other market participants, and thus is not valuable.

The mispricing is not in the stock itself, but in the investor’s own perception of the value of information: it’s worth far less than they believe it is. Information is now a commodity, and like the unit price of computing power that provides it, the value has steadily fallen as the supply and access to it has skyrocketed.”

But the absence of an “informational” or “analytical” edge does not mean stock pickers cannot outperform the market. Huber believes that the “time horizon” edge is still alive and kicking.

The “time horizon” edge is formed because today’s market participants are more interested in short-term gains over the long-term. Huber notes that many investment firms today make investing decisions based entirely on short-term stock price movements. These decisions have nothing to do with long-term value. 

This creates a huge pricing mismatch between a stock’s long-term value and the current stock price. In turn, it creates a massive opportunity for long-term investors to outperform the market.

But the “time horizon” edge does come with its price. Huber explains:

The price of gaining this edge is the volatility that could occur in the near term. You have to be willing to accept the possibility that your stock will go down before it goes up. Very few investors are willing to pay that price, which is why even large-cap stocks can become disconnected from their long term fair values.”

Don’t be afraid to say, “I don’t know”

Huber wrote a great article on one of Warren Buffett’s underrated investment attributes: His ability to recognize when a situation is outside of his well-defined circle of competence.

Buffett has been able to do extremely well in the stock market simply by focusing on more-certain bets and resisting everything else.

The ability to say “no” has enabled Buffett to have very few major mistakes on his record.

More impressively, Buffett is also humble enough to admit when he is wrong. For example, his ability to realise his mistakes led him to make smart investment exits in IBM, Tesco, and Freddie Mac. Huber wrote:

“I think the vast majority of investment mistakes can be traced back to the inability to be honest about your own knowledge or level of understanding about a subject matter.

It’s hard for smart people who have spent their lives being right far more often than they are wrong to admit to themselves that something is too challenging.

It is even harder to admit that their original assessment was completely wrong. So I think intellectual honesty can be a source of a powerful edge for those who can harness it to their advantage.”

Individual thought is essential

Huber also explains that one of the biggest risks in investing is allowing others to indirectly make your investment decisions.

Too often investors rely on outside advisors to make an investment decision. But the advice may be based on different economic interests, investment horizons, or goals. 

Investors also tend to copy high-profile investors. However, high-profile investors can also occasionally make mistakes. 

Theranos, one of the most high profile fraud cases of the decade, managed to secure billions in funding before it was eventually found out. Its early investors were some of the most respected business people of our time. They included the likes of Carlos Slim, Robert Kraft, Larry Ellison, Rupert Murdoch, and the Walton family. Huber notes:

My observation is that independent thought is extremely rare, which makes it very valuable.

On the other hand, outsourced thinking appears to be pervasive in the investment community, and because of how we’re wired, this dynamic is unlikely to change. Regardless of how convincing the facts are, we are just more comfortable if we can mold our opinion around the opinion of others.

Understanding this reality and being aware of our own human tendencies is probably a necessary condition to investment success in the long run.”

Why Frasers Logistics and Industrial Unitholders Should Be Pleased With The Proposed Merger With Frasers Commercial Trust?

Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust has proposed a move to acquire Frasers Commercial Trust. Is it good for existing unitholders?

The proposed merger of Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust and Frasers Commercial Trust is the latest in a flurry of mergers among Singapore REITs this year. But not all mergers are good for shareholders (technically, REIT investors are called unitholders but let’s not split hairs here). 

To determine if the proposition is fair to Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust shareholders, I did a quick analysis of the deal.

[Note: An article discussing what the merger means for Frasers Commercial Trust shareholders was published on 10 December 2019. You can find it here.]

Details of the deal

In essence, Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust will be absorbing Frasers Commercial Trust. It will pay S$0.151 in cash plus 1.233 new units of Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust for every Frasers Commercial Trust unit.

In addition, Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust is proposing to purchase the remaining 50% freehold interest in Farnborough Business Park that is not already owned by Frasers Commercial Trust.

Is Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust Overpaying?

A share-plus-cash deal can be complicated to process. That’s why I prefer to break it into two parts. First is the issuance of new shares, and second is the purchase of the REIT using existing cash and the capital raised from the fundraising exercise. I will address each of these separately.

  1. Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust is issuing new shares at a premium to its book value. The new shares (if you consider that they are issued at market prices of $1.23), is 29% higher than Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust’s current book value per share of S$0.95. Additionally, the new shares are being issued at a trailing annualised dividend yield of 5.8%, which is quite low for a REIT.  Because of the relatively high price of the new shares issued, I think the issuance of new shares is positive for existing shareholders of Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust.
  2. That brings us to the second part of the assessment- the price paid for Frasers Commercial Trust. Based on the current market price of $1.23 for each Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust share, it is paying $1.66 (1.23 x 1.23+0.151) for each Frasers Commercial Trust share. The implied price is just a 3.1% premium to Frasers Commercial Trust’s book value per share of $1.61. It is also lower than Frasers Commercial Trust’s current market price of $1.68 per share. I think this is a fair purchase price, considering the potential long-term benefits of the deal (more on this below). 

Based on the above considerations, I believe the deal will benefit existing unitholders of Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust.

Immediate impact on distribution per unit and NAV per unit

The new units are being issued at relatively high prices, and the purchase price is just a slight premium to book value. So it is not surprising that the deal is expected to have an immediate positive impact for Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust. Management expects the acquisition to be accretive to both distribution and book value per unit.

The two charts below illustrate the pro forma accretion to book value and distribution per unit (DPU).

Source: Investor presentation for Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust merger with Frasers Commercial Trust

Other benefits of the deal

Besides the immediate positive impact on DPU and book value per unit, there are also other potential benefits to the merger:

  • The enlarged REIT will likely be able to negotiate lower interest rates on its debt in the future
  • There are potential economies of scale due to the enlarged size of the combined REIT
  • The bigger portfolio will increase diversification and decrease concentration risk
  • The new properties absorbed by Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust have favourable characteristics that could drive growth. For instance, 51.8% of Frasers Commercial Trust’s properties have step-up annual rent escalations of between 3.0% and 4.0%. Also, Alexandra Technopark, one of Frasers Commercial Trust’s six properties, also recently completed an asset enhancement work.

The Good investors’ conclusion

There are many reasons for existing shareholders of Frasers Logistics and Industrial Trust to like the deal. First, the deal will be immediately accretive to both book value and DPU per unit. Second, the enlarged REIT will benefit over the longer-term through economies of scale and diversification. In turn, this should provide the REIT with a longer runway for DPU-growth in the future.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

5 Ways to Invest For the Greater Good

By choosing to invest in companies that are doing good for the world, we not only stand to profit but can also improve the world in the process.

Ser Jing and I started The Good Investors as a platform to raise awareness on how investors can invest well for themselves while doing good for the world. These two objectives are by no means mutually exclusive

Driving growth

In his book Sapiens: a Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari devoted a whole chapter to how capitalism contributed to the modernisation and growth of the world’s economy. He wrote:

“Capitalism distinguishes ‘capital’ from mere ‘wealth’. Capital consists of money, goods, and resources that are invested in production. Wealth, on the other hand, is buried in the ground or wasted on unproductive activities.”

Capitalism is, hence, one of the driving forces of real economic growth over the last five centuries.

But free markets that are solely after profits can be detrimental to society. The slave trade, for example, was the product of free-market capitalism. Harrari wrote, “When growth becomes a supreme good, unrestricted by any other ethical considerations, it can easily lead to catastrophe.”

To prevent this, investors should focus on ethical investing, rather than simply chasing after profits. Investing responsibly can not only fuel economic growth but can also help drive innovation, promote good practices, and reverse climate change, among others.

Investors today are much more conscious of how they can do well while doing good. With that said, I have compiled a list of five ways investors can invest for the greater good.

1. Avoiding sin stocks

Tim Nash, the founder of Good Investing, describes negative screening as doing less evil. By avoiding sin stocks, capital allocators force companies to rethink their strategy and discourage entrepreneurs from moving into the controversial sector in the first place.

Each of us may have a different definition of sin stocks depending on our personal values. However, some commonly cited “sin stocks” include weapons, fossil fuels, and cigarette companies.

2. Investing in green technology

We can also actively invest in companies that are striving to make the world a better place.

Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of the world today. It is, therefore, no surprise that investors are now prioritising green technology more than ever. But the success of green technology can only be achieved if both investors and consumers are willing to back it.

Some examples of green technology include solar power, electric vehicles, water purification, and LED lights. 

Thankfully, it seems that the world is moving in the right direction when it comes to green technology. In November 2019, the Singapore government announced that it will invest US$2 billion in funds that have a strong green focus. 

3. Investing in necessities

In Singapore, we take clean water for granted. However, unsafe sanitation is still a massive problem in Africa. Unsanitary water contributes to more than 1,200 deaths of children under five years old per day.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has taken massive steps to alleviate the problem, through education and waste treatment technology. 

Investors can contribute too. We can play our part by funneling our capital to companies that are helping to alleviate the sanitisation problem.

Besides water, investors can also consider supporting companies that champion basic human rights, promote education, enable sustainable farming, and others.

4. Innovative companies

Some companies are improving the lives of millions of people simply through innovative technologies.

Take Alphabet Inc, for example. The parent company of Google has increased its focus away from merely “organising information”. Today, the tech conglomerate has investments in healthcare and autonomous vehicles, and even provides the world with faster Internet access through fiber networks.

Many of us also probably also use some of Google’s other applications that make our lives much easier, like Google Maps, Gmail, Google Photos, and even Google Translate.

Alphabet is certainly not the only company making a difference to the world. Today, there are more tech companies than ever that are coming up with innovative solutions that are not only financially feasible but improving the lives of millions.

5. Healthcare

Another way we can invest for the greater good is by investing in healthcare companies. The pharmaceutical sector, for instance, is responsible for the innovation of numerous drugs that have saved the lives of millions.

However, pharmaceutical companies require bucketloads of cash to fund research and clinical trials.

While the biggest pharmaceutical companies are self-sustainable through the money earned from earlier blockbuster drugs, many are still in their infant stages. Such firms are desperately in need of capital.

Investors can help to fund research by investing in these companies. There is also the potential of profit should one of the pipeline drugs get commercialised.

Doing well while doing good

Contrary to popular belief, investing need not be solely for enriching yourself. By selectively investing in companies that are doing good for the world, we not only stand to profit but can also improve the world in the process.

My hope is that more investors use their capital not only as a means to enrich themselves but also for the greater good of the world.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

REITs and The Power of Cheap Equity

REITs that have access to cheap equity are more likely to do well over the long term. Here’s why.

I’ve been studying real estate investment trusts (REITs) for some time. One thing that I noticed is that access to cheap equity is an often overlooked but powerful tool for REITs to grow.

“Cheap equity” is a REIT’s ability to raise money at a comparatively low cost. 

The benefits of cheap equity

So how does cheap equity arise? First, the investing community needs to be bullish on a REIT. Usually, the REIT will exhibit some of the positive characteristics I tend to look for. The market realises the REIT’s potential and prices its units up. Such REITs end up being priced at a premium to its book value.

The high unit price of the REIT’s units creates an opportunity for it to raise money cheaply. Simply by issuing new units at this high price, the REIT is able to boost its book value per unit and its yield.

A prime example

Let’s consider a recent example. Mapletree Commercial Trust is a REIT that has been trading well above its book value for many years. In October 2019, the REIT decided to make use of its high unit price to raise cheap capital. It announced that it would raise around S$900 million to partially fund the acquisition of a property, Mapletree Business City (Phase2).

The new units were priced at S$2.24 each, well above Mapletree Commercial Trust’s book value per share of S$1.70 (as of October 2019). In addition, the REIT’s new units were issued at a low annualised yield of 4.1%.

There are two key advantages here. First, because the units were priced above book value, the equity fundraising will immediately increase the REIT’s book value per unit. Second, the funding exercise will be distribution per unit-accretive to shareholders as long as the new property purchased has an asset yield of more than 4.1% (or even less if you consider that part of the acquisition will be funded by debt).

A virtuous cycle

The ability to raise money cheapy creates a virtuous cycle for such highly regarded REITs.

Consider the case of Mapletree Commercial Trust:

  1. Investors are bullish on Mapletree Commercial Trust’s prospects and attach a high valuation to it. 
  2. The REIT uses the opportunity afforded by its high unit price to issue new shares. 
  3. Backed by a strong sponsor, Mapletree Pte Ltd, and positive public sentiment, the REIT is able to raise new funds through an equity fundraising. 
  4. As the new units were issued at a high price, the fundraising is immediately-accretive to book value and distribution per unit. 
  5. Investors see the growth in DPU and book value per unit and become even more bullish on the REIT and the market pushes the price of the REIT higher. The REIT is now able to raise more capital cheaply.

This whole process creates a virtuous cycle that helps highly-regarded REITs keep on growing.

How investors can benefit

The lesson here is not to be put off by REITs that have relatively high unit prices. A REIT with a high unit price may not offer the best yield but it has the ability to grow much faster than its peers. Having said that, this is by no means a fool-proof scenario.

Investors will also need to pick the REITs that are best able (and willing) to make use of the opportunity afforded to the REIT through its high unit price. One of the key things to look out for is the REIT’s track record of raising equity and whether it has a sponsor with deep pockets.

The REITs that are sponsored by CapitaLand, Mapletree and Frasers have, historically, been some of the best REITs in Singapore’s stock market to own. These three sponsors have been willing to support their REITs through capital injections, even at high valuations.

Knowing this, shrewd investors who spot this trend can capitalise and ride the virtuous upcycle driving well-regarded REITs.

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.

Why I Like This Unique Bank As An Investment Opportunity Now

HDFC Bank from India looks like a really good investment opportunity, given its track record of growth, and strong macroeconomic tailwinds.

I recently appeared in an episode of the Investing Ideas podcast series that is created by my friend, Stanley Lim from Value Invest Asia.

In the episode, I shared why I thought the India-based HDFC Bank looks like an attractive investment opportunity to me. I also prepared a short presentation deck: Download here

The following are some of the points I mentioned in the podcast about HDFC Bank:

  1. The bank has been growing every single year from 1996 to 2019.
  2. The bank is very conservatively managed, with even lower leverage than Singapore’s local banking stalwarts, DBS, OCBC, and UOB.
  3. The bank has a fanatical focus on the customer experience.
  4. India has amazing population tailwinds that many developed economies will envy – the working-age population of the country is expected to increase by 30% from today to 2050. China, in contrast, is expected to have a 20% decline in the working-age population over the same period.

Check out the podcast (and video) below!

Disclaimer: The Good Investors is the personal investing blog of two simple guys who are passionate about educating Singaporeans about stock market investing. By using this Site, you specifically agree that none of the information provided constitutes financial, investment, or other professional advice. It is only intended to provide education. Speak with a professional before making important decisions about your money, your professional life, or even your personal life.