Author: Chong Ser Jing

Since the start of 2010, the US stock market – as measured by the S&P 500 – has nearly tripled, from 1,124 points to more than 3,300. This meteoric rise in US stock prices has prompted plenty of commentary within the investment community on its underlying drivers.

A frequent “culprit” cited is the Federal Reserve in the US. Many investors and market commentators have blamed the US central bank for driving stock prices higher because of its interest rate policy (of keeping rates low) and quantitative easing (the act of pumping money into the economy via the purchase of mostly government-related financial assets).

I have rarely seen this being talked about:

The chart above is plotted with data from Nobel Prize-winning economist, Robert Shiller. It shows changes in the S&P 500’s price, dividends, and earnings since the start of 2010. Over the past decade, all three numbers have basically increased hand-in-hand. Put another way, the meteoric rise in the S&P 500 I mentioned earlier could be explained by a similarly big jump in the fundamentals of American businesses. 

I was inspired to plot my chart after I came across the following tweet by Morgan Housel, one of my favourite finance writers:

Why the market went up. pic.twitter.com/sLpAUF9nfl— Morgan Housel (@morganhousel) February 23, 2020

Housel’s chart showed that the S&P 500’s price and its dividends have climbed in lock-step since 2010. This suggests that the US market had been driven higher because of improvements in its underlying business fundamentals. But I was curious to know if the increase in dividends is sustainable. This is why I plotted my own chart which included earnings growth. Turns out, there has been a commensurate increase in earnings for the US market. The S&P 500 has done what Warren Buffett wrote in his 2018 Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ letter:

“On occasion, a ridiculously-high purchase price for a given stock will cause a splendid business to become a poor investment – if not permanently, at least for a painfully long period. Over time, however, investment performance converges with business performance.”

None of the above is meant to say that the S&P 500 will continue climbing over the next year, or the next 10 years. Over the short run, sentiment can change on a dime; a rise in investors’ pessimism over the future – whether warranted or unwarranted – will drag stock prices lower. Over the long run, if the rise in earnings for US businesses in the past was unsustainable, then there could be a collapse in the S&P 500 in the future.

But what we do know now is that there is a very good reason why US stocks prices have grown so much over the past decade – their businesses have done very well too.

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.

Here’s a common misconception I’ve noticed that investors have about the stock market: They think that it’s easy to figure out when stocks will hit a peak. Unfortunately, that’s not an easy task at all.

In a 2017 Bloomberg article, investor Ben Carlson showed the level of various financial data that were found at the start of each of the 15 bear markets that US stocks have experienced since World War II:

The financial data that Carlson presented include valuations for US stocks (the trailing P/E ratio,  the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, and the dividend yield), interest rates (the 10 year treasury yield), and the inflation rate. These are major things that the financial media and many investors pay attention to. (The cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio is calculated by dividing a stock’s price with the 10-year average of its inflation-adjusted earnings.)

But these numbers are not useful in helping us determine when stocks will peak. Bear markets have started when valuations, interest rates, and inflation were high as well as low. This is why it’s so tough to tell when stocks will fall.

None of the above is meant to say that we should ignore valuations or other important financial data. For instance, the starting valuation for stocks does have a heavy say on their eventual long-term return. This is shown in the chart below. It uses data from economist Robert Shiller on the S&P 500 from 1871 to 2019 and shows the returns of the index against its starting valuation for 10-year holding periods. It’s clear that the S&P 500 has historically produced higher returns when it was cheap compared to when it was expensive.

But even then, the dispersion in 10-year returns for the S&P 500 can be huge for a given valuation level. Right now, the S&P 500 has a cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio of around 31. The table below shows the 10-year annual returns that the index has historically produced whenever it had a CAPE ratio of more than 25.

If it’s so hard for us to tell when bear markets will occur, what can we do as investors? It’s simple: We can stay invested. Despite the occurrence of numerous bear markets since World War II, the US stock market has still increased by 228,417% (after dividends) from 1945 to 2019. That’s a solid return of 11.0% per year. Yes, bear markets will hurt psychologically. But we can lessen the pain significantly if we think of them as an admission fee for worthwhile long-term returns instead of a fine by the market-gods.

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.

Having a good framework to find investment opportunities in the stock market is important. But it’s equally important – perhaps even more important – to have the right mindsets. Without them, it’s hard to be a successful investor even if you have the best analytical mind in the world of finance.

There are six key mindsets that have served me well in my investing activities in the stock market, both on a personal as well as professional basis. I want to share them in this article. 

The first mindset

Here’s a chart showing the maximum peak-to-trough decline for Amazon’s share price in each year from 1997 to 2018:

It turns out that Amazon’s share price had experienced a double-digit top-to-bottom fall (ranging from 13% to 83%) in every single year from 1997 to 2018. Looks horrible, doesn’t it?

Now here’s a chart showing Amazon’s share price from 1997 to 2018:

The second chart makes it clear that Amazon has been a massive long-term winner, with its share price rising by more than 76,000% from US$1.96 in 1997 to US$1,501.97 in 2018. Amazon does not look so horrible now, does it?

The experience of the e-commerce giant is why Peter Lynch, the legendary fund manager of Fidelity Magellan Fund, once said:

“In the stock market, the most important organ is the stomach. It’s not the brain.”

We need the stomach to withstand volatility, the violent ups-and-downs of share prices. As Amazon has shown, even the best long-term winners in the stock market have suffered from sharp short-term declines. 

This is why accepting that volatility in share prices is a feature of the stock market and not a bug is a very important mindset for me. When stocks go up and down, it’s not a sign that something is broken. In fact, there’s actually great data to prove that volatility in share prices do not tell us much about how the underlying businesses are doing.

Robert Shiller is an economist who won the Nobel Prize in 2013. In the 1980s, Shiller looked at how the US stock market performed from 1871 to 1979. He compared the market’s actual performance to how it should have rationally performed if investors had hindsight knowledge of how the dividends of US stocks would change. Here’s the chart Shiller plotted from his research:

The solid black line is the stock market’s actual performance while the black dashed line is the rational performance. The fundamentals of American businesses – using dividends as a proxy – was much less volatile than American share prices. 

The second mindset

We cannot run from the fact that we humans are emotional creatures. When share prices fall – even with the knowledge that volatility is merely a feature in the stock market – it hurts. And when it hurts, that’s when we make stupid mistakes.

From 1977 to 1990, Peter Lynch earned an annual return of 29% for Fidelity Magellan Fund, turning every thousand dollars invested with him into $27,000. It is this performance that made Lynch a legend in the investing business. But shockingly, the average investor in his fund made only 7% per year – $1,000 invested with an annual return of 7% for 13 years would become just $2,400.

In his book Heads I Win, Tails I Win, Spencer Jakab, a financial journalist with The Wall Street Journal, explained why this big performance-gap happened:

“During his tenure Lynch trounced the market overall and beat it in most years, racking up a 29 percent annualized return. But Lynch himself pointed out a fly in the ointment.

He calculated that the average investor in his fund made only around 7 percent during the same period. When he would have a setback, for example, the money would flow out of the fund through redemptions. Then when he got back on track it would flow back in, having missed the recovery.”

In essence, investors in Fidelity Magellan Fund had bought high and sold low. That’s a recipe for poor returns, born out of our emotional reactions to the stock market’s volatility.

I think there’s a great way for us to frame how we think about volatility so that we can minimise its damage. This was articulated brilliantly by Morgan Housel in a recent blog post of his (emphasis his): 

“But a reason declines hurt and scare so many investors off is because they think of them as fines. You’re not supposed to get fined. You’re supposed to make decisions that preempt and avoid fines. Traffic fines and IRS fines mean you did something wrong and deserve to be punished. The natural response for anyone who watches their wealth decline and views that drop as a fine is to avoid future fines.

But if you view volatility as a fee, things look different.

Disneyland tickets cost $100. But you get an awesome day with your kids you’ll never forget. Last year more than 18 million people thought that fee was worth paying. Few felt the $100 paid was a punishment or a fine. The worthwhile tradeoff of fees is obvious when it’s clear you’re paying one.

Same with investing, where volatility is almost always a fee, not a fine.

Returns are never free. They demand you pay a price, like any other product. And since market returns can be not just great but sensational over time, the fee is high. Declines, crashes, panics, manias, recessions, depressions.”

This is why my second mindset is this: Instead of seeing short-term volatility in the stock market as a fine, think of it as a fee for something worthwhile – great long-term returns.

You might be thinking: Is the fee really worth paying? We saw the case of Amazon earlier, where the fee was definitely worth it. Thing is, the point I made about Amazon can actually be applied to the broader US market too.

A few years ago, Housel wrote an article for The Motley Fool that showed how often the US stock market – represented by the S&P 500 – had fallen by a certain percentage from 1928 to 2013. Here’re the results:

It’s clear that US stocks have declined frequently. But data from Robert Shiller also showed that the S&P 500 was up by around 21,000% from 1928 to 2013 after factoring in dividends and inflation. That means every $1,000 invested in the S&P 500 in 1928 would become $210,000 in 2013 after inflation. The S&P 500 has charged investors an expensive entry fee (in the form of volatility) for a magical show.

The third mindset

A common misconception I encounter about the stock market is that what goes up must come down. Yes it’s true that there’s cyclicality with stocks. But an important point is missed: Stocks go up a lot more than they go down. We’ve seen that with Amazon and with the S&P 500. Now let’s see it with stocks all over the world.

The chart above plots the returns of the stock markets from both developed and developing economies over more than 110 years from 1900 to 2013. In that timeframe, stocks in developed economies (the blue line) produced an annual return of 8.3% while stocks in developing economies (the red line) generated a return of 7.4% per year. There are clearly bumps along the way, but the long run trend is crystal clear.

So the third key mindset I have when investing in the stock market is that what goes up, does not always come down permanently. But there is an important caveat to note: Diversification is crucial.

The fourth mindset

Devastation from war or natural disasters. Corrupt or useless leaders. Incredible overvaluation at the starting point. These are factors that can cause a single stock or a single country’s stock market to do poorly even after decades. 

We can study a company’s or country’s traits to understand things like valuations and the quality of the leaders. But there’s pretty much nothing we can do when it comes to catastrophes caused by mankind or Mother Nature. 

This is why my fourth mindset is the importance of diversifying our investments across both geographies and companies. 

The fifth mindset

We’re living in uncertain times. Toward the end of 2019, China alerted the World Health Organisation (WHO) about cases of pneumonia amongst its citizens that were caused by an unknown virus. That was the start of what we know today as COVID-19. Many countries in the world – including our home in Singapore – are currently battling to keep their citizens safe from the disease. When faced with uncertainty, should we still invest?

How do you think the US stock market will fare over the next five years and the next 30 years if I tell you that in this year, the price of oil will spike, and the US will simultaneously go to war in the Middle East and experience a recession? We don’t need to guess, because history has shown us.

The events I mentioned all happened in 1990. The price of oil spiked in August 1990, the same month that the US went into an actual war in the Middle East. In July 1990, the US entered a recession. Turns out, the S&P 500 was up by nearly 80% from the start of 1990 to the end of 1995, including dividends and after inflation. From the start of 1990 to the end of 2019, US stocks were up by nearly 800%.

What’s also fascinating is that the world saw multiple crises in every single year from 1990 to 2019, as the table below – constructed partially from Morgan Housel’s data – illustrates. Yet, the S&P 500 has steadily marched higher.

Earlier, I talked about COVID-19. I think it would be appropriate to also show how global stocks have done after the occurence of deadly epidemics. 

My blogging partner, Jeremy, included the chart just above in a recent article. It illustrates the performance of the MSCI World Index (a benchmark for global stocks) since the 1970s against the backdrop of multiple epidemics/pandemics that have happened since. He commented:

“As you can see from the chart… the world has experienced 13 different epidemics since the 1970s. Yet, global stocks – measured by the MSCI World Index – has survived each of those, registering long term gains after each outbreak.”

So I carry this important mindset with me (the fifth one): Uncertainty is always around, but that does not mean we should not invest.

The sixth mindset

We’ve seen in the data that market crashes and recessions are bound to happen periodically. But crucially we don’t know when they will occur. Even the best investors have tried to outguess the market, only to fail. 

So if we’re investing for many years, we should count on things to get ugly a few times, at least. This is completely different from saying “the US will have a recession in the third quarter of 2020” and then positioning our investment portfolios to fit this view.

The difference between expecting and predicting lies in our behaviour. If we merely expect downturns to happen from time to time while knowing we have no predictive power, our investment portfolios would be built to be able to handle a wide range of outcomes. On the other hand, if we’re engaged in the dark arts of prediction, then we think we know when something will happen and we try to act on it. Our investment portfolios will thus be suited to thrive only in a narrow range of situations – if things take a different path, our portfolios will be on the road to ruin.

Here’s an interesting thought: If we can just somehow time our stock market entries and exits to coincide with the end/start of recessions, surely we can do better than just staying invested, right?

The chart below is from investor Michael Batnick. The red line shows the return we could have earned from 1980 to today in the US stock market if we had sold stocks at the official start of a recession in the country and bought stocks at the official end. The black line illustrates our return if we had simply bought and held US stocks from 1980 to today. It turns out that completely side-stepping recessions harms our return significantly.

This is why my sixth mindset is that we should expect bad things to happen from time to time, but we should not try to predict them.

In conclusion

To recap, here are the six mindsets that have been very useful for me:

• First, volatility in stocks is a feature, not a sign that something is broken
• Second, think of short-term volatility in the stock market as a fee, not a fine
• Third, what goes up does not always come down permanently
• Fourth, it is important to diversify across geographies and companies
• Fifth, uncertainty is always around, but we should still invest
• Sixth, we should expect bad things to happen from time to time in the financial markets, but we shouldn’t try to predict them

They have helped me to be psychologically comfortable when investing. Without them, I may become flustered when things do not go my way temporarily or when uncertainties are rife. This could in turn result in bad investing behaviour on my part. I hope these mindsets can benefit you too.

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.

As I write this, the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has infected 43,103 people globally and caused the deaths of 1,018 people. China has been the hardest-hit country, accounting for the lion’s share of the infected cases (42,708) and deaths (1,017).

This disease outbreak has already caused plenty of human suffering, especially in China. No one knows how widespread the 2019-nCoV will become around the world. The eventual impact of the virus on the global economy is also impossible to determine. If you’re an investor in stocks in Singapore and/or other parts of the world, it’s understandable to be worried.

A look at the past

But in times like these, we can look at history to soothe our fraying nerves. This is not the first time the world has fought against epidemics and pandemics. If you’re curious about the difference, this is the definition given by the CDC (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention) in the US: 

“Epidemic refers to an increase, often sudden, in the number of cases of a disease above what is normally expected in that population in that area… Pandemic refers to an epidemic that has spread over several countries or continents, usually affecting a large number of people.”

My blogging partner, Jeremy, included the chart below in a recent article. The chart illustrates the performance of the MSCI World Index (a benchmark for global stocks) since the 1970s against the backdrop of multiple epidemics/pandemics. He commented: 

“As you can see from the chart… the world has experienced 13 different epidemics since the 1970s. Yet, global stocks – measured by the MSCI World Index – has survived each of those, registering long term gains after each outbreak.”

The chart does not show what happened to stocks in the 1910s and 1920s. In 2009, the H1N1 pandemic arose (this is covered in the chart), but it was not the first time the virus had reared its ugly head. The first H1N1 pandemic lasted from 1918 to 1920. The first outbreak infected 500 million people worldwide, of whom 50 million to 100 million died. It was a dark age for mankind.

A tragedy for us, a normal time for investing

But from an investing perspective, it was a normal time. Data from Robert Shiller, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, show that the S&P 500 rose 10% (after dividends and inflation) from the start of 1918 to the end of 1919. From the start of 1918 to the end of 1923 – a six-year period – the S&P 500 rose 48% in total (again after dividends and inflation), for a decent annual gain of 6.8%. There was significant volatility between 1918 and 1923 – the maximum peak-to-trough decline in that period was 30% – but investors still made a respectable return.

I wish I had more countries’ stock market data from the 1910s and 1920s to work with. But the US experience is instructive, since some historical accounts state the country to be the source of the 1918-1920 H1N1 pandemic.

I’m not trying to say that stocks will go up this time. Every point in history is different and there’s plenty of context in the 1910s and 1920s that’s missing from today. For example, in December 1917, the CAPE ratio for the S&P 500 was 6.4; today, it’s 32. (The CAPE ratio – or cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratio – is calculated by dividing a stock’s price with its average inflation-adjusted earnings over the past 10 years.) The interest rate environment was also drastically different then compared to now.

There are limits to the usefulness of studying history. But by looking at the past, we can get a general sense for what to expect for the future. And history’s verdict is that horrific pandemics/epidemics have not stopped the upward march of stocks around the world. 

The Good Investors’ take

The human tragedies of a virus outbreak like what we’re experiencing now with the 2019 n-CoV are painful. But as investors, there’s no need to panic if we’re investing for the long run – which is what investing is about, in the first place – and assuming our portfolios are made up of great companies.

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.

Ray Dalio published an article in July 2019 that captured plenty of attention from the investment industry. When Dalio speaks, people listen. He is the Founder, Chairman, and Co-Chief Investment Officer of Bridgewater Associates, an investment firm that is currently managing around US$160 billion.

The times they are a-changin’

In his article, Dalio shared his view that a paradigm shift will soon occur in financial markets. He defines a paradigm as a long period of time “(about 10 years) in which the markets and market relationships operate in a certain way.”

The current paradigm we’re in started in late 2008/early 2009, according to Dalio. Back then, the global economy and stock market reached their troughs during the Great Financial Crisis. The paradigm was driven by central banks around the world lowering interest rates and conducting quantitative easing. The result is we’re now in a debt-glut, and a state of “relatively high” asset prices, “low” inflation, and “moderately strong” growth.

Dalio expects the current paradigm to end soon and a new one to emerge. The new paradigm will be driven by central banks’ actions to deal with the debt-glut. Dalio thinks that central banks will be doing two key things: First, they will monetise debt, which is the act of printing money to purchase debt; and second, they will depreciate currencies. These create inflation, thus depressing the value of money and the inflation-adjusted returns of debt-investors. For Dalio, holding gold is the way for investors to navigate the coming paradigm.

Plus ça change (the more things change)… 

I don’t invest based on paradigm shifts, and I’m definitely not abandoning stocks. In fact, I prefer stocks to gold. Stocks are productive assets, pieces of companies that are generating cash flows. Meanwhile, gold is an unproductive asset which just sits there. Warren Buffett explained this view better than I ever can in his 2011 Berkshire Hathaway shareholders’ letter:

“Gold, however, has two significant shortcomings, being neither of much use nor procreative. True, gold has some industrial and decorative utility, but the demand for these purposes is both limited and incapable of soaking up new production. Meanwhile, if you own one ounce of gold for an eternity, you will still own one ounce at its end.

What motivates most gold purchasers is their belief that the ranks of the fearful will grow. During the past decade that belief has proved correct. Beyond that, the rising price has on its own generated additional buying enthusiasm, attracting purchasers who see the rise as validating an investment thesis. As “bandwagon” investors join any party, they create their own truth – for a while…

… Today the world’s gold stock is about 170,000 metric tons. If all of this gold were melded together, it would form a cube of about 68 feet per side. (Picture it fitting comfortably within a baseball infield.) At [US]$1,750 per ounce – gold’s price as I write this – its value would be [US]$9.6 trillion. Call this cube pile A.

Let’s now create a pile B costing an equal amount. For that, we could buy all U.S. cropland (400 million acres with output of about [US]$200 billion annually), plus 16 Exxon Mobils (the world’s most profitable company, one earning more than [US]$40 billion annually). After these purchases, we would have about [US]$1 trillion left over for walking-around money (no sense feeling strapped after this buying binge). Can you imagine an investor with [US]$9.6 trillion selecting pile A over pile B?

Beyond the staggering valuation given the existing stock of gold, current prices make today’s annual production of gold command about [US]$160 billion. Buyers – whether jewelry and industrial users, frightened individuals, or speculators – must continually absorb this additional supply to merely maintain an equilibrium at present prices.

A century from now the 400 million acres of farmland will have produced staggering amounts of corn, wheat, cotton, and other crops – and will continue to produce that valuable bounty, whatever the currency may be. Exxon Mobil will probably have delivered trillions of dollars in dividends to its owners and will also hold assets worth many more trillions (and, remember, you get 16 Exxons). The 170,000 tons of gold will be unchanged in size and still incapable of producing anything. You can fondle the cube, but it will not respond.

Admittedly, when people a century from now are fearful, it’s likely many will still rush to gold. I’m confident, however, that the [US]$9.6 trillion current valuation of pile A will compound over the century at a rate far inferior to that achieved by pile B.”

…plus c’est la même chose (the more they remain the same)

But Dalio’s opinion on a coming paradigm shift led me to an inverted thought: Are there things that don’t change in the financial markets? Inverting is a powerful concept in both business and investing. Here’s Jeff Bezos, founder and CEO of US e-commerce giant Amazon, on the topic (emphases are mine):

“I very frequently get the question: “What’s going to change in the next 10 years?” And that is a very interesting question; it’s a very common one. I almost never get the question: “What’s not going to change in the next 10 years?” And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two — because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time… 

…[I]n our retail business, we know that customers want low prices, and I know that’s going to be true 10 years from now. They want fast delivery; they want vast selection. It’s impossible to imagine a future 10 years from now where a customer comes up and says, “Jeff, I love Amazon; I just wish the prices were a little higher.” “I love Amazon; I just wish you’d deliver a little more slowly.” Impossible.

And so the effort we put into those things, spinning those things up, we know the energy we put into it today will still be paying off dividends for our customers 10 years from now. When you have something that you know is true, even over the long term, you can afford to put a lot of energy into it.”

My inverted-thought led me to one thing that I’m certain will never change in the financial markets: A company will become more valuable over time if its revenues, profits, and cash flows increase faster than inflation. There’s just no way that this statement becomes false.

Finding great companies – companies that are able to grow much faster than inflation – is something I’ve been doing for more than nine years with my family’s investment portfolio, and for nearly three-and-a-half years in my previous role helping to run The Motley Fool Singapore’s investment newsletters.

But there’s a problem: Great companies can be very expensive, which makes them lousy investments. How can we reconcile this conflict? This is one of the hard parts about investing.

The tough things

Investing has many hard parts. Charlie Munger is the long-time sidekick of Warren Buffett. In a 2015 meeting, someone asked him:

“What is the least talked about or most misunderstood moat? [A moat refers to a company’s competitive advantage.]”

Munger responded:

“You basically want me to explain to you a difficult subject of identifying moats. It reminds me of a story. One man came to Mozart and asked him how to write a symphony. Mozart replied: “You are too young to write a symphony.” The man said: “You were writing symphonies when you were 10 years of age, and I am 21.” Mozart said: “Yes, but I didn’t run around asking people how to do it.””

I struggle often with determining the appropriate price to pay for a great company. There’s no easy formula. “A P/E ratio of X is just right” is fantasy. Fortunately, I’m not helpless when tackling this conundrum. 

“Surprise me”

David Gardner is the co-founder of The Motley Fool and he is one of the best investors I know. In September 1997, he recommended and bought Amazon shares at US$3.21 apiece, and has held onto them since. Amazon’s current share price is US$2,079, which translates into a mind-boggling gain of nearly 64,700%, or 33% per year.

When David first recommended Amazon, did it ever cross his mind that the company would generate such an incredible return? Nope. Here’s David on the matter:

“I assure you, in 1997, when we bought Amazon.com at $3.21, we did not imagine any of that could happen. And yet, all of that has happened and more, and the stock has so far exceeded any expectations any of us could have had that all I can say is, no one was a genius to call it, but you and I could be geniuses just to buy it and to add to it and to hold it, and out-hold Wall Street trading in and out of these kinds of companies.

You and I can hold them over the course of our lives and do wonderfully. So, positive surprises, too. Surprise.”

There can be many cases of great companies being poor investments because they are pricey. But great companies can also surprise us in good ways, since they are often led by management teams that possess high levels of integrity, capability, and innovativeness. So, for many years, I’ve been giving my family’s investment portfolio the chance to be positively surprised. I achieve this by investing in great companies with patience and perseverance (stocks are volatile over the short run!), and in a diversified manner.

It doesn’t matter whether a paradigm change is happening. I know there’s one thing that will not change in the stock market, and that is, great companies will become more valuable over time. So my investing plan is clear: I’m going to continue to find and invest in great companies, and believe that some of them will surprise me.

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.

Odyssey is an epic ancient Greek poem that is attributed to Homer. It was composed nearly 3,000 years ago, but it can teach us plenty about modern-day investing. 

An ancient epic

Odyssey recounts the tale of Odysseus, a Greek hero and king. After fighting for 10 long years in the Trojan War, Odysseus finally gets to go back to his home in Ithaca. Problem is, the way home for Odysseus was fraught with danger.

One treacherous part of the journey saw Odysseus having to sail past Sirenum Scopuli, a group of rocky small islands. They were home to the Sirens, mythical creatures that had the body of birds and the face of women.

The Sirens were deadly for sailors. They played and sang such enchanting melodies that passing sailors would be mesmerised, steer toward Sirenum Scopuli, and inevitably crash their ships.

Odysseus knew about the threat of the Sirens, but he also wanted to experience their beguiling song. So, he came up with a brilliant two-part plan.

The Greek hero knew for sure that he would fall prey to the seductive music of the Sirens – all mortal men would. So for the first part of his plan, he instructed his men to tie him to the ship’s mast and completely ignore all his orders to steer the ship toward Sirenum Scopuli when they approached the islands. For the second part, he had all his men fill their own ears with beeswax. This way, they couldn’t hear anything, and so would not be seduced by the Sirens when the ship was near Sirenum Scopuli.

The plan succeeded, and Odysseus was released by his men after his ship had sailed far beyond the dark reaches of the Sirens’ call.

A modern tragedy 

One of the great tragedies of modern-day investing is that we, as investors, are self-sabotaging.

Peter Lynch is one of the true investing greats. During his 13-year tenure with the Fidelity Magellan Fund from 1977 to 1990, he produced an annualised return of 29%, turning every $100,000 invested with him into $2.7 million. But the investors in his fund earned a much lower return. In his book Heads I Win, Tails I Win, Spencer Jakab, a financial journalist with The Wall Street Journal, explained why:

“During his tenure Lynch trounced the market overall and beat it in most years, racking up a 29 percent annualized return. But Lynch himself pointed out a fly in the ointment.

He calculated that the average investor in his fund made only around 7 percent during the same period. When he would have a setback, for example, the money would flow out of the fund through redemptions. Then when he got back on track it would flow back in, having missed the recovery.”

A 7% annual return for 13 years turns $100,000 into merely $241,000. Unfortunately, Lynch’s experience is not an isolated case.

In the decade ended 30 November 2009, CGM Focus Fund was the best-performing stock market fund in the US, with an impressive annual gain of 18.2%. But the fund’s investors lost 11% per year on average, over the same period. CGM Focus Fund’s investors committed the same mistake that Lynch’s investors did: They chased performance, and fled at the first whiff of any temporary trouble.

Two data points don’t make a trend, so let’s consider the broader picture. Investment research outfit Morningstar publishes an annual report named Mind The Gap. The report studies the differences between the returns earned by funds and their investors. In the latest 2019 edition of Mind The Gap, Morningstar found that “the average investor lost 45 basis points to timing over five 10-year periods ended December 2018.”

45 basis points equates to a difference of 0.45%, which is significantly lower than the performance-gaps that Lynch (22% gap) and CGM Focus Fund (29% gap) experienced. But the Morningstar study still highlights the chronic problem of investors under-performing their own funds because of self-sabotaging behaviour.

(If you’re wondering about the distinction between a fund’s return and its investors’ returns, my friends at Dr. Wealth have a great article explaining this.)

Tying the tales together

On his journey home, Odysseus knew he would commit self-sabotaging mistakes, so he came up with a clever plan to save himself from his own actions. The yawning chasm between the returns of Magellan Fund and CGM Focus Fund and their respective investors show that the investors would have been far better off if they had taken Odysseus’s lead. 

Having a fantastic ability to analyse the financial markets and find great companies is just one piece of the puzzle – and it’s not even the most important piece. There are two crucial ingredients for investing success.

The first is the ability to stay invested when the going gets tough, temporarily. Even the best long-term winners in the stock market experience sickening declines from time to time. This is why Peter Lynch once said that “in the stock market, the most important organ is the stomach. It’s not the brain.” The second key ingredient is the ability to delay gratification by ignoring the temptation to earn a small gain in order to earn a much higher return in the future. After all, every stock with a 1,000% return first has to jump by 100%, then 200%, then 300%, and so on.

We’re in an age where we’re drowning in information because of the internet. This makes short-term volatility in stock prices similar to the Sirens’ song. The movements – and the constant exposure we have to them – compel us to act, to steer our ship toward the Promised Land by trading actively. Problem is, the Promised Land is Sirenum Scopuli in disguise – active trading destroys our returns. I’ve shared two examples in an earlier article of mine titled 6 Things I’m Certain Will Happen In The Financial Markets In 2020. Here are the relevant excerpts:

“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.”

We should all act like Odysseus. We should have a plan to save us from ourselves – and we should commit to the plan. And there’s something fascinating and wonderful about the human mind that can allow us to all be like Odysseus. In his book Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain, David Eagleman writes (emphasis is mine):

“This myth [referring to Odysseus’s adventure with the Sirens] highlights the way in which minds can develop a meta-knowledge about how the short- and long-term parties interact. The amazing consequence is that minds can negotiate with different time points of themselves.”

Some of you may think you’re an even greater hero than Odysseus and can march forth in the investing arena without a plan to save you from yourself. Please reconsider! Nobel-prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow:

“The premise of this book is that it is easier to recognize other people’s mistakes than our own.” 

My Odysseus-plan

So what would our Odysseus-plans look like? Everyone’s psychological makeup is different, so my plan is not going to be the same as yours. But I’m still going to share mine, simply for it to serve as your inspiration:

• I commit to never allow macro-economic concerns (some of the recent worries are the US-China trade war and the unfortunate Wuhan-virus epidemic) to dominate my investment decision making.
• I commit to focus on the performance of the business behind the ticker and never allow stock price movements to have any heavy influence on my decision to buy or sell a share.
• I commit to invest for the long-term with a holding period that’s measured in years, if not decades.
• I commit to not panic when the stock market inevitably declines from time to time (volatility in the financial markets is a feature, not a bug).
• I commit to diversify smartly and not allow a small basket of stocks to make or break my portfolio.

I can’t tie myself to a ship’s mast, but I can keep my plan within easy visual reach so that I can sail safely toward the real Promised Land each time I find myself getting seduced by the Sirens’ song. If you have your own plan, we would love to hear from you – please share it in the comments section below, or email it to us at thegoodinvestors@gmail.com!

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.

The excerpt below is from a recent blog post of Tim Ferris, an investor and author. It talks about how we can make better-quality decisions in life (emphasis his):

“How can we create an environment that fosters better, often non-obvious, decisions?

There are many approaches, no doubt. But I realized a few weeks ago that one of the keys appeared twice in conversations from 2019. It wasn’t until New Year’s Eve that I noticed the pattern.

To paraphrase both Greg McKeown and Jim Collins, here it is: look for single decisions that remove hundreds or thousands of other decisions.

This was one of the most important lessons Jim learned from legendary management theorist Peter Drucker. As Jim recounted on the podcast, “Don’t make a hundred decisions when one will do. . . . Peter believed that you tend to think that you’re making a lot of different decisions. But then, actually, if you kind of strip it away, you can begin to realize that a whole lot of decisions that look like different decisions are really part of the same category of a decision.”” 

To me, Ferriss’s thought is entirely applicable to investing too. The more decisions we have to make in investing, the worse-off our results are likely to be. That’s because the odds of getting a decision right in investing is nothing close to 100%. So, the more decisions we have to string together, the lower our chances of success are.

I was also reminded of the story of Edgerton Welch by Ferriss’s blog. There’s very little that is known about Welch. But in 1981, Pensions and Investment Age magazine named him as the best-performing money manager in the US for the past decade, which led to Forbes magazine paying him a visit. In an incredible investing speech, investor Dean Williams recounted what Forbes learnt from Welch:

“You are familiar with the periodic rankings of past investment results published in Pension & Investment Age. You may have missed the news that for the last ten years the best investment record in the country belonged to the Citizens Bank and Trust Company of Chillicothe, Missouri.

Forbes magazine did not miss it, though, and sent a reporter to Chillicothe to find the genius responsible for it. He found a 72 year old man named Edgerton Welsh, who said he’d never heard of Benjamin Graham and didn’t have any idea what modern portfolio theory was. “Well, how did you do it?” the reporter wanted to know.

Mr. Welch showed the report his copy of Value-Line and said he bought all the stocks ranked “1” that Merrill Lynch or E.F. Hutton also liked. And when any one of the three changed their ratings, he sold. Mr. Welch said, “It’s like owning a computer. When you get the printout, use the figures to make a decision–not your own impulse.”

The Forbes reporter finally concluded, “His secret isn’t the system but his own consistency.” EXACTLY. That is what Garfield Drew, the market writer, meant forty years ago when he said, “In fact, simplicity or singleness of approach is a greatly underestimated factor of market success.””

Welch reduced a complicated investing question – “What should I invest in?” – into something simple: Buy the cheap stocks. By doing so, he minimised the chances of errors creeping into his investing process.

My own process for finding investment opportunities in the stock market is radically different from Welch’s. But it can also be boiled down to a simple sentence: Finding companies that can grow at high rates for a long period of time. I focus my efforts on understanding individual companies and effectively ignore interest rates and most other macroeconomic developments when making investment decisions. My process sounds simple, but that’s the whole point – and it has served me well.

To make better investing decisions, reduce the number of decisions you have to make in your investing process. Simplify!

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.

The financial media pays plenty of attention to interest rates. We just have to look at the amount of commentary that pops up whenever central banks around the world make their interest rate decisions.

If you invest in stocks, like us at The Good Investors, there are two things about interest rates and their implications that you should know.

No.1: The reality behind the relationship between interest rates and stock prices

I’ve written about the theory behind how interest rates govern the movement of stock prices in a previous article at The Good Investors titled 6 Things I’m Certain Will Happen In The Financial Markets In 2020. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

“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 in the same article, I also pointed out that things are different in real life:

“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:

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.”

No.2: Based on history, interest rates have declined as a country develops

Josh Brown is the CEO of Ritholtz Wealth Management. In a June 2019 blog post, Brown recounted a dinner he had with the polymath investor William Bernstein. During the dinner, Bernstein posed a question that had been in his mind for awhile: What if the cost of capital never rises again? (The cost of capital refers to the cost of money – in other words, interest rates.)

Bernstein’s question is fascinating to think about. That’s because a broad look at history shows us that interest rates have declined as countries mature. Here’s Bernstein on the subject in his book, The Birth of Plenty (I highly recommend it!):

“Interest rates, according to economic historian Richard Sylla, accurately reflect a society’s health. In effect, a plot of interest rates over time is a nation’s “fever curve.” In uncertain times rates rise because there is less sense of public security and trust.

Over the broad sweep of history, all of the major ancient civilisations demonstrated a “U-shaped” pattern of interest rates. There were high rates early in their history, following by slowly falling rates as the civilisations matured and stabilized. This led to low rates at the height of their development, and, finally, as the civilisations decayed, there was a return of rising rates.”

The implications

There are two implications I can draw from the graph on interest rates vs valuation, and Bernstein’s data on how interest rates change with the growth of countries. First, Shiller’s data show that changes in interest rates alone cannot tell us much about how stocks will move. “If A happens, then B will occur” is a line of thinking that is best avoided in finance. The second implication is that it is possible for interest rates in the US and other parts of the world to stay low for a very long period of time. That’s history’s verdict.

In 6 Things I’m Certain Will Happen In The Financial Markets In 2020, I also wrote:

“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…

… 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.”

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway provides an opposite example to Sears. From the start of 1965 to the end of 1984, US long-term interest rates climbed from 4.2% to 11.5%, according to Shiller’s data. But a 23.7% increase per year in Berkshire’s book value per share over the same period resulted in a 27.6% annual jump in the company’s share price. A 23.7% input led to a 27.6% output over nearly 20 years, despite the significant growth in interest rates.

You may also be wondering: What’s going to happen to global financial markets in a world that is awash in cheap credit for a long time?

We can learn something from Japan: The country has already been in a situation like this for decades. The yield for 10-year Japanese government bonds has never exceeded 2% going back to the fourth quarter of 1997, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. In fact, the yield has fallen from 1.96% to a negative 0.2% in the third quarter of 2019 (see chart below).

Interestingly, Japan’s main stock market index, the Nikkei 225, is just 40% or so higher from October 1997 to today, despite interest rates in the country having declined from an already low base in that time frame.

Yet, there’s a company in Japan such as Fast Retailing – owner of the popular Uniqlo clothing brand – which has seen its stock price increase by more than 11,000% over the same period because of massive growth in its business. From the year ended 31 August 1998 (FY1998) to FY2019, Fast Retailing’s revenue and profit grew by around 27 times and 56 times, respectively.  

What it all means for stock market investors

So to wrap up everything I’ve shared earlier in this article:

1. Rising interest rates may not hurt stock prices by depressing valuations, as seen from the S&P 500’s CAPE ratio increasing from the 1930s to the 1960s while interest rates were rising.
2. Historically, interest rates have declined and stayed low as countries develop and mature, according to William Bernstein’s book, The Birth of Plenty.  
3. Falling interest rates cannot help a stock if its business is crumbling, as seen in the case of Sears.
4. Rising interest rates also would not necessarily harm a stock if its business is flourishing, as Berkshire Hathaway has demonstrated.
5. The example of Japan’s Nikkei 225 index show that persistently low interest rates don’t always benefit stocks too. 
6. Fast Retailing’s experience highlights how Individual stocks can still be huge winners even in a flat market, if their businesses do well over time. 

And what do all these mean for us as stock market investors? It means that we shouldn’t bother with interest rates. Instead, we should focus on the health and growth of the businesses that are behind the stocks we own or are interested in. In other words, watch business fundamentals, not interest rates.

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.