Talking About Investing On Radio 

A chat about investing in technology stocks and investing during recessions.

Yesterday, I was invited onto Money FM 89.3, Singapore’s first business and personal finance radio station, for a short interview. My friend Willie Keng, the founder of investor education website Dividend Titan, was co-hosting a segment for Money FM 89.3 and we covered a few topics including:

  • My view on technology stocks going forward, given their recent well-publicised slowdown in hiring
  • Whether technology companies are experiencing a structural change, post-COVID
  • Should investors wait to invest before the bottom is in?
  • Investing in stocks during recessions
  • My criteria for evaluating stocks

You can check out the recording of our conversation 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. Of all the companies mentionedI currently have a vested interest in Datadog, DocuSign, Microsoft, MongoDB, and Zoom. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

How Warren Buffett Analysed Lehman Brothers

Warren Buffett rejected Lehman Brothers’ request for financing help during the Great Financial Crisis – here’s how he analysed Lehman back then

A friend of Jeremy and I recently shared a tweet with us from Andrew Kuhn, a partner at the investment firm Focused Compounding, that I found fascinating. It mentioned an interview Warren Buffett did with the Wall Street Journal in 2018 where he explained his reasons for rejecting Lehman Brothers’ plea for financing during the 2008-09 Great Financial Crisis.

Prior to its bankruptcy in September 2008, Lehman Brothers was a storied investment bank that was founded more than a century ago in 1847. Lehman first approached Buffett for help in March 2008. After studying Lehman’s then-latest 10-K – for the financial year ended 30 November 2007 (the 10-K is the annual report that US-listed companies have to file) – Buffett discovered multiple red flags and decided to turn the bank down.

During his interview with the Wall Street Journal, Buffett showed a physical copy of Lehman’s 10-K that he read and made notes on. I managed to find a copy of Buffett’s 10-K and thought it would be an interesting exercise to run through all the pages he marked out as red flags to understand how he analysed Lehman Brothers in 2008.

Before I continue, here are some important things to note:

  • What I’m about to share are merely my interpretations and I make no claim that they accurately portray Buffett’s actual thought process.
  • This is the most complex set of financial statements that I’ve seen since I started investing in 2010 so I might be getting some of the details wrong (it’s also a great reminder for me to proceed with extreme caution when investing in banks!).
  • Kuhn created a video with his colleague, Geoff Gannon, that featured their analysis of Buffett’s copy of Lehman’s 10-K. I watched it while reading the document and it was really helpful for my own understanding of the red flags that Buffett noted.

Buffett’s mark ups: Page 106 & 107

These pages contain Figure 1 below, which shows the high yield bonds held by Lehman in FY2007 and FY2006.

Figure 2; Source: Buffett’s Lehman 10-K

Three things stood out to me: 

  • The high yield bond positions increased significantly by 137% from US$12.8 billion in FY2006 to US$30.4 billion in FY2007. 
  • The increase was a result of Lehman being unable to offload these positions, an indication that perhaps these assets were of poor quality. Per Lehman’s 10-K (emphasis is mine): “The increase in high-yield positions from 2006 to 2007 is primarily from funded lending commitments that have not been syndicated.”
  • The high yield bond positions need to be seen in relation to Lehman’s shareholder’s equity of merely US$22.5 billion in FY2007. If these high yield positions – US$30.4 billion – were to decline sharply in value, Lehman’s shareholder’s equity, and thus financial health, would be in serious trouble.

Pages 106 and 107 also mentioned that Lehman was authorised to buy back up to 100 million shares of itself “for the management of our equity capital, including offsetting dilution due to employee stock awards.” I’m guessing this did not sit well with Buffett from a capital allocation perspective because buying back shares merely to offset dilution is not an intelligent nor prudent use of capital.

Buffett’s mark ups: Page 115

This page is linked to the following passages (empahses are mine): 

We enter into various transactions with special purpose entities (“SPEs”). SPEs may be corporations, trusts or partnerships that are established for a limited purpose. There are two types of SPEs— QSPEs and VIEs.

A QSPE generally can be described as an entity whose permitted activities are limited to passively holding financial assets and distributing cash flows to investors based on pre-set terms. Our primary involvement with QSPEs relates to securitization transactions in which transferred assets, including mortgages, loans, receivables and other financial assets, are sold to an SPE that qualifies as a QSPE under SFAS 140. In accordance with SFAS 140 and FIN-46(R), we do not consolidate QSPEs. We recognize at fair value the interests we hold in the QSPEs. We derecognize financial assets transferred to QSPEs, provided we have surrendered control over the assets.”

What these passages effectively mean is that Lehman had off-balance sheet entities (the QSPEs) that housed certain assets so that they would not show up on Lehman’s own balance sheet. But it was exceedingly difficult to know (1) the value of these assets, (2) what these assets were, and (3) Lehman’s liabilities that were associated with these assets. Buffett might have been worried about the damage these unknowns could wrought on Lehman if trouble manifested in them.

Buffett’s mark ups: Page 125

This page is linked to the following passages (emphases are mine):

Derivatives are exchange traded or privately negotiated contracts that derive their value from an underlying asset. Derivatives are useful for risk management because the fair values or cash flows of derivatives can be used to offset the changes in fair values or cash flows of other financial instruments. In addition to risk management, we enter into derivative transactions for purposes of client transactions or establishing trading positions. The presentation of derivatives in our Consolidated Statement of Financial Position is net of payments and receipts and, in instances where management determines a legal right of offset exists as a result of a netting agreement, net-by-counterparty. Risk for an OTC derivative includes credit risk associated with the counterparty in the negotiated contract and continues for the duration of that contract.

The fair value of our OTC derivative assets at November 30, 2007 and 2006, was $41.3 billion and $19.5 billion, respectively; however, we view our net credit exposure to have been $34.6 billion and $15.6 billion at November 30, 2007 and 2006, respectively, representing the fair value of OTC derivative contracts in a net receivable position after consideration of collateral.”

Lehman had OTC (over-the-counter) derivative assets of US$41.3 billion in FY2007. These assets were problematic because (1) it’s hard to tell what’s in them and thus if Lehman had any counterparty risk, (2) it’s hard to tell what their actual values were since they were traded over-the-counter, and (3) they had more than doubled in value from FY2006 to FY2007. Moreover, Lehman’s shareholder’s equity in FY2007 was just US$22.5 billion, as mentioned earlier. This meant the investment bank did not have much cushion to absorb any significant declines in the value of its OTC derivative assets if they were to occur. 

Buffett’s mark ups: Page 173 & 175

These pages are linked to Figure 2, which shows all the financial instruments and inventory owned by Lehman in FY2007 and FY2006:

Figure 2; Source: Buffett’s Lehman 10-K

I think what troubled Buffett here would be the owned derivatives and other contractual agreements of US$44.6 billion in FY2007. The number was double that of FY2006 and as Figure 3 below illustrates, all of these assets were traded over-the-counter and thus had values that could not be easily determined. Let’s not forget too, that Lehman’s shareholder’s equity – US$22.5 billion in FY2007 – would provide only a thin buffer if any large decline in value for the owned derivatives and other contractual agreements happened. 

Figure 3; Source: Buffett’s Lehman 10-K

Buffett’s mark ups: Page 180

This page is linked to a description of the way Lehman groups its assets based on how their values are derived. Per the 10-K (emphases are mine):

“Level I – Inputs are unadjusted, quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities at the measurement date. The types of assets and liabilities carried at Level I fair value generally are G-7 government and agency securities, equities listed in active markets, investments in publicly traded mutual funds with quoted market prices and listed derivatives.

Level II – Inputs (other than quoted prices included in Level I) are either directly or indirectly observable for the asset or liability through correlation with market data at the measurement date and for the duration of the instrument’s anticipated life. Fair valued assets and liabilities that are generally included in this category are non-G-7 government securities, municipal bonds, certain hybrid financial instruments, certain mortgage and asset backed securities, certain corporate debt, certain commitments and guarantees, certain private equity investments and certain derivatives.

Level III – Inputs reflect management’s best estimate of what market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability at the measurement date. Consideration is given to the risk inherent in the valuation technique and the risk inherent in the inputs to the model. Generally, assets and liabilities carried at fair value and included in this category are certain mortgage and asset-backed securities, certain corporate debt, certain private equity investments, certain commitments and guarantees and certain derivatives.”

Put simply, Lehman had three types of assets: Level I assets had values that were determined simply by publicly-available prices while Level II and Level III assets had values that were determined using management’s inputs. Page 180 is also linked to Figure 4 below:

Figure 4; Source: Buffett’s Lehman 10-K

What Figure 4 shows is that one of Lehman’s single-largest asset categories – mortgage and asset-backed securities – were nearly all Level II and Level III assets. They are thus assets whose prices were not easily determinable by third-parties at that point in time. And their collective value was US$89.1 billion, four times higher than Lehman’s shareholder equity of US$22.5 billion. Buffett might have been worried that Lehman would be wiped out if these assets were to fall by just 25% in value – a distinct possibility given that the US housing market was already shaky back then.

Another aspect of Lehman’s financials linked to Page 180 of its 10-K that might have troubled Buffett is shown in Figure 5: Lehman’s Level III mortgage and asset-backed positions had surged threefold from just US$8.6 billion in FY2006 to US$25.2 billion in FY2007. 

Figure 5; Source: Buffett’s Lehman 10-K

Buffett’s mark ups: Page 184

This page is linked to the following paragraphs (emphases are mine):

“The Company uses fair value measurements on a nonrecurring basis in its assessment of assets classified as Goodwill and other inventory positions classified as Real estate held for sale. These assets and inventory positions are recorded at fair value initially and assessed for impairment periodically thereafter. During the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007, the carrying amount of Goodwill assets were compared to their fair value. No change in carrying amount resulted in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets

Additionally and on a nonrecurring basis during the fiscal year ended November 30, 2007, the carrying amount of Real estate held for sale positions were compared to their fair value less cost to sell. No change in carrying amount resulted in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 66, Accounting for Sales of Real Estate, SFAS No. 144, Accounting for Impairment or Disposal of Long Lived Assets, and other relevant accounting guidance. The lowest level of inputs for fair value measurements for Goodwill and Real estate held for sale are Level III.

It turns out that Lehman’s real estate held for sale of US$21.9 billion in FY2007 – first shown in “Buffett’s mark ups: Page 173 & 175” – could have been Level III assets. So the stated value of US$21.9 billion may not have been anywhere close to what these assets could fetch in an open transaction, since the US housing market was already in trouble at that point in time.

Final word

Buffett’s marked-up copy of Lehman’s 10-K contained more pages that he noted down as red flags, such as pages 188, 199, 209, and more. But when I read them, there was nothing that jumped out at me as being highly unusual so I’ve not included them in this article.

Again, everything I’ve shared earlier are merely my interpretations and I make no claim that they accurately portray Buffett’s actual thought process when he studied Lehman’s 10-K. Nonetheless, I found it to be an interesting exercise for myself and I hope you find my takeaways useful too. The biggest lesson I have is that if I were to research a bank, I need to study its footnotes and I should be extremely wary of banks with complex balance sheets that contain a significant amount of assets with questionable values.


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. I currently do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Questions on Oil Prices Partially Answered

I had questions on the history of oil consumption, production, and prices and I managed to find some answers for them.

My article Surprising Facts About Oil Prices (And The Questions They Raise) was published last week. In it, I mentioned that “the price of oil has experienced at least five major crashes over the past four decades despite demand for the commodity being higher than supply in every year.” When Vision Capital’s Eugene Ng – who’s a friend of both Jeremy and myself – read it, he was intrigued by what I discovered about oil prices and wanted to find out more. 

Eugene noticed that the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintained its own database for long-term global oil consumption and production. After plotting a chart of EIA’s data, he obtained similar results to what I got from BP (NYSE: BP) (the BP data was shown in my aforementioned article). Eugene and I talked about this and he decided to ask the EIA how it is possible for oil consumption to outweigh production for decades. 

The EIA kindly responded to Eugene, who shared the answers with me. It turns out that there could be errors within EIA’s data. The possible sources of errors come from incomplete accounting of Transfers and Backflows in oil balances: 

  • Transfers include the direct and indirect conversion of coal and natural gas to petroleum.
  • Backflows refer to double-counting of oil-streams in consumption. Backflows can happen if the data collection process does not properly account for recycled streams.

The EIA also gave an example of how a Backflow could happen with the fuel additive, MTBE or methyl tert-butyl ether (quote is lightly edited for clarity):

“The fuel additive MTBE is an useful example of both, as its most common feedstocks are methanol (usually from a non-petroleum fossil source) and Iso-Butylene whose feedstock likely comes from feed that has already been accounted for as butane (or iso-butane) consumption. MTBE adds a further complexity in that it is often exported as a chemical and thus not tracked in the petroleum trade balance.”

Thanks to the EIA, I now appreciate that the BP data I cited in Surprising Facts About Oil Prices (And The Questions They Raise) might contain errors, and how those errors could have appeared. This answers the third question I had in the article, but the first two questions remain unanswered. Even after knowing that there could be years between 1980 and 2021 where production came in higher than consumption, I can’t tell what the actual demand-and-supply dynamics of oil were during the five major crashes in oil prices that happened in that period.


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. I currently do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Surprising Facts About Oil Prices (And The Questions They Raise)

The history of oil prices, and what drives them.

Warren Buffett has recently been investing billions in shares of oil & gas companies such as Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY) and Chevron (NYSE: CVX). I’ve also seen articles and podcasts from oil & gas investors talking about the current supply-and-demand dynamics in the oil market that could lead to sustained high prices for the energy commodity, (the price of WTI Crude is currently around US$93 per barrel). These piqued my interest and led me to research the history of oil prices and what influences it.

What I found was surprising. First, here’s a brief history on major crashes in the price of oil (WTI Crude) over the past four decades:

  • 1980 – 1986: From around US$30 to US$10
  • 1990 – 1994: From around US$40 to less than US$14
  • 2008 – 2009: From around US$140 to around US$40
  • 2014 – 2016: From around US$110 to less than US$33
  • 2020: From around US$60 to -US$37 

As a commodity, it’s logical to think that differences in the level of oil’s supply-and-demand would heavily affect its price movement – when demand is higher than supply, prices would rise, and vice versa. But data from BP (NYSE: BP) – one of the largest oil-producing companies in the world, so there’s no reason to doubt the validity of the data – show otherwise.

BP’s dataset goes back to 1965 and from then to 1980, the consumption of oil (demand) was lower than the production of oil (supply) in every year. From 1981 onwards, the relationship flipped, with demand being higher than supply in every year since. This is shown in Figure 1. What this means is the price of oil has experienced at least five major crashes over the past four decades despite demand for the commodity being higher than supply in every year. 

Figure 1; Source: BP

These surprising facts about the oil market bring up three important questions in my mind: 

  • Are there way more important factors than demand-and-supply dynamics that can move the price of oil?
  • What do the facts imply about the future movement of oil prices, given the widely-held view (at least from what I’ve gathered) that oil prices would remain elevated – or climb higher from here – based on the current environment where demand far outstrips supply, and where supply is not able to be increased easily?
  • How is it physically possible that consumption of oil can outweigh production for four decades?

I currently don’t have answers to these questions. But if any of you reading this have thoughts to share, please reach out to me – I’ll be happy to discuss!

Note: A follow-up article addressing one of the questions was published on 9 September 2022. Read it here.


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. I currently do not have a vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

The Truths About Investing In Stocks During Recessions

How stocks have historically performed during a recession.

Note: An earlier version of this article was first published in The Business Times on 26 July 2022

Lately, the dreaded “R” word has been making its rounds. Yes, I’m talking about a recession, a risk that is not confined to any specific country. In fact, in early July, the chief of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, warned that a global recession cannot be ruled out. 

The thing is, recessions are not within our control. Yet, as investors, we are affected by it. This begs the question, what should stock market investors do now that the possibility of a recession looms in the background? 

I don’t have a panacea, but what I can offer are historical perspectives – truths, if you will – about stocks and recessions. The US stock market is a great case study. According to the Visual Capitalist, the USA accounts for nearly a quarter of global economic output while its stocks make up around 40% of the total global stock market capitalisation based on data from the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

1. What happened to stocks in past recessions

A common refrain I’ve heard over the years is that stock prices are bound to fall during a recession. But the data says otherwise.

Ben Carlson is the Director of Institutional Asset Management at Ritholtz Wealth Management. According to his research shown in his recent blog post titled Timing a Recession vs. Timing the Stock Market, there have been 12 recessions in the USA since World War II (WWII). 

The average return for the S&P 500 – a broad barometer for US stocks – when all these recessions took place was 1.4%. A positive number. Of course, there were some horrible returns within the average. For example, the recession that stretched from December 2007 to June 2009 saw the S&P 500 fall by 35.5%. On the other end, there were some decent returns. For the recession between July 1981 and November 1982, the S&P 500 gained 14.7%.

Hence, it’s not a given that stocks will definitely fall during a recession.

2. What happened if you stayed invested in stocks through past recessions

If you are thinking of selling your stocks during a recession, you may want to think again.  

Carlson’s research showed that If you had invested in the S&P 500 six months prior to all of the 12 recessions since WWII and held on for 10 years after each of them, you would have earned a positive return on every occasion. Furthermore, the returns were largely rewarding.

The worst return was a total gain of 9.4% for the recession that lasted from March 2001 to November 2001. The best was the first post-WWII recession that happened from November 1948 to October 1949, a staggering return of 555.7%. After taking away the best and worst returns, the average was 257.2%. Not too shabby!

In short, holding onto stocks in the lead up to, through, and in the years after a recession, has historically produced good returns most of the time.

3. What happened if you avoided stocks during past recessions

Some of you reading this may also wonder: What if I tried to side-step a recession? What if I had perfect knowledge of when a recession would start and end, and I simply sold stocks at the start of a recession and bought back in at the end? The answer: You would do poorly. 

Michael Batnick, the Director of Research at Ritholtz Wealth Management, has the facts to prove it. In his October 2019 blog post titled 12 Charts You Ought to See Before the Next Recession, Batnick showed that a dollar invested in US stocks at the start of 1980 would be worth north of $78 around the end of 2018 if you had simply held the stocks and did nothing. 

But if you invested the same dollar in US stocks at the start of 1980 and expertly side-stepped the ensuing recessions to perfection, you would have less than $32 at the same endpoint. 

Said another way, avoiding recessions flawlessly would have caused your return to drop by more than half.

4. What bottomed first in past recessions – stocks or the economy?

I know it’s tempting to sell your stocks if you think the economy has room to fall further. But this idea is flawed.

Here’s what the data shows: Stocks tend to bottom before the economy does. Let’s go back to the three most recent recessions in the USA prior to 2020’s pandemic. These would be the recessions that lasted from July 1990 to March 1991, from March 2001 to November 2001, and from December 2007 to June 2009.

During the first recession in this sample, data on the S&P 500 from Yale economist Robert Shiller showed that the US S&P 500 bottomed in October 1990. In the second episode, the S&P 500 found its low 15 months after the end of the recession, in February 2003. This phenomenon was caused by the aftermath of the dotcom bubble’s bursting. For the third recession, the S&P 500 reached a trough in March 2009, three months before the recession ended. 

In summation, even if you are right today that the economy would be in worse shape in the months ahead, stocks may already have bottomed or be near one. Only time will tell. 

5. Did companies manage to grow in past recessions?

A recession is a period of time when a country’s economy is in decline. And when the economy is in poor health, it’s easy to think that all businesses are either suffering or are at best stagnating. But this isn’t always true for all companies. Some businesses can thrive. 

The recession that lasted from December 2007 to June 2009 was one of the worst in the USA’s modern history. The country’s real gross domestic product fell by 4.3% from a peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 to a bottom in the second quarter of 2009. The unemployment rate also spiked from 5% in December 2007 to 10% in October 2009.

But while the US economy was in trouble, the revenue of software-as-a-service pioneer Salesforce grew by 51% in FY2008 (fiscal year ending January 2008), 44% in FY2009, 21% in FY2010, and 27% in FY2011. Salesforce is not the only one. iPhone manufacturer Apple saw its revenue rise by 27% in FY2007 (fiscal year ending September 2007), 53% in FY2008, 14% in FY2009, and 52% in FY2010. Booking Holdings, the owner of Booking.com and Agoda.com, enjoyed revenue growth of 26% in 2007, 34% in 2008, 24% in 2009, and 32% in 2010.

Hence, investors in these three US-based companies had nothing to worry about even during one of the worst recessions for the country in modern history. Their businesses kept growing at an admirable clip, which meant that their underlying economic values were increasing rapidly too.

Parting words

When we’re on the precipice of a recession, it may feel like tomorrow will never get better. But brighter days eventually do come. As one of my favourite finance writers, Morgan Housel, once wrote: “Every five to seven years, people forget that recessions occur every five to seven years.” Recessions are normal. Par for the course.

Now we circle back to the question I posed at the beginning: “What should stock market investors do now with the possibility of a recession looming in the background?” You have history’s responses. The next step is up to 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. I have an interest in Apple and Salesforce. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

What The USA’s Largest Bank Thinks About The State Of The Country’s Economy

Insights from JPMorgan Chase’s management on the health of American consumers and businesses.

JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM) is currently the largest bank in the USA by total assets. Because of this status, JPMorgan is naturally able to feel the pulse of the country’s economy. The bank’s latest earnings conference call – for the second quarter of 2022 – contained useful insights on the state of American consumers and businesses. The bottom-line is that while there are risks on the horizon, consumer spending in the USA is still healthy and the leaders of companies there think that their businesses are currently doing fine. What’s shown between the two horizontal lines below are quotes from JPMorgan’s management team that I picked up from the call. 


1. Credit is still healthy and loan volumes continued to grow

Credit is still quite healthy and net charge-offs remain historically low. And there continue to be positive trends in loan growth across our businesses, with average loans up 7% year-on-year and 2% quarter-on-quarter.

2. Provision for credit losses were much higher than a year ago (when there was a release of previous credit loss charges) to account for a slightly weaker economic outlook

And credit costs were $1.1 billion, which included net charge-offs of $657 million and reserve builds of $428 million, reflecting loan growth as well as a modest deterioration in the economic outlook.

3. Consumer spending is still healthy, across both debit and credit cards, but there’s clear impact from inflation and higher non-discretionary spending; this said, there’s no pullback seen yet on discretionary spending

Spend is still healthy with combined debit and credit spend up 15% year-on-year. We see the impact of inflation and higher nondiscretionary spend across income segments. Notably, the average consumer is spending 35% more year-on-year on gas and approximately 6% more on recurring bills and other nondiscretionary categories. At the same time, we have yet to observe a pullback in discretionary spending, including in the lower income segments, with travel and dining growing a robust 34% year-on-year overall.

4. Consumer deposit balances are down, although cash buffers are still high

And with spending growing faster than incomes, median deposit balances are down across income segments for the first time since the pandemic started, though cash buffers still remain elevated.

5. Auto loan originations fell sharply

And in auto, originations were $7 billion, down 44% from record levels a year ago due to continued lack of vehicle supply and rising rates while loans were up 2%.

6. Loan growth outlook of high single digit for 2022, but no view on 2023 yet

Yes. So we’ve talked, as you know, Steve, about sort of a mid — high single digits loan growth expectation for this year. And that outlook is more or less still in place. Obviously, we only have half the year left. We continue to see quite robust C&I growth, both higher revolver utilization and new account origination. We’re also seeing good growth in CRE. And of course, we continue to see very robust card loan growth, which is nice to see. Outlook beyond this year, I’m not going to give now.

7. Lower income segments are where cash buffers are getting thinner, but they are still above pre-pandemic levels; JPMorgan’s management is also not sure if this is just simply normalisation or an early warning sign of deterioration

[Question] Okay. Great. And then just maybe on credit. It continues to look, I guess, very good, whether it’s on the consumer side or commercial side. Are you — we don’t really see it, but are you starting to see any initial cracks in credit or strains in the system?

[Answer] But if you really want to kind of turn up the magnification on the microscope and look really, really, really closely, if you look at cash buffers in the lower-income segments and early delinquency roll rates in those segments, you can maybe see a little bit of an early warning signal to the effect that the burn-down of excess cash is a little bit faster there. Buffers are still above what they were pre-pandemic, but coming down. And that absolute numbers for the typical customer are not that high. And you do see those early delinquency buckets still below pre-pandemic levels, but getting closer in the lower-income segment. So if you wanted to try to look for early warning signals, that’s where you would see it. But I think there’s really still a big question about whether that’s simply normalization or whether it’s actually an early warning sign of deterioration. And for us, as you know, our portfolio is really not very exposed to that segment of the market. So not really very significant for us.

8. JPMorgan’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, said a few months ago that a hurricane is coming, but he acknowledges that in the long-term, the economy will be fine; current economic conditions also look good

[Question] Could you help me reconcile your words with your actions? After Investor Day, Jamie, you said a hurricane is on the horizon. But today, you’re holding firm with your $77 billion expense guidance for 2022. I mean, it’s like you’re acting like there’s sunny skies ahead. You’re out buying kayaks, surfboards, wave runners just before the storm. So is it tough times or not?

[Answer] Now let me — we run the company. We’ve always run the company consistently, investing, doing this stuff through storms. We don’t like pull in and pull out and go up and go down and go into markets, out of markets through storms. We manage the company, and you’ve seen us do this consistently since I’ve been at Bank One. We invest, we grow, we expand, we manage through the storm and stuff like that.

And so — and I mentioned to all of you on the media call, but there are very good current numbers taking place. Consumers are in good shape. They’re spending money. They have more income. Jobs are plentiful. They’re spending 10% more than last year, almost 30% plus more than pre-COVID. Businesses, when you talk to them, they’re in good shape, they’re doing fine. We’ve never seen business credit be better ever like in our lifetimes. And that’s the current environment.

The future environment, which is not that far off, involves rates going up maybe more than people think because of inflation, maybe deflation, maybe a soft — there might be a soft landing. I’m simply saying, there’s a range of potential outcomes, from a soft lending to a hard lending, driven by how much rates go up; the effect of quantitative tightening; the effect of volatile markets; and obviously, this terrible humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and the war, and then the effect of that on food and oil and gas.

And we’re simply pointing out, those things make the probabilities and possibilities of these events different. It’s not going to change how we run the company. The economy will be bigger in 10 years. We’re going to run the company. We’re going to serve more clients. We’re going to open our branches. We’re going to invest in the things. And we’ll manage through that.

We do — if you look at what we do, our bridge book is way down. That was managing certain exposures. We’re not in subprime fundamentally. That’s managing your exposures. So we’re quite careful about how we run the risk of the company. And if there was a reason to cut back on something, we would. But now that we think it’s a great business that’s got great growth prospects, it’s just going to go through a storm.

And in fact, going through a storm, we will — that gives us opportunities, too. I always remind myself, the economy will be a lot bigger in 10 years, we’re here to serve clients through thick or thin, and we will do that…

…But that’s — yes, that’s very performance-based, too. And again, Mike, the way I look at it a little bit, in 15 years, the global GDP — or 20 years, the global GDP, global financial assets, global companies, companies over $5 billion will all double. That’s what we’re building for. We’re not building for like 18 months.

9. JPMorgan sees technology investments as being really helpful during recessions

[Question] So clearly running the company for the next 5 to 10 years. If we have a recession in the next 5 to 10 months, how does technology help you manage through that better? Whether it’s credit losses, managing for less credit losses, expenses, more flexibility, more revenues, maybe gaining market share. What’s the benefit of all these technology investments if we have a recession over the next…

[Answer] Mike, I think we gave you some examples at Investor Day. For example, AI, which we spend a lot of money on. We gave you a couple of examples, but one of them is we spent $100 million building certain risk and fraud systems so that when we process payments on the consumer side, losses are down $100 million to $200 million. Volume is way up. That’s a huge benefit. I don’t think you’d want to stop doing that because there’s a recession. And so — and plus, in a recession, certain things get cheaper, branches are enormously profitable, bank is enormously profitable. We’re going to keep on doing those things. And we’ve managed through recessions before, we’ll manage it again. And I’m quite comfortable we’ll do it quite well. We’re stop-starting on recruiting or training or technology or branch, right? That’s crazy. We don’t do that. We’ve never done that. We didn’t do it in ’08 and ’09. [ And it puts us in quite good stead ] in terms — yes.

10. From JPMorgan’s vantage point, consumers are in great shape

And the consumer, I feel like a broken record. The consumer right now is in great shape. So even we go into a recession, they’re entering that recession with less leverage, in far better shape than they’ve been — did in ’08 and ’09, and far better shape than they did even in 2020. And jobs are plentiful. Now of course, jobs may disappear. Things happen. But they’re in very good shape. And obviously, when you have recessions, it affects consumer income and consumer credit. Our credit card portfolio is prime. I mean, it’s exceptional. But again, we’re adults in that. We know that if you have a recession, losses will go up. We prepare for all that, and we’re prepared to take it because we grow the business over time. We’re not going to just immediately run out of it. And so I think it’s great the consumer’s is in good shape. And it sounds excellent that — I like the fact that wages are going up for people at the low end. I like the fact that jobs are plentiful. I think that’s good for the average American, and we should applaud that. And so they’re in good shape right now.

11. When responding to a question about the market pricing in rate cuts for next year, Jamie Dimon said forward curves have been wrong all the time

[Question] I guess just one for — a couple of follow-ups, Jeremy. In terms of the markets have gone very quickly from pricing in a ton of rate hikes to potentially pricing in rate cuts next year…

…[Answer] And I should just point out, the forward curve has been consistently wrong in my whole lifetime. We don’t necessarily make investments based on the forward curve.


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. I don’t have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Can Software Companies Continue To Grow Despite Macroeconomic Uncertainties?

The economic news coming out of the USA has been bleak of late. Can software and digital infrastructure companies grow despite a weak economy?

There’s been plenty of discussion among market participants and business executives over the past few months on the uncertainties confronting the US economy, and how the businesses from various industries in the country will perform in an uncertain economic environment.

For companies that are focused on providing software and/or digital infrastructure, their businesses may continue to shine regardless of the macroeconomic uncertainties thrown their way. I say this based on comments – see below – shared by the leaders of these companies during their latest earnings conference calls that took place over the past two months. There was no specific reason why these companies were chosen, other than me having a vested interest in them.

Adobe (17 June 2022)

I think the other part of the conversation that you all have with enterprise CEOs right now is they all recognize it’s an uncertain time, and that’s the conversation that we have. But despite that uncertain macroeconomic environment, the thing that all of them recognize is that digital is a priority. And they really want to continue to have conversations with us as to how they can do digital. I’ll have Anil maybe add a little bit of what he’s seeing across different verticals as well. But the importance of digital remains undiminished.

Amazon (29 April 2022)

So yes, I mean, we’re continuing to see what the backlog is, right? It’s the increase of AWS [Amazon Web Services] customers making long-term commitments for AWS. At the March period ended, we had $88.9 billion balance for that. So that’s up about 68% year-over-year. And the weighted average remaining kind of life term for those is 3.8 years.

Datadog (5 May 2022)

We believe that digital and cloud projects are still very high priority and are not being de-prioritized, we haven’t seen that. We think we’re still early on. So, with the data we have so far, we think there will be continued strong investment. There is always some volatility across our customer base. Our customer base is very well diversified across industries and we benefited from that over time. So, whereas we’re not macro forecasters and there may well be some sensitivity, we believe the long-term trends in digital migration and cloud will also be very strong throughout that cycle.

Microsoft (27 April 2022)

The second thing is in the conversations we are having with our customers, the interesting thing I find from perhaps even past challenges, whether macro or micro, is I don’t hear of businesses looking to their IT budgets or digital transformation projects as the place for cuts. If anything, some of these projects are the way they’re going to accelerate their transformation or, for that matter, automation, for example. I have not seen this level of demand for automation technology to improve productivity because in an inflationary environment, the only deflationary force is software. So that’s the second micro thing, the tone thing that’s different.

MongoDB (2 June 2022)

That being said, we understand that there is heightened focus on the macroeconomic outlook because of geopolitical tensions, inflationary pressures and the risks of a slowing global economy. Since macro-related questions are dominating investor conversations, it makes sense to share with you what we are seeing as well as to discuss our framework on how we plan to manage through this macro uncertainty. Starting with what we’re seeing in the market. First quarter was a robust quarter for new business. Driving innovation remains a top priority for our customers, and they’re investing in modern technologies to facilitate this. We had strong engagement with the C-suite, and our deal cycles were in line with normal patterns. The tone of our quarterly business review meetings at the start of the second quarter was that of confidence. Our sales force indicated that our message is resonating in the marketplace, and they remain bullish about the opportunities to win new business.

Salesforce (1 June 2022)

And so far, we’re just not seeing any material impact from the broader economic world that all of you are in. Our demand environment where demand is very strong, and if you look over the last 23 years, Salesforce has proven to be incredibly resilient based on this incredible business model. We have an incredible technology model that we have, where we’ve been through all kinds of dot-com crashes and recessions and financial crises and global pandemics and all of you have watched us go through every possible storm, but we continue to weather these storms through the power and strength of our model.

Veeva Systems (2 June 2022)

This is really a long-term thinking move by the customer. They’re thinking of this in 10- and 20-year horizon, so they wouldn’t be really fazed by specifics of the macro environment. So this is about, yes, applications in the clinical area but also in the quality and the regulatory area, not all of our Development Cloud but a big portion of it. So when they’re doing that, it’s a very top-down decision. It’s like building a huge factory. That’s why it’s not affected by the macro environment. And then if you get it, what they’re trying to do, it’s laying the foundation for efficiency, digital efficiency, getting drugs to market faster to help patients. So it’s a long-term play by the customer and sort of executive-level decision.

Twilio (5 May 2022)

I think, obviously, if like the economy were to dip into like some sort of significant recession, we’re not necessarily immune from that. But what we see based on both our internal studies, and we alluded to the customer engagement report as well as a number of external studies, is that digital transformation remains a top boardroom priority. That obviously benefits Twilio as a variety of companies look to invest in their engagement strategies going forward. And we’re not — it’s not like we don’t see the macro environment, whether it’s economic or geopolitical, but we just think this business is extremely well positioned to capitalize on ongoing companies’ digital transformation efforts.

Zoom Video Communications (24 May 2022)

[Question:] I’m wondering, have you seen any paring back or moderation of investment from some customers in light of growing macro concerns? And if so, has it varied by either geography or customer size?

[Answer:] I mean we really have it — especially in enterprise, we have continued to see strength in renewals as well as additional new customers and expansion into additional products. So we really haven’t seen that in terms of concern. I think we’ve heard from other people that what they’re really focused on might be — if they’re limiting spending, it’s focused more around potentially hiring or travel. And of course, Zoom is a great alternative if they’re focusing on limiting internal travel. And so we really haven’t seen that impact today.

Final thoughts

One underlying theme among the comments seen above is that companies continue to invest in their digital transformations, and they are doing so despite the uncertainties that abound, such as the risk of a recession in the USA. This is a tailwind for businesses that are providing the tools for organisations to embrace the digital world. 

The economic news coming out of the USA has been bleak of late. Only time can tell if technology companies are able to grow their businesses even in the face of a weak economic environment. At the very least, their managers are confident.

It’s worth noting too that there’s at least one precedent of a software company posting admirable growth rates even when the economy was weak. This happened during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008/09, when the USA’s real GDP fell by 4.3% from a peak in the fourth quarter of 2007 to a bottom in the second quarter of 2009. The unemployment rate also rose from 5% in December 2007 to 10% in October 2009. While the US economy was in trouble, Salesforce’s revenue grew by 51% in 2007, 44% in 2008, and 21% in 2009. Salesforce provides customer relationship management software over the cloud and it was able to grow rapidly during the financial crisis because its software was better than incumbent solutions.

If software and digital infrastructure companies today are able to provide better solutions for their customers than what they’re currently using, they could continue to grow even if the economy worsens from here, just like what happened to Salesforce a dozen years ago. But even if they struggle to grow in the near term, the long run picture still looks healthy. According to Microsoft’s CEO Satya Nadella, around 5% of global GDP is currently spent on technology. It’s hard for me to imagine this percentage going down in the years ahead – what do you think?


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. I have a vested interest in Adobe, Amazon, Datadog, Microsoft, MongoDB, Salesforce, Veeva Systems, Twilio, and Zoom Video Communications. Holdings are subject to change at any time

What Stocks Would You Pick In This Volatile Market?

How can we make better investment decisions in this volatile market.

If you could go back in time to the start of this year, which of the following groups of real-life companies would you be interested to invest in? 

Table 1 below shows the historical revenue and free cash flow for the two companies in Group 1, namely, Company A and Company B. It’s clear that Company A has not grown its revenue much over the past four years and its free cash flow has also not been steady. Meanwhile, Company B’s revenue has barely budged and although its free cash flow has improved in every year, there’s only so much juice that can be squeezed from improving the free cash flow margin*.

Source: Tikr

Next we have Table 2 below, which shows the historical revenue and free cash flow for Group 2 consisting of Company C and Company D. Both companies have displayed excellent revenue growth for 2017 to 2021, with Company C quadrupling its revenue and Company D increasing its topline by nearly five times. Both companies have also experienced consistent and impressive growth in free cash flow over the period. 

Source: Tikr and company annual reports

So would you prefer to invest in Group 1 or Group 2 when you take your time-machine back to the start of this year? It’s clear that Group 2 contains the superior businesses – not only do they have fat free cash flow margins, their revenues have also been growing rapidly. If you’re a business-focused investor – like me – you likely would have picked Group 2. But if you did, you would now be nursing a big loss of around 50% for both companies in the group. On the other hand, the stock prices for the companies in Group 1 have been about flat. Table 3 shows the identities of the companies in the two groups, and their year-to-date stock price performances.

Source: Yahoo Finance

But interestingly, over the past five years, Trade Desk’s stock price is up by 823% whereas Kellogg’s and Coca-Cola’s stock prices have delivered much poorer returns of -7% and 31%. Adyen was listed only on 13 June 2018 and from then to today, its stock price is up by 175%; in this time period, Trade Desk, Kellogg and Coca-Cola’s returns are 404%, 4%, and 34%, respectively.

What this fun exercise shows are a few important traits of the stock market: 

  • In the short run, business fundamentals and stock prices can move in completely opposite directions in unpredictable ways
  • But in the long run, business fundamentals are what dominates stock prices 

The stock market has been really rough in the past few months, especially for higher-growth companies. Keeping the aforementioned traits of the stock market in mind should help you make better decisions in, and react better to, the volatile stock market we’re all experiencing right now. 

*The free cash flow margin refers to a company’s free cash flow as a percentage of revenue


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. I have a vested interest in Adyen and The Trade Desk. Holdings are subject to change at any time

Lessons From An Investor’s Tragic Experience In Russia

Bill Browder was the largest foreign investor in Russia until it all went downhill.

Red Notice, published in 2015, is one of the best books I’ve read recently. Written by investor and human rights activist, Bill Browder, it’s a riveting account of his experience investing in Russia from the early-1990s to the mid-2000s. Browder was galvanised into writing the book after one of his associates, tax-law expert Sergei Magnitsky, tragically died in November 2009 in a Russian jail. Magnitsky had been detained by Russian authorities for nearly a full-year without trial. 

In 1996, Browder, a US-born resident of the UK, started his investment firm, Hermitage Capital Management, to invest in the Russian stock market. He thought that bargains were plentiful among Russian stocks because the country had exited communism and embraced capitalism, somewhat chaotically, only a few years earlier. In the process of unlocking the bargains, Browder became renowned for shareholder-activism in Russia and for exposing corruption within the country’s political and business elite. Over the years after its birth, Hermitage grew to become the largest foreign investor in Russia.

But in 2005, Browder was refused entry to Russia and was labelled “a threat to national security” by the country. The Russian offices of Hermitage were raided by Russian security forces in 2007 and Browder tasked Magnitsky, along with a few other lawyers, to investigate the raid. Magnitsky’s investigations caused him to become a target of the Russian authorities and this eventually led to his detention in November 2008 and his demise nearly a year later.

To me, Red Notice was equal parts educational, exhilarating, and infuriating. It taught me that crazy bargains could be found in massive dislocations in a country’s economy or financial markets, that shocking acts of theft by management teams can happen to listed companies, and that investing in countries with authoritarian governments can come with immense risks. It also read like a spy novel at times, and it stirred up anger and indignation in me because of the corruption, unjust, and cruelty displayed by certain members of Russia’s political system. Here, I want to discuss my most striking and poignant takeaways from the book.

State-owned companies in formerly-communist-Poland were returned to the private sector at incredibly low valuations in the early 1990s

Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder was working as a management consultant and was tasked to help restructure a bus company in Poland in June 1990. Back then, the country had only recently exited the Soviet Union and was feeling its way around democracy. 

While in Poland for his restructuring project, Browder came to know of the country’s privatisation program, where formerly state-owned companies were now being owned by the private sector. These companies’ shares were trading on the Polish stock exchange for incredibly low valuations. In the book, Browder shared an example of one company he found with US$160 million in profit but a market capitalisation of only US$80 million. In other words, the company had a price-to-earnings ratio of just 0.5! Shortly after learning about the cheap valuations that Polish companies were trading at after they were privatised, Browder invested in a number of Polish stocks. This portfolio went on to increase in value by almost 10 times over a year or so.

Russian companies were available for incredibly low valuations throughout the 1990s

The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 meant that Russia, like Poland, was thrust into a capitalistic regime in the early 1990s. It was a chaotic time for Russia’s financial markets, so much so that even by the mid- and late-1990s, Browder was able to learn about Russian stocks that had incredibly low valuations. 

One example came in the early 1990s, from a component of Russia’s own privatisation program where formerly state-owned companies had their ownership transferred to the private sector. The component was known as voucher privatisation, where the Russian government gave one privatisation certificate to each Russian citizen. Back then, there were around 150 million citizens, so there were around 150 million certificates. These certificates, which were free to purchase by anybody – including foreigners – collectively represented 30% ownership of nearly all Russian companies. But their market price was only US$20 per certificate, which meant that a 30% stake in all Russian companies could be bought for just US$10 billion ($20 per certificate multiplied by 150 million certificates). This was significantly lower than Russia’s economic output; back then, Russia accounted for 24% of global natural gas production, 9% of oil production, and 6.6% of steel production, for example. The voucher privatisation gave such low valuations to Russian companies because it was dysfunctional. Here’s why the market price for each certificate was only US$20:

  • After living for decades under communism, the general Russian population had no concept of stocks or company ownership. As a result, individuals were happy to trade the privatisation certificates for a few dollars’ worth of goods.
  • There were people who bought these certificates in villages and sold them for US$12 apiece in small batches to consolidators.
  • The consolidators, in turn, packaged these small batches of certificates into larger packages that consisted of a few thousand certificates each and sold them to dealers for a price equivalent to US$18 per certificate.
  • The dealers would further consolidate the packages into bundles of 25,000 certificates each. These bundles would then be sold for a per-certificate price of US$20.

Adding to the dysfunction was the way the certificates were then used to exchange for shares in Russian companies. Owners of the certificates had to participate in weird voucher auctions. Browder wrote:

“These auctions were unlike any other, since the buyers didn’t know the price they were paying until the auction concluded. If only one person showed up with a single voucher, then the entire block of shares being auctioned would be exchanged for that one voucher. On the other hand, if the whole population of Moscow showed up with all their vouchers, then that block of shares would be evenly divided among every single voucher that was submitted at that auction. The scenario was ripe for abuse, and many companies whose shares were being sold would do things to prevent people from attending the voucher auctions so that insiders could buy the shares cheaply.

Surgutneftegaz, a large oil company in Siberia, was rumoured to have been behind the closure of the airport the night before their voucher auction. Another oil company supposedly put up a roadblock of burning tyres on the day of their auction to prevent people from participating. Because these auctions were so bizarre and hard to analyse, few people participated – least of all Westerners. This resulted in an acute lack of demand, which meant that the prices were remarkably low, even by Russian standards.”

At the time these voucher auctions were taking place, Browder was working for the investment bank Solomon Brothers and was investing US$25 million of the bank’s capital in these auctions. Through them, he turned the US$25 million portfolio into US$125 million in short order.

Another example of a low-valuation situation Browder discovered involved a company named MNPZ. This was in the mid-1990s, and he had already started Hermitage. At the time, publicly-available information on listed Russian companies was not available and investors had to speak to company officials to obtain data. During a meeting with a representative of MNPZ, Browder found that the company’s preferred shares were entitled to dividends amounting to 40% of the company’s profit whereas the ordinary shares had no such privilege. There were no other major differences between the two types of shares. But amazingly, MNPZ’s preferred shares were trading at a 95% discount to the ordinary shares. Even more incredibly, Browder soon realised that there were many other Russian companies with ordinary shares that were trading at discounts of 90% or more to their ordinary shares.

In yet another instance of low valuations that were available among Russian stocks, Browder came across an unknown oil company called Sidanco, which had six billion barrels of oil reserves. This was in August 1996. He was offered an opportunity by a broker to buy a 4% stake in Sidanco for US$36.6 million, a price which valued the whole company at US$915 million.

But as he studied Sidanco, Browder realised that the company was effectively trading at US$0.15 per barrel of oil reserves, at a time when the market price for oil was US$20 per barrel. Even more interestingly, there was a more widely known oil company in Russia at the time called Lukoil. Both Sidanco and Lukoil had near-identical assets and financial characteristics and the only difference was that Lukoil had significant research-coverage from brokerage firms whereas Sidanco had none. As a result, Sidanco was six times cheaper than Lukoil. Browder decided to invest in Sidanco’s shares. The company’s stock price did not move for many months after Browder’s investment – 96% of Sidanco’s shares were controlled by management, so there was very little trading of the shares. But in October 1997, BP bought 10% of management’s Sidanco shares at a price 600% higher than what Browder had paid and he made a killing.

My last example of the bargains that Browder found in Russia was the oil & gas company, Gazprom. Browder started to invest in Gazprom in the late 1990s. Through his research, he found that Gazprom was trading at a 99.7% discount to Western oil & gas companies. At the time, Gazprom had a market value of US$12 billion, but yet had hydrocarbon reserves that were eight times that of ExxonMobil’s and 12 times that of BP’s.  There was a huge discount because of investors’ perception that Gazprom’s managers were stealing all of the company’s assets. But Browder realised this perception was wrong.

Yes, Gazprom’s managers were egregiously stealing the company’s assets (more on this in the “The oligarchs were incredibly brazen with the way they mistreated minority shareholders” section below). But only 10% of the company’s assets were misappropriated by the company’s management team. Browder started a shareholder activism campaign against Gazprom’s management team by sending his research findings to major Western news outlets. The subsequent media coverage on Gazprom was heavy and this led to public outroar within Russia. Initial investigations on Gazprom’s management by Russian authorities and auditors concluded that there were no wrongdoings. But Russia’s then-president, Vladimir Putin, eventually fired Gazprom’s CEO, Rem Vyakhirev. A new CEO was installed, who promised to secure Gazprom’s remaining assets and recover what the previous managers stole. Gazprom’s stock price rocketed in response and by 2005, was up 100 times what Hermitage initially paid.  

Russia’s voucher privatisation was ripe for abuse

As I mentioned earlier, Russia’s voucher privatisation program in the early 1990s was riddled with problems and I shared excerpts from Browder’s book showing how the managers of some Russian companies were gaming the system. 

But the biggest problem for Russia was that voucher privatisation – and the massive room for abuse that the program had – led to the emergence of the oligarchs in the early- and mid-1990s. The oligarchs were a group of around 20 individuals who controlled nearly 40% of Russia’s economy while the general population was mired in poverty.

The oligarchs were incredibly brazen with the way they mistreated minority shareholders

Sidanco was one of Browder’s earlier victories investing in the Russian stock market. But the company was also the source of one of his earliest conflicts with the oligarchs. When Browder invested in Sidanco, it was being led by an oligarch named Vladimir Potanin. Shortly after BP bought 10% of Potanin’s Sidanco shares – the event which helped lift Browder’s investment in Sidanco by 600% in value – Potanin wanted Sidanco to nearly triple its share count by issuing new shares.

The problem for Browder was that the new shares would be issued at nearly 95% lower than the market price, and Browder and his partners were not allowed to participate. This meant that Browder and his partners’ original stake in Sidanco would be diluted by nearly two-thirds. When Browder met with Potanin’s lawyers, they openly said that his intention was simple: Potanin wanted to inflict financial pain on Browder. Here’s an excerpt from the book:

“It was Leonid Rozhetskin, a thirty-one-year-old Russian-born, Ivy League educated lawyer whom I’d met on a few occasions (and who would, a decade later, be murdered in Jurmula, Latvia, after a spectacular falling out with various people he did business with). Leonid, who’d clearly watched the film Wall Street one too many times, had slicked-back, Gordon Gekko-styled hair and sported red braces over a bespoke, monogrammed, button-down shirt.

He took the chair at the head of the table and laced his fingers over one knee. ‘I’m sorry Boris couldn’t make it,’ he said in lightly accented English. ‘He’s busy.’

‘I am too.’

‘I’m sure you are. What brings you here today?’

‘You know what, Leonid. I’m here to talk about Sidanco.’

‘Yes. What about it?’

‘If this dilution goes forward, it’s going to cost me and my investors – including Edmond Safra – eighty-seven million dollars.’

‘Yes, we know. That’s the intention, Bill.’

‘What?’

‘That’s the intention,’ he repeated matter-of-factly.

‘You’re deliberately trying to screw us?’

He blinked. ‘Yes.’

‘But how can you do this? It’s illegal!’

He recoiled slightly. ‘This is Russia. Do you think we worry about these types of things?’

I thought of all my clients. I thought of Edmond. I couldn’t believe this. I shifted in my seat. ‘Leonid, you may be fucking me over, but some of the biggest names on Wall Street are invested with me. The pebble may drop here, but the ripples go everywhere.’

‘Bill, we’re not worried about that.’ 

Browder was not cowed by Potanin. He came up with a plan to thwart the oligarch. First, he contacted Potanin’s Western business partners to warn them about the scheme. Browder hoped that these partners would pressure Potanin to give up. This failed, which led to the second part of Browder’s plan, which was to tap on Western media outlets to share his predicament and tussle with the oligarch. There was fiery media coverage, but Potanin refused to back down. Browder then enacted the third part of his plan. He filed official complaints with Russia’s financial markets regulator about Potanin’s abuse of minority shareholders. This worked, as the regulator stepped in to prevent Potanin from going through with the dilutive share issue. It was not an easy fight for Browder as his personal safety was at risk. During his conflict with Potanin, Browder was protected by a convoy of over a dozen heavily-armed bodyguards at all times. 

Coming to Gazprom, a prominent example of how management stole from the company was Sibneftegaz, a subsidiary producing natural gas in Siberia. Sibneftegaz’s assets included licenses for a gas field that contained 1.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent in 1998. Based on conservative estimates on the value of Sibneftegaz’s assets, the subsidiary had a value of around US$530 million. But 53% of Sibneftegaz was sold to a group of buyers for only US$1.3 million. These buyers included Gennady Vyakhirev and his family (Gennady is the brother of Gazprom’s then-CEO, Rem Vyakhirev; Rem was fired by Vladimir Putin after Browder’s successful shareholder activism campaign). Altogether, Browder’s research unearthed a total of seven blatantly dishonest asset transfers at Gazprom under the watch of Rem, and the transfers amounted to around 10% of the company’s total assets.

The sheer lawless-ness of the Russian authorities and how dangerous they can be

After Browder’s successful shareholder activism campaign at Gazprom, he went after more oligarchs, exposing the corruption and unsavoury actions taking place at their respective companies. These companies included Russia’s national electric company UES, and the country’s national savings bank, Sberbank.

In each of Browder’s campaigns, Vladimir Putin’s government would step in and clean up the abuses. Because of this, Russia’s oligarchs dared not harm Browder, even though people could be easily murdered in Russia for a lot less. They thought he was working in concert with Putin. But the reality was that Putin was taking advantage of Browder’s work to take down his own enemies – the oligarchs. The situation began to change in the early 2000s when Mikhail Khordovkorsky, then Russia’s richest oligarch, was arrested and jailed by Putin. Browder wrote:

“After Khodorkovsky was found guilty, most of Russia’s oligarchs went one by one to Putin and said, ‘Vladimir Vladimirovich, what can I do to make sure I won’t end up sitting in a cage?’

I wasn’t there, so I’m only speculating, but I imagine Putin’s response was something like this: ‘Fifty per cent.’

Not 50 per cent to the government or 50 per cent to the presidential administration, but 50 per cent to Vladimir Putin. I don’t know this for sure. It could have been 30 per cent or 70 per cent or some other arrangement. What I do know for sure was that after Khordovkorsy’s conviction, my interest and Putin’s were no longer aligned. He had made the oligarchs his ‘bitches’, consolidated his power and, by many estimates, become the richest man in the world. 

Unfortunately, I wasn’t paying enough attention to see that Putin and I were on a collision course. After Khodorkovsky’s arrest and conviction I didn’t alter my behaviour at all. I carried on exactly as before – naming and shaming Russian oligarchs. There was a difference this time, though. Now, instead of going after Putin’s enemies, I was going after Putin’s own economic interests.

The increasing misalignment of Putin and Browder’s interests came to a head in 2005 when Browder was denied entry to Russia on the grounds that he was a threat to the country’s national security. Browder was concerned about Hermitage’s employees and assets after he was exiled from Russia. While working out of London, Browder successfully sold all of Hermitage’s Russian stocks and transferred his firm’s investment capital out of Russia by early-2006. At the same time, he also managed to get Hermitage’s employees out of Russia safely. 

The threats to the security of Hermitage’s people were grave. Shortly after Browder’s expulsion, one of his close employees, Vadim, was contacted in early-2006 by a man named Aslan. Aslan identified himself as an employee of the Russian government and the Hermitage circle surmised that he was probably with the FSB, Russia’s secret police. Aslan claimed that there was a power struggle within Russia’s government and that he was in conflict with the group that was targeting Hermitage. He also told Vadim that the FSB was responsible for Browder’s problems, that the authorities were after Hermitage’s assets, and that Vadim would soon be arrested. Here’s a chilling excerpt from Browder about Vadim after his encounter with Aslan:

“I saw things differently, and I implored Vadim to talk to Vladimir Pastukhov, a Moscow lawyer Hermitage had used as outside counsel over the years. Vladimir was the wisest man I knew and like no one else I’d ever met. He was nearly blind, and the Coke-bottle glasses he wore made him look like a scribe from a Dickens novel. Because of his disability however, Vladimir’s mind was sharper, bigger and more well-rounded than that of anyone else I’ve ever known. He had a rare gift: the ability to read any complex situation to the deepest level and the smallest detail. He was like a great chess player, able to anticipate an opponent’s every move not merely before it was made but also before his opponent even realised it was available. 

Even though Vadim wouldn’t leave, he did agree to see Vladimir. When Vladimir opened the door to his flat just before midnight, Vadim put a finger to his lips, indicating that they shouldn’t talk – just in case Vladimir’s apartment was bugged. He stepped aside and Vadim entered. They made their way in silence to Vladimir’s computer. Vadim sat and started to type. 

I’ve been warned by somebody in the government that I’m going to be arrested. Can they do that?

Vladimir took a turn at the keyboard. Are you asking me as a lawyer, or as a friend?

Both.

As a lawyer, no. There are no grounds to arrest you. As a friend, yes. Absolutely. They can do anything.

Should I leave?

How credible is your source?

Very. I think.

Then you should leave.

When?

Right away.”

Browder’s problems did not stop even after Hermitage had no significant investment interests in Russia. Around the middle of 2007, Hermitage’s office in Russia was raided by 25 Russian plainclothes police, led by Artem Kuznetsov. This was the same man who contacted Browder in February 2007, after Browder had unsuccessfully tried to appeal for a Russian visa through many diplomatic routes. Kuznetsov was with the Interior Ministry and wanted to see Browder or his associates in person to explain the entire situation concerning Hermitage and Browder. But as most of Hermitage’s people were not in Russia, a physical meeting was impossible. Browder figured that something was wrong: 

“This wasn’t a normal inquiry. In a legitimate investigation Russian officials always sent their questions in writing. What became apparent to me from my decade in Russia was that when an official asks to meet informally, it means only one thing: they want a bribe. In the many instances where officials had tried to shake me down, I’d uniformly ignored them and they always went away.

Kuznetsov finished the conversation by saying, ‘The sooner you answer these questions, the sooner your problems will disappear.’”

While Kuznetsov was raiding Hermitage’s Russian office in the middle of 2007, a group of 25 Russian policemen were simultaneously raiding the office of Hermitage’s law firm, Firestone Duncan, without a valid warrant. During the raid, the Russian police confiscated Firestone Duncan’s client files, computers, servers, and corporate stamps and seals that belonged to clients. The police were also brutal. When one of Firestone Duncan’s lawyers, Maxim, said that the warrant was not valid, he was beaten up badly and had to go to the hospital. The police also threatened Maxim – if he filed a complaint, they would accuse him of pulling a knife and jail him.

Shortly after the raids on Hermitage and Firestone Duncan’s offices happened, Browder engaged Sergei Magnitsky for help with investigations. Magnitsky was from Firestone Duncan and Browder considered him to be the best tax lawyer in Moscow. In the fourth quarter of 2007, Browder and his associates realised that the Russian police had raided Firestone Duncan with the intention of stealing ownership of Hermitage’s investment holding companies. In Russia, a company’s owners can be changed illegally without the actual owners knowing if the thief has the company’s original seals, certificates of ownership, and registration files. These happened to be the items the Russian police had confiscated from Firestone Duncan. The ownership of three Hermitage investment companies ended up being re-registered to a company named Pluton that was owned by Viktor Markelov, a person convicted for manslaughter in 2001. Backdated contracts were also forged to show that one of the investment companies – Mahaon – owed US$71 million to a shell company that had never done business with Hermitage.

It was not until June 2008 when Magnitsky finally worked out the whole scam. The people who stole Hermitage’s investment companies had opened accounts at two obscure banks: Universal Savings Bank (USB) and Intercommerz Bank (IB), with a combined capital of only US$13.5 million. Their small size meant that any large movement of capital within them was noticeable on the website of Russia’s central bank. Magnitsky saw that USB and IB received deposits of US$97 million and US$147 million, respectively, in December 2007, shortly after Hermitage’s stolen investment companies opened accounts with these banks.

Magnitsky realised that the deposits were nearly identical to what Hermitage’s investment companies paid in taxes in 2006. Further light bulbs went on. The US$71 million Mahaon supposedly owed a shell company was exactly the same as its profit in 2006. Parfenion, another of Hermitage’s stolen investment companies, was slapped with a US$581 million judgement against it, the same amount as its profit in 2006. In all, corrupt Russian officials had cooked up US$973 million of fake judgments against Hermitage to offset US$973 million in real profits. Piecing all the information together, Magnitsky discovered that the bank accounts opened by Hermitage’s stolen investment companies had collectively received deposits of US$230 million, a sum identical to what these companies had paid in taxes in 2006. Corrupt Russian officials had stolen Russian taxpayers’ money, and they wanted to frame Browder and Hermitage for the crime.

After working out the intricacies of the scam against Hermitage, in July 2008 , Browder and his associates started to find ways to indict the corrupt officials. They filed detailed complaints about the tax fraud to Russia’s law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies, and also contacted the media. But this caused a backlash, so much so that two other lawyers engaged by Hermitage to help with investigations – Vladimir Pastukhov and Eduard Khayretdinov – had to flee Russia. In particular, Khayretdinov’s experience was terrifying. On 23 August 2008, he disappeared under the radar – going so far as to remove the battery of his mobile phone – so that Russian officials could not locate him. Khayretdinov hid for a few months in a cabin in a Russian forest, using a satellite phone and depending on a generator for electricity. It was only on 18 October 2008 that he managed to escape Russia. Browder described Khayretdinov’s harrowing journey:

“The man leaned forward. ‘Because Eduard, I wanted to tell you face to face – you must leave Russia. You’re in danger of being killed. These people who are after you will stop at nothing.’ This shook Eduard to the core. After this meeting, he called Mikhail and said, ‘I need to get out of Russia. Can you help?’

‘I’ll do what I can,’ Mikhail said. Since Russia is such a decentralised country, the power of an influential businessman in some areas could rival that of the Moscow Interior Ministry. Mikhail was one of the most important businessmen in the region, and Eduard had no choice but to put his faith in Mikhail’s influence. He had to hope that it would help him navigate the security and immigration checkpoints that every traveller had to pass through on their way out of the country.

Mikhail arranged to have a local fixer escort Eduard through the airport all the way to the gate. Eduard asked over and over if this fixer would be able to get the border agents to let him pass. Mikhail just told him not to worry. Of course, Eduard couldn’t help but worry.

On 18 October 2008, at 10.00am, Eduard went to the airport and was met by the fixer, a short man with friendly eyes in a well-tailored grey suit. Eduard already had a UK visa, so he went to the Asiana ticket desk and bought a round-trip economy ticket to London via Seoul. Eduard checked in and waited until an hour before the flight to go through security and passport control. When he couldn’t wait any longer, he and the fixer walked towards security.

They walked straight to the front of the security line and went through. The fixer stayed with Eduard the whole time, nodding and winking to the security people, and even shaking a few hands. Eduard put his bags on the scanning belt, presented his boarding pass and went through the metal detector.

They then moved towards passport control, and when they reached the immigration booth, the fixer shook hands with the border guard and they exchanged pleasantries. The guard then took Eduard’s passport. He placed it on his desk, looked at Eduard, looked back to the fixer, found a blank spot in the passport, slammed his stamp on a red-ink pad and punched the stamp on to the paper. He didn’t even bother to look at his computer. He closed the passport and handed it back. Eduard’s eyes met those of the fixer. He winked. ‘Thank you,’ Eduard said. He turned and hurried to his gate. He had only a few minutes until the doors closed. He made the flight, and the plane took off. Not until two hours later, when Eduard could see that the plane was flying over the Sea of Japan and was therefore out of Russian airspace, did he finally, after all these weeks, feel at ease.

He was out.”

Around the time Vladimir Pastukhov fled Russia and Eduard Khayretdinov was on the run in the country, Browder also desperately wanted Sergei Magnitsky to leave. But Magnitsky refused. He still believed in the rule of law in Russia, and wanted to punish the corrupt officials who stole from his countrymen. Browder wrote:

“After this, Vadim tried to convince Sergei to leave, but Sergei steadfastly refused. He insisted that nothing would happen to him because he had done nothing wrong. He was also indignant that these people had stolen so much money from his country. He was so adamant and believed so faithfully in the law that, on 7 October he actually returned to the Russian State Investigative Committee to give a second sworn witness statement. Once again, he sought to use procedure to insert more evidence into the official record, and this time he provided a number of additional details about the fraud and who was behind it.

This was a bold move. It was also a worrying one. While I couldn’t help but be impressed by Sergei’s determination and integrity, given what they had tried with Eduard and Vladimir, I was terrified that they would just detain him on the spot. Remarkably, they didn’t.”

Unfortunately, Magnitsky was eventually arrested on 24 November 2008 by a team of officers led by Artem Kuznetsov. Two days later, Magnitsky appeared in court for his bail hearing. An investigator from the Interior Ministry, Oleg Silchenko, claimed that Magnitsky was a flight risk. He lied that Magnitsky had bought a plane ticket to Kiev and had applied for a UK visa. The judge wouldn’t hear Magnitsky’s defence and said, ‘I have no reason to doubt the information provided from investigative bodies.’ Ultimately, Magnitsky was denied bail and would be held in Russian prisons – without trial – for 358 days before his death.

While Magnitsky was detained, Browder was desperately seeking help for him. In early-2009, Browder got in touch with Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, a German MP and former justice minister. At the time, she was recently appointed by the Council of Europe to investigate Russia’s criminal justice system. After meeting with Browder, Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger agreed to report on Magnitsky’s case. In April 2009, she wanted to physically meet with Russian law enforcement agencies but they rebuffed her. Instead, they replied to her in writing with lies that would be hilarious if only they did not concern the safety of a human being. Browder recounted:

“Her first question was simply, ‘Why was Sergei Magnitsky arrested?’ The answer: ‘Sergei Magnitsky was not arrested.’

Of course he was arrested. He was in their prison. I couldn’t imagine what the Russians were thinking when they said this to her. 

Her second question was ‘Why was he arrested by Interior Ministry officer Kuznetsov, whom he testified against before his arrest?’ She got an equally ridiculous answer. ‘The officer with such a name doesn’t work in the Moscow Interior Ministry.’ We had proof that Kuznetsov worked in the Interior Ministry for many years! They must have thought Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger was stupid.

Nearly all the other answers were similarly absurd and untrue. Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger would put all these lies and absurdities in her final report, but it wouldn’t be ready until August and Sergei didn’t have the luxury of time.”

After Magnitsky died, Browder and his team were determined to seek justice for their fallen friend. While doing so, they came to know Alexander Perepilichnyy in August 2010, who was residing in London at the time. He provided valuable information to Browder and his team regarding the financial transactions of two of the Russian officials who were involved in the tax fraud against Hermitage, Vladlen and Olga Stepanova. Perepilichnyy was a former private banker in Russia and the Stepanovas were his clients. As their banker, Perepilichnyy helped the Stepanovas to invest their money but the couple incurred losses in 2008 when the markets crashed. The Stepanovas were unwilling to accept the losses and wanted Perepilichnyy to cover their hole, which he refused. Olga Stepanova was then the head of the tax office in Russia and subsequently abused her power to pursue Perepilichnyy for tax-evasion, causing him to flee the country. In November 2012, Perepilichnyy died one day while jogging near his London home. The initial post-mortem had no conclusive findings – his cause of death was a mystery. Given the entire chain of events leading up to Perepilichnyy’s sudden death, Browder was deeply concerned that the Russian authorities had an assassin on the loose in the UK.

And even when Red Notice was published in 2015, a few years after the deaths of Magnitsky and Perepilichnyy, Browder still feared for his life. But he sees the book as a form of protection for himself. He warned:

“I have to assume that there is a very real chance that Putin or members of his regime will have me killed some day. Like anyone else, I have no death wish and I have no intention of letting them kill me. I can’t mention most of the countermeasures I take, but I will mention one: this book. If I’m killed, you will know who did it. When my enemies read this book, they will know that you know.”

Sergei Magnitsky’s immense bravery in the face of impossible cruelty by corrupt Russian officials

Magnitsky had to put up with atrocious conditions while he was detained by Russian authorities. For example, he was in a cell where the lights were on 24 hours a day to deprive him of sleep. One cell he was moved to had choked sewage that was so bad he had to climb onto his bed and chair. Oleg Silchenko also refused to allow Magnitsky to have any contact with his family – this was psychologically painful because Magnitsky was a family man. Browder wrote:

“When Sergei applied for his wife and mother to visit, Silchenko replied, ‘I reject your application. It’s not expedient for the investigation.’ Sergei then applied for permission to speak to his eight-year-old son on the phone. ‘Your request is denied,’ Silcheko said. ‘Your son is too young to have a phone conversation.’ Silchenko also refused a request for Sergei’s aunt to visit because Sergei ‘couldn’t prove’ she was a relative.

The purpose of everything Silchenko did was simple: to compel Sergei to retract his testimony against Kuznetsov and Karpov. Yet Sergei never would, and every time he refused Silchenko made Sergei’s living conditions increasingly worse, further isolating him from the life he knew and the freedom he had so recently enjoyed.”

What was even more despicable was the fact that Silchenko and his conspirators cruelly denied Magnitsky any healthcare even when he was gravely ill. By June 2009, while detained in Matrosskaya Tishina, a Russian detention facility, Magnitsky was diagnosed with pancreatitis, gallstones, and cholecystitis, and was scheduled for possible surgery on 1 August 2009. But a week before the date, Silchenko moved Magnitsky to Butyrka, a maximum-security prison that had no medical facilities capable of treating him. While at Butyrka, Magnitsky was repeatedly denied any form of medical care. Browder wrote heartbreakingly:

“It was now clear that the authorities were deliberately withholding medical attention from Sergei. They were using illnesses he had contracted in detention as a cudgel against him. They knew that gallstones were one of the most painful conditions anyone could suffer from. In the West, you might last two hours before you crawl to casualty, where the doctors will immediately give you a dose of morphine before treating you. Sergei though, had to deal with untreated gallstones for four months without any painkillers. What he had to endure was unimaginable.

Sergei and his lawyers wrote more than twenty requests to every branch of the penal, law-enforcement and judicial systems of Russia, desperately begging for medical attention. Most of these petitions were ignored, but the replies he received were shocking.

Major Oleg Silchenko wrote, ‘I deny in full the request for a medical examination.’ A Tverskoi District Court judge, Aleksey Krivoruchko, replied, ‘Your request to review complaints about withholding of medical care and cruel treatment is denied.’ Andrei Pechegin from the Prosecutor’s Office replied, ‘There’s no reason for the prosector to intervene.’ Judge Yelena Stashina, one of the judges who ordered Sergei’s continued detention, said, ‘I rule that your request to review the medical records and conditions of detention is irrelevant.”

But through it all, Magnitsky never gave in. He refused to cover up for the perpetrators of the tax fraud he had uncovered. Browder detailed:

“From inside his prison cell, Sergei was also bravely trying to explain the truth even after all the torture he had been subjected to.

On 14 October 2009, he submitted a formal twelve-page testimony to the Interior Ministry in which he further documented the role of officials in the financial fraud and the subsequent cover-up. He provided names, dates, and locations, and left nothing to the imagination. At the end, he wrote, ‘I believe all members of the investigation team are acting as contractors under someone’s criminal order.’

It was a remarkable document, and he was incredibly brave to have filed it. It’s hard to describe to someone who doesn’t know Russia just how dangerous it was for him to do this. People in Russia are regularly killed for saying much less. That Sergei was saying it from jail, where he was at the mercy of the people who had put him there and whom he had testified against, showed how determined he was to expose the rot in the Russian law enforcement agencies and go after his persecutors.”

On 12 November 2009, Magnitsky was scheduled to appear in court for another hearing on his detention. He wrote more than a dozen complaints to be read in court, only for the judge, Yelena Stashina, to reject them, at times cutting him off before he could even finish reading. The hearing’s verdict was to simply extend Magnitsky’s detention. Then in the same night, Browder received a distressing voice message on his mobile: It was a two-minute recording of a man wailing in pain while being brutally beaten up. 

Around 16 November 2009, while still being held in Butyrka, Magnitsky was sent to Matrosskaya Tishina, on the pretext that he would get the necessary medical care there (remember, Magnitsky was still riddled with disease). But when Magnitsky reached his destination, he was handcuffed to a bedrail in an isolation cell and beaten to death by eight prison guards. Browder recounted:

“‘Keeping me in detention,’ Sergei had written in his prison diary, ‘has nothing to do with the lawful purpose of detention. It is a punishment, imposed merely for the fact that I defended the interests of my client and the interests of the Russian state.’

Sergei Magnitsky was killed for his ideals. He was killed because he believed in the law. He was killed because he loved his people, and because he loved Russia. He was thirty-seven years old.”

The Russian authorities’ cruelty did not end even with Magnitsky’s death. A few hours after learning of Magnitsky’s passing, Browder and his team contacted the media and sent them a press release and a 40-page document handwritten by Magnitsky that detailed his entire ordeal. Major news outlets picked up the story and contacted Russian authorities for comments. Browder described the atrocities that happened next: 

“The press officer at the Interior Ministry was a plump blonde woman in her early forties named Irina Dudukina… According to her, Sergie hadn’t died of pancreonecrosis and toxic shock as the prison official had told Natalia [Magnitsky’s mother] earlier, but rather of ‘heart failure, with no signs of violence’. 

Later that day, Dudukin went further, posting an official statement on the Interior Ministry’s website saying, ‘There has not been a single complaint from Magnitsky about his health in the criminal case file’ and ‘his sudden death was a shock for the investigators.’…

…Dudukina also lied about the time and place of Sergei’s death. She claimed that Sergei died at 9.50 p.m. on a bed in Matrosskaya Tishina’s casualty department as doctors tried to resuscitate him. This was directly contradicted by the civilian doctor who was first on the scene, who said that Sergei had died around 9:00 p.m. on the floor of an isolation cell…

…Two days later, Natalia asked for Sergei’s body to be released so the family could conduct their own autopsy. This was also denied on the grounds that ‘there is no reason to doubt the results of the state autopsy.’

Later that day, Natalia went to Morgue No.11. When she arrived, she was told that Sergei’s body wasn’t being stored in a refrigeration unit because the morgue had too many corpses, and that his body would decompose if he wasn’t buried immediately. When Natalia asked whether Sergei’s body could be released to the family so they could conduct a religious service with an open casket, the official categorically refused: ‘The corpse will only be released to the cemetery.’

Justice prevails

In his quest for justice for Magnitsky, Browder sought help from Western governments. In March 2010, he met an American politician named Kyle Parker. Parker knew about Magnitsky’s case even before his death; while Magnitsky was detained in jail, Browder had also sought help from the US government and Parker was the official handling the issue. Although Parker had not done much to push for a solution back then, his reaction to the March 2010 meeting with Browder was different – this time, Parker was deeply moved by Magnitsky’s tragic death. Eventually, both Parker and Browder would collaborate closely to push for the Magnitsky Act.

Under the Magnitsky Act, which was signed into law in 2012 by then-US-president Barack Obama, all the Russian officials who were involved with Magnitsky’s death would be barred from entering the USA or accessing its banking system. Browder and Parker had to endure an arduous journey – with heavy politicking – to see the Magnitsky Act become law. In Red Notice’s final paragraph, Browder described how triumphant he felt when Sergei Magnitsky and his family were able to receive some measure of justice, and that his financial successes could never match that:

“Early in this book, I said that the feeling I got from buying a Polis stock that went up ten times was the best thing that ever happened to me in my career. But the feeling I had on that balcony in Brussels with Sergei’s widow and son, as we watched the largest lawmaking body in Europe recognize and condemn the injustices suffered by Sergei and his family, felt orders of magnitude better than any financial success I’ve ever had. If finding a ten bagger in the stock market was a highlight of my life before, there is no feeling as satisfying as getting some measure of justice in a highly unjust 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. I have no vested interest in any companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

My Favourite Story On Investing Risk

Our investments can be hurt by the most absurd things that we can’t even think about. Diversification is one way to protect ourselves.

Howard Marks is the co-founder of Oaktree Capital, an investment firm with a phenomenal long-term track record of investing in distressed debt, and an investor I deeply respect. He once shared a story (likely fictional) that is important for understanding risk when investing:

“I tell my father’s story of the gambler who one day hears about a race with only one horse in it, so he bet the rent money. Halfway around the track the horse jumped over the fence and ran away.”

The gambler would never have even considered that the horse he betted on could escape the track. But this is why it’s such an important story about investing risk. As financial advisor Carl Richards once said, “risk is what’s left over after you think you’ve thought of everything.”

I recently learnt of a real-life example of the horse-escaping-the-track story. It comes from Joel Greenblatt, another of the all-time greats in the investing world. It has become my favourite story about investing risk. During a recent episode of The Investor’s Podcast Network family of podcasts, Greenblatt recounted his own experience investing in a company when he was interviewed by William Green (emphases are mine):

“Well, the interesting thing, a Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, which was a publisher, but also owned amusement parks in Florida, believe it or not, went to buy a very small company called Florida Cypress Gardens, which I remembered as a kid going to, and they had water skiing Santa Claus, during Christmas time, and all kinds of water shows and beautiful gardens. It was a very unique, interesting, and very memorable place to visit when you’re five or six years old.

When I saw they were getting taken over, and this was literally in the first month I went into business for myself. I was pretty nervous. I was 27 and I had gotten money from a very famous guy and I want to do a good job. I saw this opportunity where Florida Cypress Gardens was being taken over, and there was a nice spread in that deal where I could make a lot of money if it went through. I thought the deal made a lot of sense at the time. I was able to have a big smile on my face and buy Florida Cypress Gardens as one of the first investments I made when I went out on my own.

A few weeks before the deal was supposed to close, unfortunately, Florida Cypress Gardens fell into what’s called a sinkhole, meaning the main pavilions of Florida Cypress Gardens literally fell into a hole that appeared out of nowhere. Apparently that happens a lot in Florida, I wasn’t that familiar with it, and thank God I wasn’t at Florida Cypress Gardens when it happened, but the Wall Street Journal wrote a real humorous story about it. I was like, “Why is this funny? I’m about to lose my business. I had taken a pretty decent sized bet in the deal.”

It just tells you, things can happen that you don’t anticipate, that it’s not really your fault. I’d never even heard of a sinkhole before I read about this happening, so it’s a risk that I… When you’re doing a merger deal, you’re not really saying risk of sinkhole is in your checklist of things to look for, so stuff happens, less kind words for that. It’s a good lesson to learn, especially out of the box. I was sweating pretty good. They ended up re-cutting the deal at a lower price and I lost money, but not that terrible.”

A sinkhole that appeared spontaneously – something Greenblatt did not even think of – nearly derailed his investment in the amusement park company Florida Cypress Gardens. I don’t think anyone who’s investing in a real estate-related company would contemplate that the company’s assets could be harmed by a sinkhole. This goes to show that our investments can be damaged by things we cannot even imagine of. I am a big proponent of diversification when investing. I do so for many reasons, and one of them is to prevent sudden sinkholes or horses escaping a race from causing my entire portfolio to crumble.


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. I do not have a vested interest in any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time