How Do Lower Stock Prices Impact Businesses

The market has fallen hard in recent times. How does this affect companies and what should investors be looking out for?

With stock prices falling sharply in recent months, here’s how businesses may be impacted.

Higher dilution

It is common practice for tech companies to offer employees stock-based compensation (SBC). This can come in the form of stock options or restricted stock units that vest over time.

SBC is useful for companies in a few ways. First, it incentivises employees to stay for the long-term to reap the rewards of stocks that vest over time. Second, it allows employees to participate in the growth of the company’s stock price. Third, it aligns employees’ interests with shareholders as the employees become shareholders themselves. Fourth, it helps companies to save cash as it is a non-cash expense. 

The down-side though is that SBC results in a higher number of outstanding shares in a company, which dilutes existing shareholders. The amount of dilution is usually dependent on the stock price at the time. Take for example a company that offers an employee a pay package that includes $100,000 in shares. If the share price is at $100 a share, the employee gets 1,000 shares. But if the stock price is at $50 a share, the employee will get 2,000 shares. When stock prices are lower, the higher number of shares issued results in higher dilution for the company’s other existing shareholders. 

With this in mind, it is important for investors in a company that uses SBC to keep an eye on the growth in the outstanding share count in the future.

More expensive capital

Numerous companies took advantage of soaring stock prices in the last two years to raise cash. For instance, SEA Ltd, raised US$3.5 billion through a secondary offering last year by issuing 11 million new shares at a stock price of US$318 in late-2021. 

Today, SEA Ltd’s stock price has fallen to around US$70 per share. In order to raise the same US$3.5 billion today, SEA will need to issue around 50 million shares. This is nearly five times as many shares that were issued in late-2021 and would mean significantly more dilution for SEA’s existing shareholders.

With capital getting more expensive, in both the bond and the equity markets, companies will need to be more prudent with their cash. Cash burning companies will need to find ways to reduces losses or turn cash flow positive in order not to have to raise cash at expensive rates.

Buybacks may be attractive

Conversely, companies that have lots of cash or have a very cash-generative business can take this opportunity to reduce its outstanding share count. Buying back stock when the price is down can be effective in increasing shareholder value. Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway is a classic example of a company that has taken advantage of a relatively low stock price to accelerate its share buybacks. 

But even software companies are joining the party. For example, Zoom is looking to take advantage of its cratering stock price by buying back shares. In its latest earnings announcement released on 28 February 2022, Zoom said that its board of directors had authorised a stock repurchase program of up to US$1 billion. With a price-to-free-cash-flow ratio of less than 20, this seems like a great opportunity for Zoom to reduce its share count for shareholders.

The bottom-line

Falling stock prices can have both a negative or positive impact on companies. Companies that have cash on hand for buybacks can benefit from this bear market. On the other hand, companies that are short of cash may end up having to raise money at unfavourable terms.

We often hear the phrase “cash is king.” It is in times like this that these words ring truer than ever.

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 , Zoom and Sea Ltd. Holdings are subject to change at any time

What To Do During This Stock Market Crash?

With the stock market crashing, what should investors do now?

The stock market has been brutal this year. The S&P 500 is down 18% year-to-date and the tech-heavy NASDAQ is already down 29%. 

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Many stocks have been hammered much worse than the indexes. Big names such as Meta Platforms, Paypal, and Netflix are down 44%, 61% and 72% year-to-date. 

Smaller tech companies such as Zoom, Fiverr, and Shopify have fallen by 53%, 72%, and 76% respectively. And these are just to name a few. There are numerous other stocks that are down 70% or more in the last four and a half months.

Investors who enjoyed stellar returns in the past few years have clearly been given a rude awakening this year. In light of this and with investors starting to feel unsure of what to do next, I’ve compiled some common questions I’ve seen online and tried to answer them according to my own investing approach.

Question: What should long-term investors do?

With such steep and sudden declines in stock prices, some investors might be wondering what is the best thing to do now?

As a long-term investor, I am not concerned about what stock prices do over the near term. I prefer to focus on the price that the stock can reach when I’m ready to sell my investments years or decades from now.

For instance, if I bought Stock XYZ at $1000 a share and believe it will be worth $3000 in a decade’s time, then do I really care how it reaches there? Does it have to go up in a straight line? The answer is obviously “No”.

I’ll make the exact same profit in a decade if it zig-zags its way to $3000 a share as if it went up in a straight line.

So instead of worrying too much about the decline in my current net worth or current stock valuations, I’m focusing on the business fundamentals and how much these businesses can be worth in the future.

Question: What aspects of the business should we focus on?

Although stock prices may be going down, my focus is not on the stock price but on business fundamentals.

Is the business growing? Does the management team exude confidence in the long-term growth potential of the business? Are there signs of operating leverage coming into play?

All of these help me build a picture of what is possible for my investments over a long term period.

Question: Should I invest spare cash now?

Steep market declines also provide an opportunity for investors with money on the sidelines to start buying ownership stakes in companies at cheaper valuations.

For example, Shopify co-founder and CEO Tobi Lutke recently announced that he will be ploughing in another US$10 million into shares of his own company. He clearly is taking advantage of the lower business valuations to further increase his stake in the company he founded.

Investors who have cash can use this opportunity to invest in companies that could potentially be worth much more in the future. I’m not saying that stocks will not go down more from here, but at these prices, I think that the long-term outlook is rosy.

Question: Were stocks too expensive before and just reasonably valued after this washout?

There are many stocks that I think were vastly overvalued in the past that will never return to their all-time highs. These are meme stocks, stocks that had too much optimism baked into them, and stocks that may have gotten too overvalued due to hype around them on social media platforms.

These stocks will never return to their former heights. But on the other corner, there are many quality businesses that I believe are in deep value territory.
These are companies that have best-in-class technology and management, and are disrupting industries or just simply executing brilliantly and winning market share. In today’s environment, some of these companies are trading at low valuations compared to what they can potentially achieve in the next decade or so.

Investing in these companies at current valuations will possibly reap double-digit annualised returns for multiple years.

Final words

Although it is unpleasant to see your portfolio so deep in the red, this is part and parcel of investing in the stock market.

Warren Buffett once said that the true investor welcomes volatility. It offers investors the chance to buy stocks at depressed prices and to sell at unreasonably high prices. With some stocks trading at unreasonably low levels today, I think Buffett’s words are ringing truer than ever.

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 Meta Platforms Inc, Netflix, Paypal, Zoom, Shopify, and Fiverr. 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 

What Are The Challenges That Facebook is Facing

Meta Platforms is facing challenges on multiple fronts. Can it overcome them?

Let me start off this article by saying that I have a vested interest in Meta Platforms – the company formerly known as Facebook – and I’m still optimistic about its future. But I am also cognizant of the many challenges that the company faces. 

In light of this, and with the company’s stock price falling hard in recent months, here are some of these challenges and my thoughts on what the company needs to do to overcome them.

Flattening user engagement

In the fourth quarter of 2021, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram reported a decline in the number of daily active users. 

This was the first-ever quarter where daily active users for Facebook ended the quarter lower than where it was at the start of the quarter.

While the daily active users declined just 1 million from 1,930 million to 1,929 million, it is still a worrying stat. 

Facebook has built a giant network that has gotten stronger with each additional user. However, a decline in engagement could lead to a vicious cycle. This is because the engagement levels are only as strong as the content that is on the Facebook platform.

If users leave, it reduces content. Less engaging content results in more users leaving, which in turn leads to even lesser content. This could have a downward-spiraling effect on Facebook. Although the risk of this problem becoming out of control is low, it is still a possibility. 

Meta Platforms’ CEO and co-founder, Mark Zuckerberg, pointed out during the latest earnings conference call that shifting consumer preference for TikTok has been one of the big challenges for Facebook and is one of the reasons why the daily active user count has declined.

With Facebook currently contributing a large chunk of Meta Platforms’ overall advertising revenue, this is a real existential problem for the company. 

I think Zuckerberg and his team have taken some practical steps to address the issue, such as rolling out Facebook and Instagram’s very own TikTok copycat short-form video service, Reels, which has proven to be a major hit. Reels is growing fast and Zuckerberg has even named Reels as “the biggest contributor to engagement growth.”

There is still a long way to go to compete with TikTok as many people who use both apps tell me that TikTok has better short-form content on its platform. Nevertheless, Meta has the advantage of having a larger user base now and if executed well, Reels will be able to wrestle some of that attention back to Facebook.

Changes to ad tracking

With increasing scrutiny towards data protection, there have been significant changes made to prevent the tracking of user behaviour.

In 2021, Apple released changes to iOS which limited Meta Platforms’ ability to track user behaviour outside of its own 1st-party websites. The changes resulted in a lower ability for advertisers to measure the efficacy of ads.

This has significantly handicapped Meta Platforms as many Facebook and Instagram marketers depend heavily on ad tracking. Facebook advertisements are often for performance marketing, which is driven by immediate results. Without the ability to track the efficacy of their Facebook marketing campaigns, marketers may lower their net spend on Facebook and Instagram. 

Meta Platforms’ management said during the latest earnings call that it anticipates the iOS changes to have a US$10 billion revenue impact in 2022. In 2021, Meta Platforms’ total revenue was US$114.9 billion, so US$10 billion is a high single-digit percentage of the company’s overall revenue.

Although the near term impact is significant, the good news is that management is taking some steps to address the issue. Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Meta Platforms, said

“So when we talked about mitigation, we’ve said there are two key challenges from the iOS changes: targeting and measuring performance. On targeting, it’s very much a multiyear development journey to rebuild our ads optimization systems to drive performance while we’re using less data. And as part of this effort, we’re investing in automation to enable advertisers to leverage machine learning to find the right audience with less effort and reduce reliance on targeting. That’s going to be a longer-term effort.

On measurement, there were two key areas within measurement, which were impacted as a result of Apple’s iOS changes. And I talked about this on the call last quarter as you referenced. The first is the underreporting gap. And what’s happening here is that advertisers worry they’re not getting the ROI they’re actually getting. On this part, we’ve made real progress on that underreporting gap since last quarter, and we believe we’ll continue to make more progress in the years ahead.”

There is still a lot of work to do but given management’s long-term track record of excellence, I am optimistic that the team is up for the challenge and has taken the right steps to improve its ad targeting and tracking.

Rising costs

Lastly, there will be rising costs due to Meta Platforms’ investments in its metaverse projects. Investors are concerned about the amount of money that the company would be burning on these projects. In 2021, Meta Platforms burned through US$10.2 billion on its “Reality Labs” segment, which houses the company’s metaverse-related projects. Zuckerberg mentioned that he thinks building this segment will cost US$10 billion a year for a few years. Even for a company as large as Meta Platforms, this is a big investment to make.

Even though Meta Platforms is in good financial shape now, what investors are more concerned about is whether this investment will pay off or would it be better spent on share buybacks, dividends, or other investments.

I think the revenue potential for the metaverse, if materialised,  is enormous and Meta Platforms is in a good position to win its share of the spoils. But only time will tell if the company can execute. For now, I’m happy to trust Zuckerberg’s vision for the future.

Final thoughts

Meta Platforms is facing challenges on multiple fronts. The stock price is currently reflecting that with the stock price well below its all-time highs and down more than 30% year-to-date.

On a positive note, Zuckerberg and his team have, over the life of Meta Platforms’ existence, overcome numerous other challenges before. The company’s stock is also trading at just 15.5 times trailing free cash flow and the company has US$48 billion in cash and short term investments. 

This translates to a chunky 6.5% free cash flow yield. At this price, I think the risk-reward potential looks very promising.


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 Meta Platforms Inc. Holdings are subject to change at any time

Did Investors Overpay For Growth Companies Last Year?

With stock prices of growth companeis falling hard, did investors overpay for them last year? Or are stocks now just too cheap?

Investors who have had a vested interest in high-growth stocks in the past year, myself included, have (to put it mildly) experienced steep drawdowns.

This begs the question, did we overpay for these companies? 

Many high-growth stocks in early 2021 were trading at high valuations and it was not uncommon to find such stocks trading at price-to-sales (P/S) multiples of more than 30. Their P/S multiples have since collapsed. Was that just too expensive or are multiples too cheap now?

Mapping the future

To answer this question, we need to make certain assumptions about the future. Let’s make the following conservative assumptions.

First, in 10 years’ time, a company’s valuation multiple will contract and will then trade between 25 to 40 times free cash flow. Second let’s assume the business in question can have a 20% free cash flow margin by then.

The table below shows a scenario of a company that initially had a P/S multiple of 50 and managed to grow revenue by 40% per year for the subsequent 10 years.

Source: My Calculation

Without diving too much into the details, in the above scenario, I worked out that investors who paid 50 times revenue for the company would still enjoy a nice gain on the investment in 10 years of between 60% and 180%(depending on the free cash flow multiple it trades at in the future).

To be clear, I also included a 3% annual increase in share count to account for stock-based compensation which is commonplace for high-growth companies.

Looking at the table above, we can see that just because a company traded at a high multiple, does not mean it is doomed to provide poor returns. If the company can keep growing revenue at relatively high rates while eventually producing a healthy free cash flow margin, investors can still make a respectable return.

Bear in mind, many of the companies that were trading at 30 times revenue or higher in 2020 actually achieved faster growth rates than 40% in 2020 and 2021. This means their future revenue growth rates can fall below 40% for investors to still achieve fine returns.

It is also worth pointing out that many companies that were trading at high multiples also command high gross margins and have the potential for higher free cash flow margins than 20% (which was my assumption in the example above) at a mature phase. This means that even if the company grows revenue at a slower annual pace than 40%, investors could still make a handsome return.

Sieving the wheat from the chaff

Although the above calculations give me confidence that paying up for a company can provide good returns, not all companies have such durable growth potential.

During the bull run of 2020, there was likely too much optimism around mediocre companies. These companies don’t actually have the addressable market or the competitive advantage for them to keep growing to justify their high valuation multiples. These companies will likely never be able to return to their peaks.

When paying a high price for a company, we need to assess if the company has a high probability of growing into its valuation or if it is simply overpriced.  

Final thoughts

Just because stock prices are down now doesn’t mean those who paid a high price would not eventually yield good results. Zoom-out and look at the long-term picture. If a company can keep growing its business, then a high stock price may be warranted and still provide very respectable long term returns.

But at the same time, be mindful that not all companies will exhibit such durable growth. Make sure to assess if your companies are the real deal or just pretenders.


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 companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time

The Future Of China’s Economy

How would China’s economy be like in the future? Lessons from two great books give us clues.

A few weeks ago, I finished reading China’s Crisis of Success. The book, authored by Willam Overholt and published in 2018, contained many thought-provoking ideas on China’s past economic successes and future economic development. I summarised the lessons from the book in an article I published on 28 February 2022 titled Lessons From “China’s Crisis Of Success”. From here on, Lessons From “China’s Crisis of Success” will be termed Article 1.  

While writing Article 1, I was also reminded of a piece I published on 4 March 2020 titled China’s Future: Thoughts From Li Lu, A China Super Investor. This article, hereby termed Article 2, is an English translation of investor Li Lu’s review and thoughts in Mandarin on the 2018 book The Other Half of Macroeconomics and the Fate of Globalization written by economist Richard C. Koo.

As I wrote Article 1, I noticed a similar thread in Article 2. In both articles, an important element is that the pace of China’s future economic growth depends heavily on the Chinese government’s willingness and ability to relinquish central-control of the country’s economy.

Here’s the relevant section from Article 1: 

“Xi’s administration [referring to the administration of Xi Jinping, China’s current president]  has a well thought-out plan for economic reform that emphasises market allocation of resources, but there’s still a really strong element of central-control. On political liberalisation, there does not seem to be much signs that Xi’s administration is loosening its grip. How Xi’s administration reacts to China’s need for both political and economic liberalisation will have a heavy influence on how bright or dim China’s future is.”

The relevant passages from Article 2 are:

“In the Golden Era, the crucial players are entrepreneurs and individual consumers. The focus and starting point for all policies should be on the following: (1) strengthening the confidence of entrepreneurs; (2) establishing market rules that are cleaner, fairer, and more standardised; (3) reducing the control that the government has over the economy; and (4) lowering taxes and economic burdens. Monetary policy will play a crucial role at this juncture, based on the experiences of many other developed countries during their respective Golden Eras.

During the first stage of development, China’s main financial policy system was based on an indirect financing model. It’s almost a form of forced savings on a large scale, and relied on government-controlled banks to distribute capital (also at a large scale) at low interest rates to manufacturing, infrastructure, exports and other industries that were important to China’s national interests. This financial policy was successful in helping China to industrialise rapidly. 

At the second stage of development, the main focus should be this: How can society’s financing direction and methods be changed from one of indirect financing in the first stage to one of direct financing, so that entrepreneurs and individual consumers have the chance to play the key borrower role?”

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in Article 1, China’s government appears to have tightened its grip on the country’s economy in recent years:

“Since the publication of China’s Crisis of Success, there are signs that Xi’s administration has moved in the opposite direction of allowing the market to allocate resources. A good example, in my view, would be the well-documented crackdowns on the Chinese technology sector seen over the past year or so.”

Using the frameworks presented in Article 1 and Article 2, the future of China’s economy could be a lot brighter if the government embarks on effective economic liberalisation. But right now, the government appears to be doing the opposite. 


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 companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time. 

Lessons From “China’s Crisis Of Success”

A great book on China, and what it can tell us about the future of the country’s economic and political development.

A few months ago, a friend of mine, who’s an impressive investor working in a multi-billion-dollar fund management company, introduced me to the book, China’s Crisis of Success. The book, published in 2018, is written by William Overholt, Senior Research Fellow at Harvard University. 

Overholt correctly foresaw the rise of China over the past two-plus decades in his aptly-titled 1993 book, The Rise of China. I have investments in a number of Chinese companies, so I was curious to know what I can learn about the potential future of China from Overholt’s 2018 book. Below are the key takeaways I have from his work:

  • There are a number of Asian countries – including South Korea, Taiwan, and a few others – that experienced decades of remarkable economic growth beginning in the 1960s. This growth helped to lift large swathes of their populations from poverty and made the countries prosperous. 
  • These countries, collectively termed the “Asia Miracles” by Overholt, all had a number of similar traits near the start of their growth spurt. Their respective governments: (a) ruled with an iron fist, with an emphasis on tough implementations of radical economic and social reforms; (b) deeply feared their country’s collapse, a fear shared by their citizens who also harboured a strong sense of shared national identity; and (c) partook in strong central planning of their respective economies.
  • As the economies of the Asia Miracles grew over the years, the countries reached an inflection point. The collective fear of societal collapse that gripped their citizenry dissipated. The citizens, now wealthier, more knowledgeable, and more confident of their country’s future, also grew increasingly frustrated with the “rule with an iron fist” approach by their respective governments. The economies meanwhile, became too complex for the governments to control via central planning. 
  • Upon reaching their inflection points, the Asia Miracles started liberalising, both politically and economically. Not liberalising would have been a major risk to the Asia Miracles’ future prosperity and continued development. Within the Asia Miracles, a style of governance with much stronger democratic elements emerged, while their economies were increasingly allowed to develop from the bottom-up through the private sector.
  • Beginning from Deng Xiaoping’s regime that started in the late 1970s, China embarked on a path of economic and political development that was similar to the Asia Miracles at the start of their growth spurts. As a result, a significant majority of China’s citizens were elevated from the sufferings of poverty in the next few subsequent decades, and the country’s economy grew to become a global behemoth.
  • But as China grew over the years, it started reaching its inflection point around a decade or so ago, coinciding with Xi Jinping’s ascension to the foremost political leadership role in the country. Xi’s administration has a well thought-out plan for economic reform that emphasises market allocation of resources, but there’s still a really strong element of central-control. On political liberalisation, there does not seem to be much signs that Xi’s administration is loosening its grip. How Xi’s administration reacts to China’s need for both political and economic liberalisation will have a heavy influence on how bright or dim China’s future is.

I’m not taking China’s Crisis of Success as the authoritative framework for analysing China’s past successes and future growth. The framework may well turn out to be inaccurate. But I think it is a well-written book with thought-provoking ideas that I find to be logical. 

Since the publication of China’s Crisis of Success, there are signs that Xi’s administration has moved in the opposite direction of allowing the market to allocate resources. A good example, in my view, would be the well-documented crackdowns on the Chinese technology sector seen over the past year or so. Meanwhile, on the political front, Xi’s administration does not seem to have introduced any substantial measures to enable a relatively less-repressive political environment to develop (do note: I am far from being well-informed on politics!). Using the framework presented in China’s Crisis of Success and the developments in China that I just mentioned, the country’s long run future seems less bright to me than before I had read the book.


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 companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Dealing With Downswings

Stocks rise and fall all the time. If you think the stock will be worth more in the future, ignore short-term drawdowns and focus on the long game.

What if I told you that you could invest in a stock at a $90 price today and sell it for more than $3000 in 22 years time? You’d probably bite my hand off for such a deal.

That’s exactly what you could have achieved if you invested in Amazon.com 22 years ago in late-1999 and held the stock till today.

Source: Ycharts

A $1000 investment back then would have turned into more than $33,000 today. The chart above shows the trajectory of Amazon’s stock price over that 22 year period. 

It looks like a pretty clean upwards trajectory but the stock price performance was actually anything but smooth. The chart below shows Amazon’s stock price from late-1999 to 2002 just after the dot com bubble burst.

Source: Ycharts

Amazon’s stock price tumbled from more than US$90 to around US$12. Although this was the steepest drawdown, Amazon’s stock price experienced numerous other steep drawdowns over the past 22 years. The chart below shows how far Amazon’s stock was below its all-time high over the past 22 years.

Source: Ycharts

Amazon took close to 10 years to regain its 1999 peak. And even after breaching that peak, Amazon still experienced numerous drawdowns from those peaks, with those drawdowns frequently reaching close to 30%.

This is the harsh reality of the stock market. Stock price rise and fall all the time and even the best companies can experience significant stock price declines along the way.

However, investors who bought Amazon at the highs of 1999, and maintained their long-term focus even after that massive subsequent drawdown in 2000-2002, would still have come out with excellent returns.

Today in 2022, with some stocks experiencing similarly steep drawdowns from their all-time highs, Amazon is a good reminder of how long-term investing pays off.

Instead of focusing on prices today, think about where the stock’s business can be in 10 or 20 years’ time. If you think the business will be stronger and the company will be worth much more, then ignore the prices today and focus on the future.


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

War and Investing

What’s the relationship between war and stocks? With the Russia potentially invading Ukraine any time now, what should stock market investors do?

It’s a scary time to be an investor in stocks now. The US government has warned the world that Russia could launch a large-scale invasion of Ukraine at any moment. With the historically frosty relationship between the USA and Russia, any use of military force by Russia against Ukraine could result in the USA stepping in.

War between countries is a painful tragedy, not just for the citizens involved, but for humanity as a whole. Without downplaying the horrors of war, how should stock market investors approach the current tense situation between the USA and Russia?

Thankfully, there’s one classic investing book, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, first published in the late 1950s in the USA, that provides a useful framework for thinking about this. The book is written by Phillip Fisher, who’s an excellent investor in his own right, but is perhaps most famous for being an influential figure in Warren Buffett’s own evolution as an investor. Buffett has said that his investing style is 85% Graham and 15% Fisher.

With the current backdrop of Russia’s potential invasion of Ukraine – and the USA’s possible involvement – I thought it would be useful to share Fisher’s passages in Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits that discuss why investors should not fear buying stocks during a war scare. They are found between the two horizontal grey lines below (highlights are mine):


Common stocks are usually of greatest interest to people with imagination. Our imagination is staggered by the utter horror of modern war. The result is that every time the international stresses of our world produce either a war scare or an actual war, common stocks reflect it. This is a psychological phenomenon which makes little sense financially

Any decent human being becomes appalled at the slaughter and suffering caused by the mass killings of war. In today’s atomic age, there is added a deep personal fear for the safety of those closest to us and for ourselves. This worry, fear, and distaste for what lies ahead can often distort any appraisal of purely economic factors. The fears of mass destruction of property, almost confiscatory higher taxes, and government interference with business dominate what thinking we try to do on financial matters. People operating in such a mental climate are inclined to overlook some even more fundamental economic influences.

The results are always the same. Through the entire twentieth century, with a single exception, every time major war has broken out anywhere in the world or whenever American forces have become involved in any fighting whatever, the American stock market has always plunged sharply downward. This one exception was the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. At that time, after an abortive rally on thoughts of fat war contracts to a neutral nation, the market soon was following the typical downward course, a course which some months later resembled panic as news of German victories began piling up. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of all actual fighting – regardless of whether it was World War I, World War II, or Korea – most stocks were selling at levels vastly higher than prevailed before there was any thought of war at all. Furthermore, at least ten times in the last twenty-two years, news has come of other international crises which gave threat of major war. In every instance, stocks dipped sharply on the fear of war and rebounded sharply as the war scare subsided

What do investors overlook that causes them to dump stocks both on the fear of war and on the arrival of war itself, even though by the end of the war stocks have always gone much higher than lower? They forget that stock prices are quotations expressed in money. Modern war always causes governments to spend far more than they can possibly collect from their taxpayers while the war is being waged. This causes a vast increase in the amount of money, so that each individual unit of money, such as a dollar, becomes worth less than it was before. It takes lots more dollars to buy the same number of shares in stock. This, of course, is the classic form of inflation. 

In other words, war is always bearish on money. To sell stock at the threatened or actual outbreak of hostilities so as to get into cash is extreme financial lunacy. Actually just the opposite should be done. If an investor has about decided to buy a particular common stock and the arrival of a full-blown war scare starts knocking down the price, he should ignore the scare psychology of the moment and definitely begin buying. This is the time when having surplus cash for investment becomes least, not most, desirable. However, here a problem presents itself. How fast should he buy? How far down will the stock go? As long as the downward influence is a war scare and not war, there is no way of knowing. If actual hostilities break out, the price would undoubtedly go still lower, perhaps a lot lower. Therefore, the thing to do is to buy but buy slowly and at a scale-down on just a threat of war. If war occurs, then increase the tempo of buying significantly. Just be sure to buy into companies either with products or services the demand for which will continue in wartime, or which can convert their facilities to wartime operations. The great majority of companies can so qualify under today’s conditions of total war and manufacturing flexibility.

Do stocks actually become more valuable in war time, or is it just money which declines in value? That depends on circumstances. By the grace of God, our country has never been defeated in any war in which it has engaged. In war, particularly modern war, the money of the defeated side is likely to become completely or almost worthless, any common stocks would lose most of their value. Certainly, if the United States were to be defeated by Communist Russia, both our money and our stocks would become valueless. It would then make little difference what investors might have done. 

On the other hand, if a war is won or stalemated, what happens to the real value of stocks will vary with the individual war and the individual stock. In World War I, when the enormous prewar savings of England and France were pouring into this country, most stocks probably increased their real worth even more than might have been the case if the same years had been a period of peace. This, however, was a one-time condition that will not be repeated. Expressed in constant dollars – that is, in real value – American stocks in both World War II and the Korean period undoubtedly did fare less well than if the same period had been one of peace. Aside from the crushing taxes, there was too great a diversion of effort from the more profitable peace-time lines to abnormally narrow-margin defense work. If the magnificent research effort spent on these narrow-margin defense projects could have been channelled to normal peace-time lines, stockholders’ profits would have been far greater – assuming, of course, that there would still have been a free america in which any profits could have been enjoyed at all. The reason for buying stocks on war or fear of war is not that war, in itself, is ever again likely to be profitable to American stockholders. It is just that money becomes even less desirable, so that stock prices, which are expressed in units of money, always go up. 


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 companies mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.