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.

Can a Company’s Stock Price Influence Its Business?

Are price and value always independent of each other? Maybe not. In special situations a rising stock price may actually be self fulfilling.

“Price is what you pay, value is what you get.” -Warren Buffett

The common wisdom is that a company’s stock price, in the short term, doesn’t always align with its intrinsic value. But eventually, stock prices gravitate towards intrinsic values. That’s the rule of thumb – that a stock’s price will move towards a company’s true value.

But could it also be the other way around? Instead of the stock price following value, can the stock price influence the value of a business?

In certain scenarios, this interesting dynamic has actually played out.

Self-fulfilling stock price

An example of how a stock’s price can influence a business’ value is when a company decides to make use of its rising stock price to raise money cheaply.

A rising stock price is an indicator of healthy investor appetite for a company’s shares, even though the appetite may not always be validated by the company’s fundamentals at that time.

As one of the main characters in the meme stock mania, Gamestop is a recent example. Gamestop’s stock price, due to retail investors banding together to try and trigger a short squeeze, soared to an extent that most experts will agree, far exceeded the company’s actual business value.

However, this steep mispricing in the stock price gave Gamestop’s management the opportunity to issue a secondary share offering at a much higher price than the company would have been able to if not for the meme stock craze.

As a result, the games retailer was able to raise more than a billion dollars with relatively minor dilution to current shareholders, thus improving its business fundamentals. This, in turn, has led to an improvement in the intrinsic value of the business.

Even Tesla has taken advantage of this

Self-fulfilling stock prices are not reserved solely for meme stocks. In fact, a host of other companies have taken advantage of their rising stock prices in 2020 to issue new shares to boost their balance sheets at relatively cheap rates.

Take Tesla for example. The electric vehicle front runner raised fresh capital three times in 2020 through secondary offerings as its stock price climbed. Each secondary offering happened when Tesla’s stock price hovered around a then-all-time high.  These gave the company the dry powder to build new factories in Berlin and Texas and even invest in Bitcoin.

Elon Musk, Tesla’s self-proclaimed “Technoking” and CEO, and Zach Kirkhorn, Tesla’s “Master of Coin” and CFO, have done a great job in identifying instances when the appetite for Tesla shares in the public market allowed them to raise fresh capital cheaply, resulting in relatively minor dilution.

With its newfound financial firepower, Tesla is in a much stronger position to ramp up the production of its electric vehicles to meet the incessant consumer demand that it’s enjoying. 

It happens in Singapore too

Although Singapore-listed stocks are known to trade at seemingly low prices, there are pockets of the market that may trade at a premium.

The best examples are real estate investment trusts (REITs) that trade at a premium to their tangible book values, such as those that are sponsored by big-name property giants such as CapitaLand and Mapletree. In such cases, it is actually beneficial for a REIT to raise capital by issuing new units.

For instance, in December 2020, Ascendas REIT raised close to S$1.2 billion from a preferential offering and private placement by issuing new units at a price that’s more than 38% above its last reported adjusted book value per unit.

With the new fundraise, Ascendas REIT immediately improved its book value per share.

Business fundamentals following stock prices down

In a similar light, business fundamentals can also decline because of a falling stock price.

At tech companies, stock-based compensation has become a big component of employees’ overall remuneration. When a tech company’s stock price is down, any stock-based compensation becomes less valuable. This could lead to an exodus of existing talent and make it more difficult for the company to attract new talent.

An example is Lending Club, a company that uses algorithms to originate personal loans. After a scandal involving its ex-CEO, Lending Club’s stock price collapsed and the value of employees’ stock-based compensation declined. According to a transcript I read, Lending Club has suffered high employee turnover due to its collapsing stock price.

Final thoughts

Value often precedes price. But in special situations, the opposite seems to be true too. This creates a self-fulfilling virtuous or vicious cycle that can make matters much worse or much better.

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 mentioned, I currently have a vested interest in Tesla. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

Investing Thoughts After Watching Hometown Cha Cha Cha

This heartwarming, heartbreaking, and funny drama contains two investing lessons that we can learn from and apply.

Note: This article contains major spoilers for the popular Korean drama Hometown Cha Cha Cha. If you’re still watching the show or plan to watch it in the future, read this at your own peril! (You can always read this article after watching the show though!)

Together with my wife, I recently finished viewing a new Korean show, Hometown Cha Cha Cha, on Netflix. Thanks to her prodding, I discovered a series that I thoroughly enjoyed – it was not only heartwarming, heartbreaking, and funny, but it also managed to stir up my investing mind.

Two of Hometown Cha Cha Cha’s key characters are the kind-hearted and carefree male protagonist Hong Du-Sik, and the meticulously forward-planning and caring female protagonist Yoon Hye-Jin. Throughout the series, which was set in the beautiful but fictional sea-side town of Gongjin in Korea, it was heavily hinted that Du-Sik had a tragic past but the actual events were always a mystery until the penultimate episode.

Du-sik’s history

When Du-Sik was in university, he became roommates with a senior named Park Jeong-U and the two soon developed a strong brotherly bond. Being a senior, Jeong-U graduated from university first and became a fund manager at YK Asset Management. After Du-Sik completed his studies, Jeong-U roped him into the same firm. 

Du-Sik rapidly rose through the ranks at YK Asset Management. But despite his success, he always remained humble and kind towards everyone at the firm, even to the security guard at the office. Over time, the guard, Kim Gi-Hun, came to know Du-Sik better. Wanting to make money through stocks, Gi-Hun eventually asked to invest in the funds that Du-Sik was managing. Du-Sik, thinking that his funds were too risky for Gi-Hun, tried to dissuade him. Gi-Hun was persistent though, and Du-Sik eventually relented. But before Gi-Hun invested, Du-Sik strongly reminded him to never take unnecessary risks.

Soon after Gi-Hun invested in the funds, a seemingly major Korean company named Benjamin Holdings went bankrupt. The Korean stock market suffered a big one-day decline as a result, with the country’s major market indexes falling between 8% to 12%. Being worried, Gi-Hun sought advice from Du-Sik outside the office. 

During their conversation, Gi-Hun revealed that he had invested in one of Du-Sik’s riskiest funds, named ELF, despite Du-Sik having recommended less-risky choices. On the day of the big decline for Korean stocks, ELF was down by 70%. Du-Sik told Gi-Hun to hang onto the investment because the value of ELF should rise again with time. But – again unbeknownst to Du-Sik – Gi-Hun had poured gasoline into fire. The security guard invested in ELF with his security deposit for his house and so, had no holding power whatsoever. But that’s not all. Snared by greed, he even took up loans to invest in the fund. Upon these revelations, Du-Sik was called back to the office to deal with an emergency but told Gi-Hun that he would get back to him soon.

Back at the office, Du-Sik continued getting calls from Gi-Hun but he never picked them up as he was stressed and busy. A few days later, Du-Sik heard that Gi-Hun had attempted suicide and barely managed to survive. After hearing the news, Du-Sik immediately wanted to visit Gi-Hun at the hospital. But Du-Sik was in no condition to drive as he was suffering from a breakdown. Jeong-U volunteered to drive Du-Sik to the hospital and also share the responsibility for this tragedy. Unfortunately, they encountered an accident while on the road, which resulted in Jeong-U’s untimely death. 

Investing lessons

Gi-Hun’s experience with investing in ELF demonstrated two dangerous but entirely avoidable investing errors. 

First, he invested in something that was highly risky in nature. Hometown Cha Cha Cha did not explain what type of fund ELF was. But given the magnitude of its decline in relation to the broader market’s fall (-70% vs -8% or -12%) and its portrayal as being highly risky, I’m guessing it was an investment fund that utilised significant leverage. What amplified the damage was that Gi-Hun used borrowed money to invest  in ELF. The use of leverage can juice returns when the market is smooth-sailing. But when the waves get rough as they inevitably do, the downward movements are magnified substantially, to the point where you can drown. For example, if you’re investing $10 for every $1 you have (meaning you’re levered 10-to-1), even a 10% decline in your underlying holdings can wipe you out.

Second, he used his security deposit to invest in ELF. In my opinion, one of the most dangerous things an investor can do is to invest with money that he needs to use within a short span of time. If he does so, he may be forced to sell his stocks when prices are low, since the stock market is volatile and short-term price movements are incredibly hard to predict. Jeremy and I run an investment fund together that invests in stocks around the world. In our verbal and written communications to our investors, we highlight our hope that our investors will only invest with money that they would not need for the next five years or more. Even if it’s at the short-term expense of our business, we would not want to invest for someone if we learn that he needs the capital within this timeframe. The reason we do so is because we want ideally all of our investors to have holding power. We do not want our investors to suffer the unnecessary risk of having to be a forced seller at a time when prices are low.

An affinity

While learning about Du-Sik’s tragic past in the penultimate episode of Hometown Cha Cha Cha, I felt an affinity with the character. During the episode, Du-Sik said: 

“He [referring to Jeong-U] convinced me to work at that company [referring to YK Asset Management]. He was a fund manager there. At first, I was hesitant about taking the job. It had nothing to do with my major and was too money-oriented. I didn’t like that. But then he said, “Fund managers give ordinary people hope that even they can become rich.” I think… that made me change my mind.”

I graduated from university with an engineering degree, just like Du-Sik in the show. But unlike the character, I knew, even as a university student, that I wanted to be in the investment world. Where we’re again similar, is that I did not want to just be a cog in the machine and make money – I wanted to be in a role in the investment industry where I could positively impact the lives of many. This is why I was so thrilled when the opportunity to join The Motley Fool’s Singapore office landed on my lap in late-2012. I officially started in January 2013. Back then, the Fool already had a wonderful purpose to “Help The World Invest, Better.” A few years into my stint with the company, the purpose was upgraded: The Fool now wants to “Make The World Smarter, Happier, and Richer.” Both purpose statements are wonderful and resonate with me. 

When I had to leave the Fool’s Singapore office in late-2019, I embarked on a new adventure with Jeremy to set up an investment fund. Our fund’s mission is to “Grow Your Wealth, and Enrich Society.” I was thrilled to once again have the good fortune to be in a role in the investment industry where I could positively impact the lives of many. And although our fund can only serve accredited investors at the moment, we are working towards opening up the fund to all investors in Singapore in the future, if Lady Luck graces us with her presence and we gain the necessary scale to do so.

I never expected to feel an affinity with a romantic comedy such as Hometown Cha Cha Cha. But the character of Hong Du-Sik – and his thought process in deciding to be a fund manager – brought a smile to my heart. I hope Hometown Cha Cha Cha can inspire other young people to develop aspirations to build better financial lives for others – especially the less privileged – if they choose to enter the investment industry. This will give meaning, purpose and blessings to their lives, way more so than the build pursuit of money. 


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 mentioned, I currently have a vested interest in Netflix. Holdings are subject to change at any time. 

How To Judge If You Are a Good Long-term Investor

Just because your portfolio is up a lot over a short time frame does not make you a good long-term investor. Here’s what really matters.

There’s a corner of the Twitter universe that has become a “digital hangout” for investors. Affectionately known as FinTwit, this is a platform where investment professionals, hedge fund owners, billionaires, and even retail investors express their thoughts on investing.

I’ve become an avid follower of many of these FinTwit accounts and have learnt so much from them. In fact, I consider FinTwit a great avenue to learn from investors from all walks of life.

Bad habits

That said, there are some well-followed FinTwit accounts that have developed bad habits. 

One of these bad habits is to sing about short-term gains on stocks.

For the momentum trader, this may be a justifiable indicator that they have made the right trades. But for the long-term investor (which is a strategy that most of these FinTwit accounts I follow prescribe to), short-term stock price fluctuations mean little.

Boasting about steep share price increases, without any meaningful change in the business fundamentals, is actually not a good indicator of whether your investment thesis was right in the first place.

Judging your investments

Just because a stock’s price has gone up significantly in the last day/month/year does not make you correct. If the stock price appreciation was not fundamentally backed up by strong business metrics, your investment returns could merely have been due to luck or simply a change in view among other market participants.

Two cases in point are the meme stocks: Game Stop and AMC. The two companies have seen their stock prices rocket this year as retail investors piled into them, artificially bloating their valuations.

If you made a big return on these two companies because you thought that they were good long-term investments and you think that the current stock price makes you right, then you are sorely mistaken. The stock prices of Game Stop and AMC increased largely because a hoard of retail investors pooled together to try to make a point. You were probably just lucky to catch the ride.

So how then should we judge if we are actually good long-term investors? 

Instead of looking at near-term stock price fluctuations, I focus on whether the investment thesis of the underlying business is correct. What I consider a good indicator of good stock picking is when the companies I have a stake in report growing revenue, profit, and free cash flow over a multi-year period. This is a better measure of whether I’ve picked the right companies to invest in. If a company can grow its free cash flow at a healthy rate over time, its stock price will likely keep growing, as long as the initial valuation was not too expensive.

The bottom line

Near-term stock price fluctuations merely reflect a changing appetite for the stock among stock market participants and usually only represent changing valuation multiples.

A better indicator of long-term investing success is whether the underlying business continues to outperform and grow over many years. Ultimately, business performance, and not investor perception, will be the main driver of long-term sustainable stock price growth.

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 have no vested interest in the shares of any company mentioned. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

A New Perspective: “One Up On Wall Street” by Peter Lynch

A Gen Z’s view on Peter Lynch’s classic investing text.

Note: This article is a guest-post from Lee Leigh Ann. She is an intern at the investment fund that we (Ser Jing and Jeremy) are running. In this piece, Leigh Ann, who’s from Generation Z, shares her thoughts after completing one of our assignments, which is to read Peter Lynch’s classic investing text, One Up on Wall Street. Please enjoy!


Being someone who is completely new to investment, my first impression when I saw the book One up on Wall Street was that it is going to be one of those profound books that only professionals understand. After all, books with the author’s picture plastered on the cover page do not seem all that attractive… to me at least. I was proven wrong very soon though, when I found myself already halfway into the book.

The book itself, contrary to its appearance, was actually an easy read. It was not packed with bombastic words and flowery language. In fact, many ideas were illustrated simply using analogy that could be easily understood. One small problem for me though was that I could not relate to certain terms used or examples given as easily. This is due to certain company names quoted that were unfamiliar in the local context. But this was not a major issue for me. 

Throughout the book, I was introduced to many new and refreshing perspectives. In school, though I was taught about investments, it was mainly theory-based and on a superficial level. This book provided me with new insights that are gained through 17 years of real life investing experiences by the author. There were many mind-blowing moments in the book.

From the book, I got to learn the difference between a speculator and an investor. To me, I just thought that anybody who invested in stocks is simply called an investor. Now, I realise that this is not the case. The difference between an investor and speculator is their difference in attitudes towards a stock. Investors want to generate long-term gains by holding onto a stock for more than a year while speculators go for quick capital appreciation. Investors conduct more in-depth research towards a stock and believe that the stock will eventually generate profits while speculators do not spend much time on their research and just jump at any opportunity to make quick money.

There is a main idea that is constantly enforced throughout the book: You do not always have to listen to professional fund managers or buy the hottest stock in the market. If one is able to observe surrounding businesses, one may find a company with high growth potential. 

Of course, this does not mean that you start to invest in any growing business that you see in your neighbourhood. Successful investing requires one to conduct adequate research about the fundamentals of the business – such as understanding the management style, looking through past years’ balance sheets etc – before you decide to invest your money into the stock. It is advised by Lynch that an individual dedicate at least an hour a week to research about a certain stock that they are interested in.

Investing in a familiar industry is recommended too as compared to an unfamiliar one. Let’s say you work in the healthcare industry. It is advisable that you invest in the same industry as you would have a professional edge over somebody else who does not work in the healthcare industry. Meanwhile, there is also a consumer edge where users of the product have an edge over non-users. To have an edge means that one has the upperhand knowledge regarding an investment decision that the others do not. Having knowledge on an industry/company that you want to invest in allows you to make a more informed decision on whether a certain company’s stock is worth investing in.  

Here, I would like to share some of my mind-blown moments:

  1. “The average person is exposed to interesting local companies and products years before the professionals”
  2. “Big companies have small moves, small companies have big moves”
  3. “Look for companies with niches”
  4. “When in doubt, tune in later”
  5. “Invest at least as much time and effort in choosing a new stock as you would in choosing a new refrigerator”
  6. “If a stock goes to zero, you lose just as much money whether you bought it at $50, $25, $5 or $2”

I would like to think that this book not only provided me with invaluable insights regarding investing in stocks, it also changed my perspective towards such “professional-looking” (for lack of a better word) books. 

As the famous saying goes, “Do not judge a book by its cover.” 

Like literally. 


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.

Will Bitcoin’s Price Continue To Rise?

Bitcoin’s price has risen by close to 400% in the last 12 months. Here are my thoughts on the crypotocurrency.

We are in the middle of earnings season, yet it seems like the main thing investors are talking about these days is not the stock market, but Bitcoin. 

This is understandable, given that Bitcoin’s price has increased by around 400% in the last 12 months.

The cryptocurrency has been gaining steam with companies, with Square and Tesla being two examples of companies that recently announced large purchases of Bitcoin.

Even the popular online investment advisory portal, The Motley Fool, announced last week that it will be buying US$5 million of Bitcoin with its own balance sheet.

But is it really a good investment?

First off, how much is Bitcoin actually worth?

Assets are usually valued based on a discount to the future cash flow it can produce.

For example, a property’s value is based on its future rental income, while stocks are valued on their future free cash flows to shareholders. Although stock and real estate prices may fluctuate (sometimes irrationally), they eventually tend to gravitate towards their intrinsic value that is based on their future cash flows.

Bitcoin, however, does not produce any cash flow. And despite the revolutionary blockchain technology backing Bitcoin, it also offers very little utility to most people (unless you are trying to make illegal purchases or live in a country with an unstable currency). This is unlike actual useful things like real estate or even commodities which can be valued based on their utility. As such, valuing Bitcoin is a lot more tricky.

Unsurprisingly, there are numerous opinions on how much Bitcoin should be worth. Some believe that the total value of Bitcoin should be similar to that of gold, while others argue that Bitcoin should be valued based on the value of transactions made using Bitcoin.

But as we have seen since its founding, Bitcoin’s price has not been based on either of these. Instead, Bitcoin’s price is based solely on speculation and has no anchoring toward any form of valuation method.

Lacking any fundamental way to value Bitcoin, the price of Bitcoin at any point in time will simply be how much the average market buyer is willing to pay for a Bitcoin and how much a seller is willing to sell it at. 

All of which is based purely on overall market sentiment at the time.

So.. what is driving the price now?

The influx in demand for Bitcoin, and ultimately the price of Bitcoin has been fueled by more investors believing it will go up in price.

This is possibly in some part due to endorsements from influential people in the business and investing world, such as Cathie Wood from Ark Investments, Elon Musk of Tesla, Jack Dorsey of Square, and The Motley Fool.

These influential figures have put their support behind Bitcoin, leading to other investors scrambling to get in on the act, thinking that it will continue to rise in price.

Can it continue?

The question now is whether Bitcoin’s price will continue to rise or will we see it fall back down to pre-2020 levels. We’ve already seen how a swing in sentiment in 2017 led to a massive decline in Bitcoin’s price.

To answer this, we will need to assess current and possible future investor sentiment.  

From what I am reading online, it seems that the positive sentiment toward Bitcoin is still going strong.

The endorsement of Bitcoin by so many respected investors and entrepreneurs have resulted in Bitcoin investors having even greater conviction.

As such, many Bitcoin owners are increasingly willing to see out the innate price volatility associated with the cryptocurrency market and continue to hold on to their stake in Bitcoin (They call it Hodl- hold on for dear life).

In addition, investors who have yet to buy may be increasingly getting FOMO (fear of missing out) and may be willing to pay a higher price simply to get in on the action.

But that’s not to say that Bitcoin is without risk. As Bitcoin’s price seems to be based almost solely on sentiment, its price can fall as quickly as it rose.

One event that can crush sentiment toward Bitcoin is regulation. Regulators were quick to respond when Facebook announced that it planned on launching an asset-back cryptocurrency called Libra in 2019 (the cryptocurrency’s name has since been changed to Diem).

If regulators do come in to control the way Bitcoin is transacted, Bitcoin investors may get cold feet.

Similarly, if a new “shinier” cryptocurrency enters the market that is more energy-efficient or transaction friendly, Bitcoin’s popularity may wane.

We should also not underestimate the influence that respected figures such as Elon Musk has over Bitcoin’s price. Should Musk decide to sell Tesla’s Bitcoins, the feel-good factor towards Bitcoin may fall just as fast as it rose.

Bottom line

The bottom line is that Bitcoin has very limited utility currently, and produces no cash flow to holders. Given the absence of a true intrinsic value anchor, Bitcoin’s price will fluctuate based only on market sentiment.

Investing in Bitcoin can be rewarding if more investors hop onto the bandwagon, driving the price up. But if sentiment wanes, investors left holding the bag may end up with big losses.

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 have a vested interest in the shares of Square and Tesla. Holdings are subject to change at any time.

The Stock (or is it “Stonk”?) Market Is Rigged: So What?

The stock market has been a rigged game for a long time. But it doesn’t matter for investors. We can unrig this. We can still win.

I need to get this off my chest. Over the course of January 2021, the financial markets saw the incredible Wallstreetbets vs Hedge Funds battle play out. The battle arena included stocks (or is it “stonks”?) such as Gamestop and AMC. I won’t rehash the whole episode. 

What I want to get off my chest is something I’m saddened by: The danger that many retail investors could lose their faith in the financial markets because of what’s happening in Wallstreetbets vs Hedge Funds. I’ve already seen people commenting (read here and here) that the market is “rigged” and that they are losing their faith in the system. Well the thing is, the market has been rigged for a long, long time but – and this is important – it does NOT matter. Two examples come to mind.

A long, long time ago…

The first involves Joseph Kennedy, the patriarch of the famous Kennedy family in the political scene of the USA. The family includes the US president, John F. Kennedy. 

In the 1930s, Kennedy played an actual con-game with the US stock market. This is recounted by Morgan Housel in an article he wrote for The Motley Fool:

“The repeal of prohibition in 1933 was bound to benefit companies that made supplies needed to make alcohol. One was a bottling company called Owens-Illinois. Rather than investing in directly in Owens-Illinois, [Joseph] Kennedy purchased shares of a company called Libbey-Owens-Ford.

“Libbey-Owens-Ford was an entirely separate company, which manufactured plate glass for automobiles, not bottles, but its name was close enough to the bottle glass company to fool unwary investors,” writes biographer David Nasaw. On news of the repeal, Kennedy and his partners traded shares back and forth between each other, pumping up trading volume to draw attention. That caused other investors to buy shares “on the mistaken belief that they were buying shares of Owens-Illinois, the bottle manufacturer.” After a surge, Kennedy dumped Libbey-Owens-Ford with a $1 million inflation-adjusted profit and invested the proceeds in his original target, Owens-Illinois.”

Not so long ago

The second involves convicted con-man Jordan Belfort, of The Wolf of Wall Street fame. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Belfort used a similar technique – buying and selling the same block of shares between partners to manipulate share prices – to run his fraudulent stock market brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont.

One of the companies that Belfort and his cronies ran his scams on was the shoe-fashion designer outfit Steve Madden. Belfort and gang took Steve Madden public in December 1993 via a pump-and-dump scheme. They owned up to 85% of Steve Madden leading up to the IPO, and dumped all the shares right after the listing, raking in US$23 million in a very short amount of time. Big money. But is it really?

Stocks, not stonks

This is where it gets interesting. According to Yahoo Finance, Steve Madden’s share price was less than US$1 right after its IPO in 1993. Today, Steve Madden’s share price is nearly US$34, and 85% of the company would be worth nearly US$2.4 billion.

Belfort could have been a legitimate billionaire had he held on to his Steve Madden shares, instead of being a convicted con-man who had to spend a few years of his life behind bars. And all that happened because of Belfort’s inability back then to see what the stock market really is – a market for participants to own pieces of living, breathing businesses.

Coming back to the deplorable behaviour of Joseph Kennedy, Housel wrote in the same article for the Fool (emphasis is mine):

“Companies didn’t report much information in the 1930s, but archive documents show Libbey-Owens-Ford earned somewhere around $1.1 million in profit in 1933. By 1985, profits were more than $70 million. Getting tricked by Kennedy didn’t matter much if you were willing to wait.”

Unrigging a rigged game

The stock market has been a rigged game for a long time. But it doesn’t matter for investors. This is because stocks – not stonks – have still managed to build tremendous wealth for investors legitimately despite the presence of the rigging. Since 1930, the S&P 500 (a broad stock market index in the USA) has turned a $1,000 investment into a massive US$4.97 million, including dividends. This works out to a handsome return of 9.7% per year.

There’ll likely be no end to having unscrupulous stock market manipulators pop up to rig parts of the market. But having patience, being diversified and disciplined, and having the view that stocks represent partial ownership of real actual businesses that will do well over time if the businesses do well (and that will crumble if the businesses crumble) makes it possible for you to unrig a rigged game. And, like we’ve seen with Libbey-Owens-Ford and Steve Madden, even companies that are the victims of manipulation can still do great things for investors – if the companies have legitimately good businesses and crucially, the investors are willing to wait.

Please don’t lose faith in the markets!

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.

My Preferred Way

There are many different ways to invest in the stock market. There’s no right or wrong.

There are many ways to make money in the stock market. There’s no right or wrong.

But given all that is going on in the markets at the moment (Game… *cough*… something… *cough*… Stop…), I had the sudden urge to share my preferred way of operating in the stock market.

I gain joy from the growth in value created by companies that are making the world smarter, healthier, happier, and richer (in any combination), by being a steadfast long-term owner of their shares.

(The Motley Fool deserves a big hat-tip for the statement just above. The Fool’s purpose is to make the world smarter, happier, and richer.)

I don’t want to profit by selling a hot potato to a greater fool so that I would not be the one “left holding the bag,” even if I know the hot potato is very much in demand. I simply derive no joy in doing so.

What’s your preferred way to operate in the stock market?

2 Investing Pitfalls

These two investing mistakes have caused me to miss out on huge mutlibagger returns. Here’s what I’ve learnt from them, so you can avoid the same errors.

Investors are prone to behavioural biases. I am guilty of some, which have caused me to commit investing mistakes and miss out on some of the best deals in the market. Here are two biases that have cost me dearly.

Avoiding mega-cap companies

One investing fallacy is that mega-cap companies can’t grow much. 

Today, Apple, Amazon and Microsoft are each worth more than US$1.5 trillion. For those counting, as of 17 July, each of the trio was worth more than the entire South Korean stock market, which had a market capitalisation of US$1.4 trillion.

Can companies of that size realistically grow much more?

I used to shy away from mega-cap companies simply because I believed in the law of big numbers. It is much harder to grow meaningfully when a company reaches a certain size.

However, when I looked back at records, I realised that the biggest company 25 years ago is not considered big today.

Back in 1994, the largest US company by market cap was General Electric. At that time, it had a market cap of US$84.3 billion.

Back then, you would have thought that a company of that size could not grow much more. Today, Apple is worth more than 20 times as much as General Electric was at that time. This illustrates that there is no limit to how big a company can get.

25 years from now, a trillion-dollars might look like what a billion dollars is today.

Instead of focusing on the size of the company, we should look into the company’s fundamentals. 

Can the company grow its revenue, profits and free cash flow meaningfully over time from today? Does it have the right management team in place to take it to new heights? Is the company reasonably valued? These are more important than the size of the company. Sometimes, the biggest companies may still turn out to be the best investments.

What goes up must come down

I prefer buying stocks that are below their all-time highs. Who doesn’t?

However, sitting on the sidelines can sometimes do more harm than good, especially if you have identified a quality company to own at a reasonable price. 

For example, Amazon is one of the best-performing stocks of the past two decades. Although there have been steep drawdowns along the way, its stock price also often reached new all-time highs, as top-performing companies naturally do.

It is very likely that most investors who managed to buy Amazon’s shares in the past, had to do so at (or close to) an all-time-high-price at the time.

Because of my aversion to buying in at a new high, I never got the chance to buy Amazon shares for my personal portfolio. I first wanted to invest in 2017 when its shares were trading around US$720. However, as it was near a peak then, I decided to hold out to try to get a bargain. As luck would have it, and because Amazon’s stock was likely worth much more, the stock price rose instead of falling. 

Not wanting to buy at US$720 meant I couldn’t pull the trigger when it reached US$900 either. Nor could I do it when it reached US$1200. By then, even though the stock experienced drawdowns, it never reached the price I initially wanted to buy it at. Consequently, I never bought Amazon for my personal portfolio and I missed out on market-beating returns. Today, Amazon trades upwards of US$3100 per share.

Lessons learnt

Behavioural biases affect our decision-making and often cause losses or result in us missing out on big returns.

I’ve learnt from these mistakes the hard way. My takeaway is that it’s more important to focus on company fundamentals and buy a company at a good price, regardless of the size of the company or recent share price movements.

DisclaimerThe 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 Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft.

The Dark Side of Commission-Free Trading

Commission-free trading is great for the long-term investor. However, it also leads to more frequent trading, which may lead to poorer results.

Commission-free trading has skyrocketed in popularity in the US. Pioneered by Fintech startup, Robinhood, commission-free trades has revolutionised the world of investing there.

It removes the frictional cost of investing in stocks and ETFs, making investing accessible to anyone and everyone. 

For long-term investors, commission-free trading is great. Zero trading fees mean higher returns. It also “democratises” trading such that anyone, even those with a few hundred dollars to spare, can start investing in a diversified portfolio.

But what’s the catch?

Although is it hard to argue with the obvious benefits of commission-free trading, there’s a catch: It creates short-term trading behaviour.

In the stock markets, there’s data to show that long-term investors tend to do better than those who move in and out of the market.

Investors are traditionally bad market timers and tend to buy during a market peak and sell at a market bottom. This short-term trading mindset has caused retail investors to often lag the overall market, far under-performing investors who simply bought to hold.

Encourages poor trading behaviour

Just because something is free, does not mean we should be doing more of it. This is the case for trading. 

Unfortunately, the rise of commission-free trading platforms has created more short-term trading mindsets. People trade frequently just because it doesn’t cost them anything. So while investors save money on trading fees, their investment returns suffer due to poor investing behaviour.

In the book Heads I Win, Tails I Win: Why Smart Investors Fail and How to Tilt the Odds in Your Favor, financial journalist Spencer Jakab discussed how poor investor behaviour led to poor returns, even though the underlying asset performed well. An interesting example he gave was the case of the Fidelity Magellan Fund managed by legendary investor Peter Lynch. Even though the fund earned around 29% per year during Lynch’s tenure as manager of the fund from 1977 to 1990, Lynch himself estimated that the average investor in his fund made only 7% per year. This was because when he had a setback, money flowed out and when there was a recovery, money flowed in, having missed the recovery.

Good investing behaviour is the most important factor to improve long-term returns

Commission-free trading is undoubtedly a good thing for investors who are able to stick to the long-term principle of investing. However, for those who are tempted to trade more often due to the zero trading fees, commission-free trading may end up doing more harm than good.

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.