I think both will be good places. I can’t pick one over the other. I don’t know but the Chinese economy is going to be far ahead of where it is now 20 years from now and the United States economy is going to be far ahead of where it is now 20 years from now. Our children are going to live better than we live. During, in a political season to hear people say your children aren’t going to live as well as you do – that is total 100% nonsense. I mean, even at 2% GDP that’s over 1% per capita and in one generation that means the next generation is going to live 25% better than we live per capita in the United States so both countries have a very, very good future.
"I think we're in a range, and it's a big zone always, of reasonableness. But stocks ought to be higher every 10 years.There's a plow back of earnings that goes back year after year. Stocks will become worth more decade after decade, not in any precise manner, not in an even manner or anything of the sort. But 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, stocks will be worth more than they are today."
TWST: Introduce our readers to the firm by telling us about Century Management's history.
Mr. Van Den Berg: I began my investment career in 1968, right at the top of the market, selling mutual funds. I had put my faith in mutual funds as the ultimate way to help people make money. Then as the stock market began what would eventually be its worst decline since the Great Depression, most mutual funds went down as much as individual stocks. This really shook my faith in the market and money management business.
I could not help thinking that maybe the best way to be successful in the investment industry would be to start my own firm, so I spent the next several years studying Wall Street, the market and various investment philosophies. I noticed there were fund managers and investment professionals who had weathered the storm fairly well, and they all came from the Benjamin Graham school of thought, which is the value-investing approach. I concluded that managers who used a value-based investment strategy protected their clients' capital better and provided more consistent investment results than managers using other investment strategies.
I started Century Management in September of 1974, because I believed I had found the investment approach that could do well even in bad market environments. At this time, the market was nearing the bottom of what would be a 45% decline in the Dow Jones Industrial Average and a 75% decline in the average stock. As a result, very few people were interested in investing. Also, there were so many articles talking about how it was the end of the world. Yet, I reasoned that either the world was going to end, or I was going to make a lot of money for my clients - here we are, almost 40 years later.
慎重派ファンド・マネージャーのボブ・ロドリゲスは、最近の上昇相場では声がかからないのか、マスメディアには登場していないようです。しかし彼のファンドFPA Capital Fundの四半期報告書を読むとあいかわらずで、手綱をひきしめている様子がうかがえます。今回は同報告書の一部をご紹介します(日本語は拙訳)。
We are often asked “why not just buy more of what you own and be fully invested?” Our answer is the same today as it was almost thirty years ago. That is we do not target a specific level for cash, rather cash is a residual of investment opportunity. We build the Fund one stock at a time, and each investment achieves a certain weighting based on its risk-to-reward ratio. The higher our confidence in a company executing its business plan, coupled with more upside potential than downside risk, the larger its weighting will be.
We monitor each stock position in the portfolio every day. When a stock meets all of our strict investment criteria and reaches an attractive valuation level, we establish a new holding or add to an existing position. When a stock attains a premium to our estimate of its intrinsic value, we reduce or eliminate the holding depending on how large the premium is to its value. At the end of the process, we generally end up with 20-40 stocks in the Fund. If the number of companies that qualify for a position in the Fund is at the lower end of the range, or our conviction in the existing holdings is not at the highest level, the portfolio will have an elevated level of liquidity. On the other hand, if it is a target-rich environment and our convictions are exceptionally high, the Fund will have very little liquidity.
In our opinion, there is currently a dearth of investment opportunity in the U.S. Small-Mid Cap stock universe. For example, our core valuation screen shows just sixty-four companies passing. We have looked at all these companies. We either own them or deem them not to be investment-worthy. Over the past three decades, this screen has ranged between the low 40s to over 400 companies. Additionally, we have conscientiously reviewed the 52-week new low list for NYSE-listed1 companies over the past few decades to source potential new ideas. At the end of the first quarter, fewer than twenty companies of the more than three thousand listed companies on the Big Board were trading at their 52-week low, excluding ETFs, ADRs, and Preferred stocks.
Moreover, if one were to examine the P/E5 multiples for the broad indices, particularly the Small-Mid Cap universe such as the Russell 2000 and 2500, one should be alarmed at the extraordinarily high valuations investors are paying to own stocks. For instance, at the end of the March quarter, the trailing-twelve month price/earnings ratio for the aforementioned indices were 26.3x and 23.2x, respectively. Clearly, current market conditions are not ideal for us value investors.
Growth and momentum investors, and some pension consultants, will so say “so what?” These people will point out that the market and many stocks are tracking higher, and it is not wise not to be fully invested. Yes, the market has been robust and the invested portion of the Fund has performed very well, but we have a couple of questions about the wisdom of allocating capital to very expensive stocks.
The first question is, “What is one’s required growth rate of profits for paying such large multiples for these companies?” The academic texts books and many growth investors will tell you all about the PEG ratio. This metric is defined as the P/E ratio divided by the expected growth rate in earnings. Generally, these investors want a PEG ratio of 1 or less to commit capital. Thus, with the current P/E for the Russell 2000 at 26.3x these growth investors need earnings to grow faster than 26%, or they will be merely speculating by having to pay a PEG ratio greater than 1x.
If one accepts that paying 1x for the PEG ratio makes reasonable investment sense, and we do not because we believe no investor can predict with 100% confidence what the future holds, then what is the consensus for earnings growth? The latest reports we have read is that the consensus for earnings growth for 2013 is projected to be 4-7%.
Interestingly, earnings for Small-Mid Cap companies are currently growing at about 1.6% per quarter, or less than 7% annualized. This a far cry from the 26% required per the widely-held view that a PEG of 1 or less makes eminent sense. It is analogous to that iconic 1984 Wendy’s commercial with the actress Clara Peller, who asks, “Where’s the beef?” If you do not remember the commercial, Peller receives an enormous hamburger bun with a tiny piece of beef inside. Her elderly friends ridicule the bun by saying, “It’s a very big bun. It’s a big fluffy bun. It’s a very big fluffy bun.” If Clara and her friends were around today, we could hear them saying, “It’s a very big P/E. It’s a big fluffy P/E. It’s very big fluffy P/E.” But not enough of beef, ahem, earnings growth.
I place this tendency first in my discussion because almost everyone thinks he fully recognizes how important incentives and disincentives are in changing cognition and behavior. But this is not often so. For instance, I think I've been in the top five percent of my age cohort almost all my adult life in understanding the power of incentives, and yet I've always underestimated that power. Never a year passes but I get some surprise that pushes a little further my appreciation of incentive superpower.
One of my favorite cases about the power of incentives is the Federal Express case. The integrity of the Federal Express system requires that all packages be shifted rapidly among airplanes in one central airport each night. And the system has no integrity for the customers if the night work shift can't accomplish its assignment fast. And Federal Express had one hell of a time getting the night shift to do the right thing. They tried moral suasion. They tried everything in the world without luck. And finally, somebody got the happy thought that it was foolish to pay the night shift by the hour when what the employer wanted was not maximized billable hours of employee service but fault-free, rapid performance of a particular task. Maybe this person thought, if they paid the employees per shift and let all night shift employees go home when all the planes were loaded, the system would work better. And lo and behold, that situation worked.
“Granny's Rule” provides another examples of reward superpower, so extreme in its effects that it must be mentioned here. You can successfully manipulate your own behavior with this rule, even if you are using as rewards items that you already possess! Indeed, consultant Ph. D. psychologists often urge business organizations to improve their reward systems by teaching executives to use “Granny's Rule” to govern their own daily behavior. Granny's Rule, to be specific, is the requirement that children eat their carrots before they get dessert. And the business version requires that executives force themselves daily to first do their unpleasant and necessary tasks before rewarding themselves by proceeding to their pleasant tasks. Given reward superpower, this practice is wise and sound.
Punishments, of course, also strongly influence behavior and cognition, although not so flexibly and wonderfully as reward. For instance, illegal price fixing was fairly common in America when it was customarily punished by modest fines. Then, after a few prominent business executives were removed from their eminent positions and sent to federal prisons, price-fixing behavior was greatly reduced.
Military and naval organizations have very often been extreme in using punishment to change behavior, probably because they needed to cause extreme behavior. Around the time of Caesar, there was a European tribe that, when the assembly horn blew, always killed the last warrior to reach his assigned place, and no one enjoyed fighting this tribe. And George Washington hanged farm-boy deserters forty feet high as an example to others who might contemplate desertion.
Investors withdrew $6.8 billion from US stock funds in September, $15.5 billion in August and $22.9 billion in July. Makes sense, right? Q3 was the worst quarter for US stocks since the 2008-9 financial crisis. Investors withdrew another $18.2 billion in October, which was the best single month for US stocks in 25 years with a gain of 10.9% in the S&P 500. YTD, US investors sold $53.5 billion of US funds, continuing a pattern of net annual redemptions that has prevailed since 2008.
Warren Buffet, meanwhile, invested $23.9 billion (including $7 billion in stock purchases) in US markets in Q3 ? his fastest pace of investment in 15 years. As of March 2011, Buffet was worth about $50 billion, so who do you think is making the correct assessment of the investing climate?
(中略)
Warren Buffet buying large when others sell is a classic example of contrarian investing, defined as “an investment style that goes against prevailing market trends by buying assets that are performing poorly and then selling when they perform well.” Humans, alas, are herd animals who become distressed when acting contrary to the group. Watch this old Candid Camera prank to observe an individual’s distress from simply facing the wrong way in an elevator. Now think about the distress you feel when your investment advisor maintains or even adds to your stock allocations, when clearly “a depression is eminent.” We track monthly and quarterly cash flows into stock mutual funds because often net flows are inversely correlated with stock market performance. In other words, most investors buy high and sell low.