Showing posts with label LOQ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LOQ. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

On 10 Years of Investing

Today marks 10 years from inception in the portfolio and I thought I'd use it to record some thoughts on, broadly, what works and what doesn't. First off is performance - the output - and the record shows a 725% gain in 10 years, or 23.5% annualised against 6.5% annualised for the FTSE 100 and 7.6% for the S+P 500 (with dividends). Of 28 investments made, 15 have been profitable with 2 making over 100% gains and two making between 50 and 100% gains. 95% of cash profits came from just two investments - LOQ and GVC Holdings. In essence, the excess returns came from taking large positions on illiquid holdings that were under-researched and misunderstood.

Warren Buffett summarises investing (which I contrasted with speculation in the last post) rather eloquently. This direct quote sums up the best way to compound money at a decent rate over a long period of time: "Your goal as an investor should be simply to purchase, at a rational price, a part interest in an easily understood business whose earning’s are virtually certain to be materially higher, five, ten and twenty years from now. Overtime, you will find only a few companies that meet those standards – so when you see one that qualifies, you should buy a meaningful amount of stock."

The above is really something that you can remind yourself of time and again. The amount of patience needed to just sit there holding on to shares in wonderful businesses is a vanishingly rare skill (and one that is hard to recognise in others, and even harder to practice in a professional investing role). I wish I could say that I find it easy, but the truth is that in an environment filled with daily news, second-by-second price quotations and populated by well spoken men (they are almost always men) with convincing stories about which way a price will move next (therefore providing easy-wins), it is harder still to stay true to the above goals.

As for my future as an investor, I have to admit that even with limited trading activity in my portfolio, I find thinking about it a distraction from my work, which at the moment is paying the bills and providing the foundations for potentially starting a family (a position fairly far removed from the first blog post in December 2008 when I moved to Chamonix on my own). My job at the moment is to provide investors with plausible stories on why they should act. What they should do is listen to Buffett and sit on part-ownership stakes in wonderful businesses. But what a person should do and what they actually do are not always the same thing. As a stockbroker my job is to feed their hunger for ideas/action with investment analysis packaged into a neat stories for bite-sized consumption.

Perhaps I'll switch to an investment role soon, and try my best to apply the skills I've learned and create an environment where my patience can be tested on the coalface of a professional investment mandate. I realise 20% a year is vanishingly difficult in an institutional world, but I do hope that if I'm given the chance, I'll be able to generate returns that are at least in excess of those of a passive index tracker over a long period of time. The power of compounding is still somewhat compelling with 7% annualised returns, whilst it becomes absolutely startling with 23.5% annualised returns (7% doubles your money in 10 years, 23.5% takes it up 8-fold over the same period).

To drill in the above point of Buffett's, and to point out the chief mistake of most investors is the same thing. To have startling returns you don't buy something at 10% or 20% less than it's worth, you buy it for 50% less than it's worth. It's just that simple. Holding cash at the moment is probably the best strategy as there's little obvious value out there and confidence is relatively high versus the past few years. And this is where the patience comes in. The confidence that something will come along eventually that is materially mispriced is what you need in order to hold cash and forgo the last few percentage points of the bull-market's gains.

Nobody can time markets, but everyone who is worth their salt can tell if a stock is compellingly cheap or not. If there's nothing to do, do nothing. Only professional investors are required to remain fully invested at all times. For the private holders of wealth, who can act in a contrarian manner, cash can be a wonderful investment as it offers the holder the option to pay what may be compellingly lower prices in the future for a given stock. And when dealing with a manic depressive business partner (an apt description of Graham's 'Mr Market'), it will often pay to wait for a bout of depressive behaviour before parting with cash for a part-share in the many wonderful businesses for which he quotes prices daily.

It may be that this is the last post here, given I really should focus more on paid sources of income, and less on compounding returns on just my own capital (as fun as the outcomes of the latter when it works may be). I hope that anyone reading this will have a sense that it is not impossible to beat markets over time, but also that an investor's chief enemy in doing so will, in fact, be themselves. Human beings have brains so well adapted to running and hunting in the savannah that they have trouble with the complexities of investment analysis and staying rational where money and risk (and therefore emotions) come to the fore.

The one certainty an investor (even one who is doing it right) can have is that they will make mistakes. But for those who persevere with it anyway (probably because they love the process and the constant sources of opportunities to learn and improve) the rewards - both material and psychic - come highly recommended.

Thursday, December 31, 2009

On Having A Variant Perception

What a great term, ‘variant perception’. It sounds both straightforward and intelligent. The meaning is also both simple and profound. How does what I think differ from what everyone else is thinking?

Well, if you take a moment to consider it, you’re really not going to do particularly differently to the average if you lack a variant perception. Equally, it’s worth considering that the ‘crowd’ could very well be correct in their thinking, and by seeking to be contrarian too often, you may end up fighting against the tide.

What this whole Value Investing business boils down to is the attempt to find better-than average businesses at lower-than-average prices. Ideally you’ll find a superstar business at a price usually reserved for basket cases, but that may be a wish too far for most of your lifetime (incidentally these wishes were coming true for brave investors back in March 2009).

Well, having tried both the global macro approach to investing, and the value investing approach, it just seems to me far, far easier to have a useful insight and a ‘variant perception’ in the field of relatively simple-to-understand businesses (micro-economics) than in the field of enormously complex and difficult-to-understand global economies (macro-economics). Not to say that the latter is impossible, I just personally find it much, much harder most of the time.

Being a fairly simple soul, and thinking that results gained from less effort are superior to those gained via more effort, the value approach seems preferable to me over the alternatives. This is especially true with small sums of money to invest, however I can see how things would change as the pool of capital under management gets large enough to limit your investable options in the equity space.

Back to ideas and performance, as it’s the end of the year. Some mixed luck came my way on the 11th of December. HMS, spiked up in price on news of an all-cash bid taking place. The price went from 125p to 215p in the course of the morning, and has been gradually ticking up towards the 233p takeover price ever since. This sort of luck is something that I’m very happy to receive every once in a while, although it is somewhat mixed as the company would be worth far more if it could secure reasonable funding from the banks. In the absence of available credit, it makes sense for them to sell out to a well-financed entity, but the deal was struck at a lower price to the acquirer than I think the enterprise was worth.

Anyway, that provided a nice boost to the portfolio to end the year up 24.1% versus 27.6% for the FTSE 100 index with dividends reinvested. Since inception the portfolio is now up 80.3% versus 31.8% for the FTSE and 1.9% for the S+P. Over the past 3 years the portfolio is now up 52.7% against returns of -1.0% for the FTSE and -16.0% for the S+P, also with dividends reinvested. Long may the outperformance continue!

In terms of current ideas, I’m looking at a US stock that builds GPS units, called Garmin, Interior Services Group and Lo-q in the UK, as well as Velosi and a fair few others. I’ve also been screening for new ideas via the Company REFS service and via the Bloomberg system, which has produced a cacophony of stocks to research in more detail. I’ve been meeting a few hedge fund managers to hear how they invest and talk about my ideas with, as well as some potential investors.

Well, a new decade is here and it’s time to look ahead. Significant uncertainty is all around, but this is always true no matter what the talking heads or wisdom of crowds tells you. I’m very pleased to have kept a record of the past year as it could well prove to be one of the most instructive (and possibly constructive) 12 month periods in my life. Whatever happens next, I’m guessing my role will be far more in-line with my ideals than in the past, which is a pretty nice thing to be able to say about your outlook, even if it’s not a particularly variant perception.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Tomorrow, And Tomorrow, And Tomorrow

One of my favourite stock market quotes comes from the great American Financier (or robber barron, depending on your view) - J.P. Morgan. When asked what the stockmarket will do next, he responded that, "It will fluctuate." And that is about the most prescient answer anyone could ever give on the subject.

Anyway, investing isn't about peering into a crystal ball and seeing what will be. It's a search for opportunities where, on balance, the likely reward of an investment outweighs the potential risks. You can concentrate your risk in a few high-potential investments, or spread it over more ideas that collectively should give you less volatile returns. All this balancing of risks and rewards is a tricky business. This past week or two being a case in point.

One of my favourite stocks at the moment is a little minnow that I now have a reasonable amount of shares in called Lo-Q (ticker LOQ). From looking at the annual report, reading information on the internet, reading the available broker note, talking about the business with friends, thinking about the business lots and finally speaking to the founder on the phone recently, I have formed a strong view on the likely fair value of the business. And my valuation (around £40m) was just a little bit higher than the market cap of the company as quoted on AIM last week. Just a little bit being £30m higher (or a potential 300% rise from the current £10m market cap)!

Back in October I sold out of two business I thought it wasn't worth being in - Umeco and Severfield Rowen. They both seemed undervalued still but my other ideas just seemed better. Plus I was starting to really understand the concept that it's hard to think about more than, say, 6 ideas at once as I was having trouble thinking very deeply about the 11 ideas I had in my portfolio at the time. So I sold out of those two stocks in favour of Lo-Q and Staffline (ticker STAF).

Of course Umeco promptly rallied from 290p to 350p, which just reminds me (again) that my short-term market timing skills are rubbish to say the least. In consolation Staffline managed a 42% rally in November, which was nice.

So this LOQ then. At the end of the analysis I just saw a great, growth business with relatively few issues to derail growth over the next couple of years at least. And at 75% undervalued, a fairly compelling prospect. What to do. Hmm. I thought about selling out of the larger issues I have that are less undervalued (BRK.B at 20% and EMG now at 40%). Probably a good idea, but that's not how a balanced portfolio would look. And there's the rub.

If I'm managing this mini-portfolio with a view to showing others how I would manage their money one day that's one thing (and being somewhat diversified to reduce volatility and avoid potential value traps makes good sense). However, it is a little different to what I should be doing if I were just managing this tiny amount of capital with the very pure goal of maximising post-tax returns in mind.

Recently, it's begun to sink in that I'm going to struggle to get any sort of investment business underway without some fairly huge levels of confidence in me from a set of very well capitalised supporters. And the types of people who would back me would basically ask themselves, "If he's so good, why is he so poor?" Which ends up with the slightly tortuous conclusion that, to be in a position to manage money away from the crowds, I first have to have enough behind me so that I basically don't need to work. Well, if that's what it takes, then so be it.

There's some freedom in the above, though. I was fixated on making my portfolio work in a way that would be operationally viable with a much larger sum than I am currently managing. And the case in point, LOQ, is not something that anyone with decent sums of money could invest much in. If you're managing £100m or so and want to get a decent return, you've got to start looking at companies with market caps broadly in excess of £100m to avoid owning more of the company than you can get in and out of easily. Any smaller and you're going to end up owning such a large chunk that you'll move the price significantly on your way in and out, thus eliminating the potential profits that a smaller fund could benefit from.

Happily, mini-investors with the time and skills can look in this sub-£100m market cap universe and find a wealth (literally) of undervalued gems to put their money to work in. Frankly, it seems like a decent investor with small sums of money should be able to totally destroy the market averages by investing a concentrated portfolio in this universe of stocks, so that's where their attention (and mine while not working for anyone else and managing miniscule sums) should be focussed.

It's been a year since I started this blog now, so I may post less frequently from now on. Here's the current portfolio and performance since inception, as at 30 November 2009. Hopefully I'll be able to update the portfolio and performance and check back on how the likes of LOQ are progressing in the future. It's good to get ideas down before the event, and check back later to see how things are panning out. As Buffett says, "In the business world, the rearview mirror is always clearer than the windshield."

Portfolio

BRK.B - 19%
HMS - 18%
MTEC - 18%
LOQ - 12%
EMG - 11%
ISG - 9%
WMH - 6%
STAF - 6%
GMG - 5%

Returns

(Compound)
Since Inception 3 years 1 year

Portfolio 59.2% 38.4% 7.1%
FTSE 100 26.0% -2.4% 26.8%
S&P500 -0.3% -16.4% 26.7%

(Annualised)
Since Inception 3 years 1 year

Portfolio 10.3% 11.2% 7.1%
FTSE 100 5.0% -0.8% 26.8%
S&P500 -0.1% -5.8% 26.7%

Inception was on 10 March 2005. Portfolio returns are calculated after all costs (paying the spread, stamp duty and dealing costs) but uses the mid-price for current valuation purposes. Index returns assume dividends are reinvested and do not take any costs into account (meaning the actual returns from investing in such indexes would be lower).