Saturday, August 11, 2018

Coffee Can Investing | SageOne’s Samit Vartak



Last Updated : Aug 09, 2018 10:57 AM IST | Source: Moneycontrol.com
Coffee Can Investing | To understand a company better, speak to line managers, not promoters, says SageOne’s Vartak

In the second episode of Coffee Can Investing, Samit Vartak, founder and chief investment officer of SageOne Investment Advisors tells Saurabh Mukherjea about his life’s journey so far and the filters he applies when selecting a stock to invest in.


In the second episode of Coffee Can Investing, Samit Vartak, founder and chief investment officer of SageOne Investment Advisors tells Saurabh Mukherjea about his life’s journey so far and the filters he applies when selecting a stock to invest in.

Mukherjea is an independent market expert and author of the best sellers ‘Gurus of Chaos’ and ‘Unusual Billionaires’

Vartak recounts how his father, a farmer in rural Maharashtra, struggled to give him and his two brothers a decent schooling.

While investing, Vartak says he prefers to speak to the professional managers of a company, and not the promoter, to get an idea about that firm’s culture and competitive advantages.

Q: You have built for yourself a reputation in the last 5 years as one of the smartest investors in small caps. But from what I understand, it all started very far away from the stock market. You are a farmer’s son and your years in school were years of hardship. How did those early experiences of childhood and schooling shape you and make you the investor that you are today?

A: My father is still a farmer and I grew up on the farm and as most of the farmers in India, it's very difficult to meet the ends. And same was the case with us; my father was really different in terms of trying to put us in a better school. Most of the schools were free there, the government schools, but he put us in a private school and there the fee was high.

Q: This was in Maharashtra, right?

A: Yes, this was in Maharashtra just a couple of hours away from North of Bombay and the fee used to be 30 rupees per month, which was really high at that time. This was the 1980’s. And I remember times when my father - because you had to pay the fee monthly – and he didn’t even have that much to pay because most of the farmers, they borrow the next one year or two years of income through their society, they have local village cooperative society and most of the income that they make goes just to repay that.

So, I remember, really tough times, in terms of trying to borrow money to pay the fee, the school used to send reminders. So, I have gone through that kind of a phase where I really valued money. I knew the value of money, little money which for most cities, wouldn’t even matter, but it helps educate a student in the village for the entire year.

Q: It's yourself and your brother, right?

A: My two brothers

Q: Two brothers, three of you went to a private school in rural Maharashtra?

A: Yes, and the fees weren't that much, but for a farmer it’s a lot. So, with that background, I luckily got a scholarship to go to the US to do my MBA and I went to do the MBA. Fortunately or unfortunately it was the timing of the dotcom boom, I joined the MBA course in 1997 and then passed out in 1999.

That time it was a crazy bull market in the US; every stock used to double or triple on the listing day itself. Everyone was excited, money making was so easy at that time and I caught that bug. That was my first experience, until that time I had really no idea what stock market. After I completed the course, I got an offer because the job market was good. I got a signing bonus which was pretty large compared to my background. So, I got the job with PWC as a consultant.

Q: This was straight out of business school?

A: Yes. Then the time was so good and I invested. MBA doesn't prepare you at all for investments, it just prepares you with just basic theory and that too maybe, 1 on a scale of 10 on what you need to be a real investor. I started investing and because it was a bull market. Wherever you invested, you made great money and by the time you hit 2000 the markets got really tough. And because it was such a bullish market, you could invest by borrowing money.

So, I did the same thing and as the markets got tough, you just read analyst reports or just see who has the best recommendations and just invested in that. It was the wrong approach because I ended up investing in most of the crowded stocks, the most highly valued. By 2001 because of the margin funding and leveraged positions, I was completely wiped out. All the money that I got, including the signing bonus. That was painful because the money that I lost were few lakhs but that money meant so much.

Q: In the context of how you have grown up.

A: Yeah, to some of the farmers. The money I lost was large enough to fund the education needs of the entire village. It was so painful that I said, this was completely gambling what I did. And that is when my real education of stock investments started. I enrolled for CFA, I bought all kinds of books that I could and the next 3 - 4 years were the real learning experience for me in the stock market. The main thing was that I promised myself I will never go through this kind of a pain ever in life.

It helped that this education came to me really at the start of my career itself. If I had a great 7 - 8 years of bull market, probably I would have gotten completely wrong investing lessons and if I had hit the 2007-08 kind of a financial crisis with that kind of a wrong education, I would have been wiped out. Because, I became much more prudent, I did much better than most of the investors in 2007-08.

Q: You mentioned you did the CFA around the turn of the century; 2001-2003?

A: Yes

Q: You also did a whole bunch of very interesting jobs in America. I read somewhere that you worked in GAAP’s strategy team. That sounds very interesting. Could you just take us through that piece as to these employment opportunities that the United States gave you, what did you take away from that, what did you learn from that which later proved to be useful in your investment career?

A: Yes, I am an engineer. I worked with the Mahindra and Mahindra for a couple of years in Mumbai. So, right after my MBA I got hired for consulting, where I advised companies—mostly manufacturing companies in the Midwest, based out of Chicago—on their cost optimisation, on their growth strategies. I got to work in different industries.

At that time even though Midwest was mostly manufacturing, some dairy farms, there were some Toyotas, Chryslers of the world. But there were also some dot coms at that time. So, when you work with the corporations you almost become part of the management. You get to know how they think, how they strategize, how do they plan their growth. Most of the companies in the US have global ambitions.

So, just sitting with them, understanding different perspectives of different kinds of managements and then working on different industries helped me a lot. I got to think about businesses from inside, rather than just looking from outside as a stock market investor. That experience really helps even now when I look at a business. I tend to think from a management perspective, whether they are taking the right decisions, whether they are positioning themselves appropriately compared to what the others are doing in the industry.

So, that was the first part of my experience. Anyway my passion was to become an investor. So, my next step was to lean towards finance. So, I jumped into valuation with Deloitte, did it at PWC and then GAAP, the strategy part and then again with Deloitte in San Francisco. Valuing options, valuing the venture capital investments on the private equity deals, all kinds of complicated valuation of even the IPs (Intellectual Properties) and then the brands. So, I think that the corporate experience and then the valuation experience were two important facets in investing

Q: So, you clearly had very high-quality work experience in the US, your career was going places working in world-class firms. What prompted you to come back to India?

A: Coming back to India was a plan which I had set while going itself. So, there was no question whether I was going to come back. It was just a matter of when and actually I should have come much earlier but then you also want the kids to be born there and those kinds of things and by 2006 we were all set and I had done my CFA and the stints at consultancy firms. I may have been 2-3 years late but I always intended to return. I mean, at that time, it was more patriotic that I want to come back and do something for the country. I tried to do whatever I could but that was the driving force behind the homecoming. It wasn’t a professional call.

Q: So, initially when you moved back from what I understand you came to Mumbai. But soon you realised that there were better places to build an investment company than Mumbai and then you move to that lovely office in Pune which I visited, how did that shift happen? Most people who would want to build an investment firm tend to do it in Mumbai or in Lower Parel where you and I are having this discussion. Where did the decision to move to Pune arise from?

A: My wife was from Bombay. I did my college in Mumbai itself. So, there was no question that this is the only city we will ever live in after coming. But my office was in Nariman Point. I used to live in the suburbs and travel used to take me almost 1.5 to 2 hours each way, it was one of the most frustrating phases, because you are sitting in this kaali peeli taxi. At that time there was no Ola. You couldn't read anything, it was just a waste of time and that too sitting in pollution. At the same time, there were few of our friends who had moved to Pune and before that I had never visited Pune ever in my life. So, we used to go for, it’s like every Bombayite, you just want to get out of Bombay for a while.

Q: Go to Lonavala and come back?

A: Right. Initially I went for the weekends with the kids, and then looking at much greener and much peaceful life, I considered shifting base. For me as an investor, staying in the midst of too much of noise, you become part of that crowded space. However hard you try to isolate yourself you get swayed, when more and more people talk about the same idea. You then get more and more confident investing in that. So, Pune has helped me workwise. But wasn’t the primary decision for me.

Q: The quality was the primary decision?

A: Yes, quality of life was the primary decision, but the side benefits have been that I can focus on my work, I don’t talk to the stock market participants much. I rather talk to the companies and just focus on that learning about different businesses, their strategies, their positioning, and different evolving businesses. That is time well spent rather than trying to talk stock market where most of the people just talked about timing in the market, whether it is the right time, whether the valuations are right or not. It doesn't really help in actually taking the investment decisions

Q: So, that brings me to the next question. You clearly have a lot of time in analysing a company thoroughly. How much time do you take to analyse a company or a stock before you actually start building a position, and if you could you just take us through what are the layers of diligence that you apply before you start building a position?

A: Layers of diligence vary a lot depending on the industry. For example, I was researching on a structural pipe manufacturer. When you meet the management - my diligence always involves the management. I definitely want to meet the management, visit the plants, and talk to the operational managers. My main goal is not to get insights into the financials of the companies; it is more to understand the culture.

When you meet some managers, you realise they are too much of micromanagers. They try to control everything in the company. There are certain managers who try to delegate and empower the next level of leadership. I need to see that because that is the only way you can scale up that operation. Otherwise you will just become a regional player.

So I like to see that culture across different layers of management because that is where you get real insights. If you just end up meeting the promoter of the company, he is too smart.

Q: He will give you the PowerPoint presentation.

A: Yeah, and then he would know much more about the business and you will definitely get biased.

Q: So, for someone like me, I don't have a background unfortunately in engineering or in manufacturing. So I find it very hard to understand what to ask plant managers or foremen type people at the plant. How do you strike up a discussion, a rapport with say middle manager at the plant level in a manufacturing company?

A: Before I visit a plant, I spend a lot of time studying the critical drivers. For example, a steel pipe manufacturing company. Here the value addition isn't that much. Raw material cost itself is 75 to 80 percent of total costs. So, the net margin that this company makes, is going to be just 4 or 5 percent.

So, then the cost savings matter. Whether they are from sourcing the raw material, getting the best interest rate for working capital, or having the most efficient manufacturing process. Even if it adds up to one or two percent of your sales, it’s a huge competitive advantage.

For example, there was pipe manufacturer which had a big advantage in raw material sourcing because they used to buy 10 percent of their inputs from JSW Steel. At the same time, most other companies in this industry were near bankrupt. So, they didn't have the buying power this company had. Again, because the balance sheet was so strong their working capital interest cost was much lower. They brought in a new technology which allowed them to make pipes in a way that helped save on material.

The other difference is the change over time. In the conventional setup, it used to take 24 to 48 hours to change over and here they used to change it in 2 - 4 hours. So, you can just take even small orders, which otherwise you had to reject even if it was a profitable order because the change over time was so high.

So, once when you understand which are the critical factors of the business accordingly you have got to answer those questions. Sometimes you don't know technology and you don't know whether what the management is claiming, say the cost saving or price advantage, if that is true. So, I hired consultants, I paid them lakhs to do surveys at the distributor level. You talk to distributor across states, see how and what is the pricing advantage that they have, what is the time to delivery that they have. So, based on the industry if you don't have the skill set to understand you hire people. There are people who are experts at a lot of things but we try to do that.

Q: Clearly, you are doing a huge amount of rigour on management process, production process, manufacturing process but clearly in small and midcap companies a big call is the promoter. Is he able, honest, hardworking how do you reach a judgement on the promoter?

A: I rarely try to take a personal call on the promoter. I try to see if he is delegating, whether the people under him are fearful of him or they are empowered. The second thing is about his strategy and positioning. You got to hear his vision. For me the most important thing in any business is that I would never invest in a business where they are not taking market share away from the competition.

Irrespective of what you call moats,--they can be the widest moats in the industry--but if they are not taking the market share from the competitor I will never invest in that business. Because taking market share from rivals shows me that the strategy they have is working. Moats alone are not good enough. There are brilliant moats like the Hawkins, what have they done with it - they have lost market share. Just having a great brand doesn't mean that it's a great moat and you got to pay higher valuation for them.

Q: CFAs like you and me we are told that assessing financial statements is a big task. A big part of the CFA charter courses is the financial statement analysis. What are the critical aspects of financial statement analysis that you focus on?

A: Obviously, the real analysis goes on evaluating the profitability of the company. Profitability in terms of comparing, because each industry has a different set of parameters that you look at. You can't just analyse the company in isolation, you got to understand the differences between that player and rest of the players. That difference is the most important for me.

So, I try to look at different parameters within the financial statements, whether they are differentiating themselves and whether those factors are sustainable or not. That’s the main thing, but obviously the other ways of looking at it whether what they are presenting in the financial statement itself, whether it is true or not.

Q: Return on capital employed (ROCE), company X with the peer group, is the ROCE sustainable going forward?

A: Correct, and you got to look at various expenses items, most of the expense items are comparable. So, if you look at whether it’s the working capital as a percentage of sales compared to the others, whether it is the power cost, whether it is the raw material cost, how much value addition, you got to make sure that the value addition is the highest even though at the industry level it might be less. But comparatively it has to be the highest.

Q: You mean, compared to the peer group, they have to be the highest?

A: For me the margins that they make for example, the steel pipes their EBITDA per ton that’s the factor that you look at, because the steel prices can go up and down, so the top line can go up and down just because it’s a pass through and again the EBITDA margins can keep on changing. So, you can't look at that EBITDA percentage margin but you got to look at EBITDA per ton and then compare it with the rest of the group, there is no one else who is even half of what they do.

Q: It sounds like you are doing 6 to 12 months of work before you are reaching to a conclusion on a company.

A: Right, I mean sometimes it’s 3 to 4 months work and sometimes it has been 3 or 4 years. So, you can do the work, but sometimes you just don't get that comfort.

Q: So, once you have the comfort, you go out and build the position, or is there a question, you take a small position, your work some more and then you gradually build the position?

A: I generally start very small, so I do not mind paying higher prices. I am not a falling knife catcher. I like to pick great businesses which I feel their competitive advantage is going to last over the next five to 10 years. So, even if I buy at X price I have bought at 6X price. You know 3-4 years down the line I am completely fine. For me, if the management is delivering, if the competitive advantages are lasting and over the next foreseeable future I just keep on building that position.

Q: So, let’s assume you have done the diligence, built the position and then you spot something in the annual report that worries you, let’s assume you spot in the annual report that the promoters had paid his spouse the best part of Rs 2 crores as a consultancy fee -- how do you then deal with that, do you sort of take the point of view that well the stock prices hasn't moved so I shouldn't worry or do you actually take it up with the management?

A: If it is a new finding which I did not catch before, obviously you got to re-evaluate. Whenever I have invested, I have invested in companies where they pay their spouses or the promoters take really high salaries, but at least it is disclosed, it is already deducted part of the net profit, so actually they are paying for it because if the company is going to be valued at 30 times, they are reducing the valuation. It is not an acceptable thing but there are different shades of grey.

For me, at least they are representing it rightly in the annual report and I can take a calculated call and if it fits into my valuation. The most important part is the business and the strategy whether their focus is right, they can do lot of these things for tax savings and they can pay some other family members, those are fine if they are disclosed and they are transparent in it, but for me the business strategy if they are not good at it then that is something where I will not touch.

Q: Your newsletters are exceptionally good. People like me who earn a living writing, for us it is really high-quality stuff to read. But one of the things you keep pointing out is very high small and midcap valuations, you are one of the most eloquent commentators on very high and small midcap valuations. How has that observation that you made impacted your investment process?

A: One thing which I have observed – you are exactly right – the midcap and small cap valuations are at more than historical highs because I have done the comparisons with the 2008 peak. At that time the large cap valuations are comparable to the large cap valuations now, 27-28 times around that. But the midcap and small cap valuation then were all at 18 times at the peak in January. Today they are close to 30 times, which is something that people don't really talk about. I believe that whenever there is too much hope of the future, the benefit of the doubt goes to all kinds of companies. People don't discriminate between high quality and low quality. And that is what happened that with rising tide everything has gone up.

My experience has been that everywhere the 80-20 rule plays out, whether it is the GST benefit, from unorganised to organised, 80 percent of the benefit would be sucked away by the top 20 percent of the companies who have the right positioning who have the competitive advantage because the remaining players do not have the capability. Everyone cannot take the market share away. And those one or two players, they would justify the valuations they are trading at now. But the remaining players, they will come back to their historical valuations which most of the history has been in single digits but at least closer.

Q: And hence your strategy of focusing on market leaders?

A: Exactly.

Q: You are one of the few fund managers who has raised money domestically in the last 5-6 years and also, you have gone abroad to raise money. This valuation issue is this the greater concern amongst the investors you meet abroad or is it a greater concerned at a domestic fraternity?

A: I think it is a much greater concern in domestic fraternity. What I have seen is that offshore investors, most of the institutional investors, they have real robust asset allocations. So, when they invest in India, it is a very small portion of their net worth which they end up investing in India and they understand the risks of valuation as well as the kind of volatility that a market like India can go through. Whereas domestically, what I have seen is that people tend to invest the most when everyone is positive.

Because, when I was raising money last time people were concerned about valuations. But then the valuations kept on going up until December and January we had shut taking new subscriptions and the most demand came in January when the markets where at the peak. So people were concerned but then after a little while they get too much confidence that now nothing can go really wrong, exactly at the wrong time.

Q: You have lived through 2000 and you have lived through 2007 and 2008 so I can see the memory flashing back in your head. Three books or three investors whose styles, whose philosophy have influenced you deeply?

A: I would like to categorize the books into something which really helps me in my investment thesis, which is understanding the business. For me, Michael Porter's books, whether it is the Competitive Advantage, there are books written by others too, have helped me the most. For any serious investor, if he has to read a book, that is one.

Second category is more which helps me, just like your Coffee Can Investing, helps me filter and narrow down the universe. So, for me Joel Greenblatt books, he has a phenomenal history. Magic formula book. He has beaten even Warren Buffett, over his history and very simple formulas but I design my own formulas.

Q: So basically a mixture of ROCE and price multiples, to weigh up.

A: I have three or four parameters which I use to filter down and make sure that I need to eliminate most of the stocks so that I can focus on the right one. So that Magic Formula book has helped me a lot. And then the third category is more motivational, entertaining, where you read about various fund managers and how they have generated alpha. Like Investment Gurus by Peter Tanous because he talks about different fund managers, he has interviewed different fund managers and they talk about what is the strategy they have used to generate alpha. And you will see varied ways of doing that and it takes you through their life how they have developed that passion and what they have done through their life. So, motivational book maybe not that useful in actually creating the hypothesis but it just helps you just to go pump up and do more work and try to do as good as what they have done.

Coffee Can Investing | ICICI Prudential Mutual's S Naren


Last Updated : | Source: Moneycontrol.com
Coffee Can Investing | S Naren's biggest contrarian call: Betting his house on a real estate crash
In the inaugural episode of Coffee Can Investing series, Saurabh Mukherjea talks to Sankaran Naren, Chief Investment Officer of ICICI Prudential Mutual.
Saurabh Mukherjea

In the inaugural episode of Coffee Can Investing series, Sankaran Naren, Chief Investment Officer of ICICI Prudential Mutual takes Saurabh Mukherjea through his journey in the world of financial markets, his investment style, hits and misses, and the investors he looks up to.

Mukherjea is author of the bestsellers Gurus of Chaos, and The Unusual Billionaires, and is an independent market expert.

The idea of the Coffee Can portfolio traces its roots back to the American Old West, when people would put all their valuables in a coffee can and then forget about them for a long time.

Naren tells Mukherjea that one of his big contrarian calls he got right was outside of the stock market. And that making money in the stock market was relatively easier in the late 80s and 90s when information on companies was scarce.

Hi there, welcome to Coffee Can Investing. My name is Saurabh Mukherjea and it’s my privilege today to be able to interview one of the leading fund managers of our generation, the CIO of ICICI Prudential Mutual Fund, Sankaran Naren.

Q: So when someone sees a fund manager from Chennai, the immediate curiosity is that typically, the superstars of Chennai go to IIT and then pursue a career in engineering either in India or abroad. From that world, how did you get pulled into the world of stocks and stock market?

A: Stock market is something which was always very dear to me. Actually, my mother passed away when I was 14. And it was a two-person household because I did not have any brothers and sisters. So, somehow, cricket and stock market were the two conversation points between me and my father in those days and my father would make some small investments in stock markets. Actually the whole process was pretty fascinating and that got me very interested. We are talking about 80s here. At that point of time, very few people invested in equities. So, making money in equities was actually much easier, particularly in public issues in those days and that’s how I got started.

Q: So, this is well before you went to IIT. In your school days you were actually an active investor in the market alongside your father.

A: I would say I was more an advisor to him when I was in 11th or 12th. When I cleared the IIT entrance, my father told me, “You have to join IIT” and he didn’t give me any choice. And it’s very interesting, JEE in those days was a test of mathematics and not the test of engineering at all. And I got in and my father said, “This ensures your middle-class status. So, go in and join.” and it was not something which I wanted to do. But I ended up getting (an admission in IIT) which was then very good. So, I said OK, let’s join.

Q: So I presume that from IIT, you were very clear. After you finished IIT, you wanted a career in finance and that’s how IIM Kolkata came about, right?

A: Absolutely. I was very keen to move out of engineering to finance right from those days and that process and getting MBA from IIM Calcutta was actually best way to get myself into what I always wanted to do, which was finance and stock markets.

Q: So, if my memory serves me right, around 1989, 90, 91…in those days, working for SBI or SBI Caps (SBI Capital Markets) was seen as sort of the big finance job in our country. Is that the path you also wanted to take?

A: Yeah, I actually wanted to go back to Chennai and SBI Caps was a Bombay-head quartered entity. So, I actually picked what was my dream job; ICICI in 1989. I got project finance, which to me was the closest to equity research in retrospect. What people don’t realize in 1989, there was nothing called equity research. There was nothing called FII (foreign institutional investors). There was nothing called research report. There was nothing called CNBC. So, it’s a very different world. So, in that world for me, project finance was the closest to equity research.

Q: One of the most fascinating aspects your career, especially in mid 90s is this Chennai club that you have mentioned in several of your interviews. And recently I took the pleasure to meet Mr. Chaddha who ran the club in the 90s. Could you just take us through what role the club played in the evolution of you as an investor?

A: It was very important because we had made a number of big investing mistakes in 94, 95. When the bear market arrived in 98, all our investing mistakes showed up clearly. What was interesting was you realize that you were not the only person making the mistakes and that there were many others who had made similar mistakes.

So, what I guess Mr. Kamal Chaddha did was he got together a set of people like alcoholics anonymous. These were all people who made mistakes in investing. And it was anonymous at that point of time and got us to discuss our sorrows of losing money. What interestingly came out of that is the realisation that in investing, you sometimes go wrong, sometimes get it right.

When you go wrong, you need the equivalent of support system. A formal organization provides such a support system by the virtue of the number of people in the team, but when you are investing on your own, you don’t get that. So, a group really works. So, it’s like some kind of a psychiatric help which is required to... or a coaching, you can call it either which will help you to make very good investments decisions over a period of time.

Q: So, after that, you didn’t get caught out by the dotcom bubble or the 2008 bubble?

A: No. See, in each bubble, what happens is because of the mistakes of 94, 95 you are trained to be cautious ahead. So, instead of losing money after the bubble, you tend to miss opportunities. So, in 99, you asked yourself, why did you miss Himachal Global, DSQ, Pentamedia, and said that’s part of it and you have to agree that you can’t make all the money.

But in 2001, you were just laughing all the way because you had not made any mistakes. So, what I learned out of it is, you will be earning, you will then find that you have lost some money-making opportunities but after the cycle ends, you find that you are actually a big winner.

Q: One of the striking things about your career is you both before you joined the fund managing profession and since you joined, you were very willing to take contrarian calls, and you were willing to talk about it publicly.  Once you have made visible, high-profile contrarian calls, doesn’t that exert a fair degree of pressure on you? What role does the rest of your support system say, people at home, how do they help you deal with that pressure which arises running this sort of amount of money and with taking contrarian calls?

A: See, it’s very interesting that my family doesn’t know much about stock markets. And my son is a special child who doesn’t understand what is fund management or anything to do with money. So, I think when I go home and talk to them, I don’t realize anything on the stock market. So, that’s a very different kind of an environment. Actually, in this whole contrarian style what I have seen is when you do it the first time, you go through intense pressure.

When you do it the second time, you go through even the same kind, but as you keep doing it and as you have successes, you will find that it’s part of your daily routine. Of course, taking pain is not easy but that has to be part of a contrarian style.

And you get used to it. So, that’s how I have actually learnt it and there are people also now who do follow contrarian style and they are also in the same pain. So, you again take pleasure from participating in the pain with some other people whom you may know or you may not know.

Q: I guess I can see why you keep visiting Chennai to meet the club again and again. On the question of pain and contrarian style, one of the intriguing developments in the last 6, 7 years has been that apparently everybody in India or at least majority of the investors I meet now are value investors, right? They are all equities of Warren Buffett if I believe what they are saying and value investing seems to be proliferating in the country and yet we have a stock market trading act at 23 times forward earnings. When you meet other investors, when you assess fund managers who you are trying to interview, how do you gauge whether someone’s really a value investor or whether it’s someone who has read too many books from the American school of investing?

A: I think one is when you meet people in the midst of a bull market, you can’t judge who a value investor is, who is not. I mean Warren Buffet says that it’s only when the tide goes out that you knowing who swimming naked. So, I think from that point of view, today is not the time to judge value investing. But I have seen for example, there was a big real estate bull market, how many people had the ability to say that this bull market is very very extended and real estate won’t do well for many years? Very few. So, what I believe is that the time to judge value investing is not in the middle of a bull market, it’s to judge when you are in the midst of a bear market.

That’s why I would say that the process that we have followed is by trying to train people into fund management and not recruiting experienced fund managers because the moment you recruit experienced fund managers, they always come with the view, “I know how to create alpha”, whereas our model has always been we are trying to teach people how to create alpha, how to take pain, how to stay out of a bubble, how to make money over a cycle. These are things that we are continuously learning.

Q:  If you look back at your last 15 years of your investment management career, I am sure you will recall instances where you took a deep contrarian position. I am sure you will be able to recall at least one in this episode, where you took a contrarian position and it didn't work out. Could you just talk us through one example of each type, one where it worked out in a contrarian position, in which you made plenty of money, and one where it didn't?

A: Let me take an example what hasn't worked out, so you know there is a big boom in real estate. So, I said let's try to see which is the cheapest way to buy a real estate. So, I looked and found out that the tea plantation per acre was one of the cheapest ways to buy land anywhere in this country.

Q: …this is 2003-2004?

A: No, 2013

Q: Wow.

A: So, I went to Assam and happened to see some of the fantastic tea plantation companies, I came to know that land is found for a lakh or two per acre. So, I said let me now buy a tea plantation company. It is after all the cheapest way to buy tea, I don't think you can manage to get a land in Assam so cheap. So we went to buy tea plantation stock and I have been waiting for returns from it for 5 years. My colleague said how many more years will you wait, I said it is still the cheapest way to buy land in India, I don't think land in India has become cheaper, but there is no sign of returns. What worries me after looking at it is maybe it is the fate of lots of farmers in India. Because if I am not able to make money out of a tea plantation stock, that’s the state of the farmers of India as well. So, that was interesting case of a failure.

Q: Why do you think the market hasn't seen the logic? Tea plantation is giving you so much land and the land is not reflected in the share price and hence the share price should get rerated. Any reasons why the market is not seeing the logic?

A: Somehow the tea plantations are not growing 20 percent a year; tea demand grows by 1-2 percent.

So, while we all think that there is a high food inflation, the reality from what I can see from my tea investment is tea prices are not going up so significantly because the population growth is just one and a half percent and then tea is a mature product. So why should tea demand grow much higher than population growth?

Q: On the converse side, you took a contrarian position and it worked out like a dream.

A: I think the most contrarian position I took was actually outside equities; in real estate. I used to see everyone buying real estate between 2007 and 2013, and you know I had seen in 2007 most of the infra stocks was pricing in 2014 earnings.

So, when you approached 2012-13, I saw a number of people buying projects under construction real estate, what could come 4- 5 years later or 7 years later, from builders whose antecedents were not clear.

I could see there was a reasonably large bubble in real estate and I said I don't need to stay in my own house so I ended up selling my flat in Chennai and Bombay, and I have been very impressed that in 5 years that the real estate prices have gone nowhere, and people ask me how did you come to the conclusion. I said I used a simple equity technique for valuation.

No one understands the valuation of real estate. So I looked at rental yields and at mortgage interest rates. In the US, at the same time when Indian property prices were high, rental yield was much higher than the mortgage interest rate. Whereas in India there was a 7 percent gap. That means the mortgage interest rate was nine and a half percent, rental yield was 2 percent. I said the seven and a half percent gap can't continue.

So, that was a fairly good contrarian call because it was a scale call. Because the number of people who made mistakes in India in real estate, in that period is not small

Q: Yeah, it is very interesting, if someone had, anyone had in a way, sold their Mumbai or indeed Delhi residential real estate in 2013 after the 10 year boom and bought the stock market in September 2013 when Raghuram Rajan became RBI Governor, that would have been the ideal asset allocation strategy to follow. Given that you know, at one level it is as easy as you just explained do value investing; you have a look at what is the ragingly popular asset class that everybody and their father, mother are buying, and you do your homework as you become a little sceptical of the asset class and you try to find less popular asset class, given the simplicity of it, why is this sort of value investing so hard to do, what stops people from becoming investors like?

A: The problem with the best investing decisions is that the near term is very painful. When Warren Buffett invested in Goldman preference shares or GE preference shares in 2008 the near term was very painful. The long term was very good for him but the fear of the near term is a big problem. So, recently my company did something in December, January of returning money in small cap PMS (portfolio management schemes).

And this was the decision my CEO and head of PMS took. They came and asked me, “Can we do it?”  I said,” It's a perfect example of a contrarian in decisions, so I will support you.”

At the end of the day, small caps have gone up from 2013 to 2018 by 200 percent. If you had asked anyone 3 to 4 months back whether it was easy to believe small caps had peaked, the answer would be  ‘no’. Because everyone was very clear that small caps are the way to go, so, I would say that the fear of the decision going wrong in the near term, the inability of the people to time the market correctly, makes this decision very very difficult.

 Q: None of us wants to take the pain in the short run and hence we like to go with the momentum strategy and go with the popular decisions. So, if you had to take a step back and say, it turned out to be a good principle which you used to figure out where we are in the stock market cycle or the bond market cycle. How do you figure out using broad thumb rules, where are we in the cycle, is it a question of looking at the RBI rate policy, do you look at my stock market multiple times, how do you figure out where we are in the cycle?

A: Actually I must tell you how flows happen, so, if you look back at the last 20 years, which were the best years to invest in equities, it was when both FIIs and local mutual funds were sellers. The worst years to invest in equities was when both of them were aggressively investing.

Go back in 2002, neither locals nor FIIs were investing, they were selling. It was one of the best years to actually invest, in 2007 both local mutual funds and FIIs were investing aggressively and that was the best year to take out money. So, if you look at it, if you had to use one metric, I would say, look at the scale of local inflows and the scale of foreign inflows. Similarly, look at the scale of foreign outflows and the scale of local outflows from mutual funds, which gives you a perfect indicator and it is a very difficult indicator sitting in a mutual fund to follow. Because what I am trying to tell you is that money will come to you when the market is extremely expensive and money will go when the market is very cheap, that is not an easy thing.

Q: Yeah, absolutely. But in that context, basically the mutual fund manager’s job in India is the opposite of the central bank. In India, the mutual fund manager’s job seems to be to... just as the stock market parties getting really wild…go to people and say put even more money in the stock market. You said you prefer to recruit talent from scratch rather than hiring experienced hands, as it allows you to build an ecosystem in this house of other value-oriented fund managers. If you see that culture, would you say that across equities, you have been able to create a stable of funds, which is able to give an investor steady returns regardless of where we are in the cycle.

A: Clearly, I have been surprised because in 2007, 2008 and2009, I actually went through a heart-wrenching process, where people invested in 2007 lost money in 2008, did not invest in 2008 and missed a big rally in 2009.

So, we end of the day based on that experience we created two things,  one was we created a category called balanced advantage,  whose job was to sell as the markets go up and buy as the markets go down. And I didn't expect it to be successful but the company made it successful, which was something, which was unbelievable.  The second is, in August, September 2013 we went out and told people to invest in close-ended funds and at that point of time people said close-ended funds can't deliver a good investing experience. So, we have been continuing to raise money in closed-end funds but today when we raise money in closed-end funds, we actually put a good part of the money that we have collected in cash or hybrid portfolios because at end of the day markets are not cheap.

So, we came up with two models what I called the closed end model and the balanced advantage category and we have been trying to do the same thing in debt. Truth is that that the market is not yet as developed as it is in equity. So, we are trying the same kind of construct as balanced advantage fund in debt as well and we are trying that. In my broad view, it is impossible to change behavioural finance, it is impossible for you to collect money at the bottom. It is impossible for you to take out money at the top. So, it is very imperative that the mutual fund has to that job because behavioural finance tells you that everyone can't do it. So if you can do it, the investor can't do it. So, if you do it you can give a very good investor experience over the long-term.

Q: Leaving aside the Chennai club, any other Gurus any other bosses, colleagues from you have learnt a lot from in the Indian context?

A: In the Indian context, we all watch everyone, many of them are your peers, your competitors. It was the 1999 to 2004 cycle, where I got to see what Birla Mutual Fund was. What Alliance Mutual Fund was. These were all big mutual funds in that phase and we watched what they did right, what they did wrong, obviously, you know, the gurus like Nemish Shah and Mr Jhunjhunwala, this is where all people again you could track their portfolios.

Once they became famous you could track their portfolios that give you additional insights, so,  these were  clear leads and I think the advent of the date and the advent of the data being available, so many companies and their shareholding patterns gives you such valuable insights over a period of time but I tell my colleagues, in the 1990s, we had nothing and that's why it was easier to make money whereas today you know what every big investor has done, every quarter because his shareholding is very visible to you.

Q: So, if you suggest taking that construct for the thing Michael Mauboussin came up with, this simple formula that the amount of alpha a fund manager would generate is the fund manager’s ability multiplied by the efficiency or lack thereof, in that part of the market. So say in small caps, if the fund manager is reasonably able, there is enough inefficiency in the Indian market to generate lots of alpha. By that same token in BSE 100 the efficiency is less, and even if the fund manager is skilful, the alpha is presumably modest. Is that a framework that you have used because as a CIO you have to figure out where to allocate scarce resources to generate outperformance. How do you make that resource allocation decision?

A: It is very complicated, the problem is part of what we are measured by is measured on a 1-year basis, sometimes to take the right investment decisions you will have to actually invest with a much longer-term view, and if you are keen on trying to deliver alpha in the short run, you can't make the best decisions. I was lucky with my bets on metals in 2015 and telecom in 2016 as returns came quickly, surprisingly. But good investment decisions can take 3 or 5 years to show results.  Increasingly the market is going to be more efficient, making it much more difficult for people like us, which is the reason why I believe that multi-asset construct where you are selling equities as the market goes up and buying equities as the market goes down is a much better way to try to create alpha for the customer because it is in pure equity funds, where actually this problem of Michael Mauboussin calls, efficiency is going to become more and more a problem

Q: Beyond Mauboussin, any other gurus in the world of investing either in India or outside India?

A: Clearly, two more, James Montier and Howard Marks and I would say James Montier has written some of the best research papers as a research analyst and we have all learnt from him, … there is a very famous research report called 10 tenets of investing, which I think is one of his best pieces and Howard Marks has completely demystified investing as something very simple in his website called Oaktree Capital. In the 1990s, barring a few Warren Buffett books, there was nothing available for us to learn on investing. Today there is so much information available freely on the internet. But the practice is still difficult, so it appears very easy because you have access to the resources but to practice good investing techniques is not as easy as reading about them

Thank you Naren, thanks for your time and thank you to our viewers hope you learnt a lot from listening to Naren, we appreciate your time and look forward to seeing you again on the next episode of the series.

Monday, February 19, 2018

DJCO Annual Meeting 2018 transcript snippets


One of our directors came up with a list of qualities that any investment advisor should have.  And he gave it to a future picker of professional investors, and the picker immediately fire half his picks.  And I thought that was such a peculiar outcome that I’ll let Peter Kaufman share with you his ‘five aces’ system for picking an investment manager.  Peter, go ahead.

Peter Kaufman: So I came up with this list in giving reference to a very exceptional money manager.  And I not only wanted to give what I thought was the correct reference, I wanted the person that I was giving the reference to, to in turn be able to relate this above to the real shot-caller.  So that a compelling narrative would be transferred from me directly to the ultimate shot-caller.  So I came up with what I call the “five aces”.  The five aces being the highest hand you can have in a wild card poker game.  Ace number one is total integrity.  Ace number two is actual deep deep fluency on whatever it is you say you’re going to do on behalf of the client.  Ace number three is a fee structure that is actually fair in both directions.  Ace number four is an uncrowded investment space.  Ace number five is a long run-way.  Meaning that the manager is reasonable young in age.  I further add that if you ever find a money manager who possesses all five of these characteristics, there are two things you should do.  One, you should put money with them immediately.  And number two, put as much money as you are allowed to put.  Now I know we have money managers in the room, and we have…

___________________________________

Question 9: This question is for Mr. Kauffman.  You mentioned about the “five aces” and aligning the interests with investors with the right fee structure to benefit both.  What have you seen as a good fee structure, both from a start-up fund with say $50 million in assets, and then the larger funds with assets over billion?

Peter Kaufman: I’ll let Charlie answer that because he can describe to you what he thinks is the most fair fee formula that ever existed and that’s the formula in Warren Buffett’s original partnership.

Charlie: Yeah, Buffett copied that from Graham.  And Mohnish Pabrai is probably here…is Mohnish here?  Stand up and wave to them Mohnish.  This man uses the Buffett formula, and always has, he just copied it.  And Mohnish has just completed 10 years…where he was making up for a high water-mark.  So he took nothing off the top at all for 10 years, he sucked his living out of his own capital for ten long years, because that’s what a good money manager should be cheerfully willing to do.  But there aren’t many Mohnish’s.  Everybody else wants to scrape it off the top in gobs.  And it’s a wrong system.  Why shouldn’t a man who has to manage your money whose 40 years of age be already rich?  Why would you want to give your money to somebody who hasn’t accumulated anything by the time he was 40.  If he has some money, why should he on the downside suffer right along with you the investor?  I’m not talking about the employees under the top manager.  But I like the Buffett formula.  Here he is, he’s had these huge successes.  Huge in Buffett’s career.  But who is copying the Buffett formula?  Well we got Mohnish and maybe there are a few others, probably in the room.  But everybody wants to scrape it off the top, because that’s what everybody really needs, is a check every month.  That’s what is comforting to human nature.  And of course half the population, that’s all they have, they’re living pay check to pay check.  The Buffett formula was that he took 25% of the profits over 6% per annum with a high water mark.  So if the investor didn’t get 6%, Buffett would get nothing.  And that’s Mohnish’s system.  And I like that system, but it’s like many things that I like and I think should spread, we get like almost no successes spreading that system.  It’s too hard.  The people who are capable of attracting money on more lenient terms, it just seems too hard.  If it were easier, I think there would be more copying of the Buffett system.  But we still got Mohnish. (laughter).

_____________________________________

The second question was Li Lu.  What was unusual about Li Lu.  Li Lu is one of the most successful investors. (link) Imagine him, he just popped out of somebody’s womb and he just assaulted life the best he could and he ended up pretty good at it.  But he was very good at a lot.  He’s ferociously smart.  It really helps to be intelligent.  He’s very energetic.  That also helps.  And he has a good temperament.  (link)  And he’s very aggressive, and he’s willing to patiently wait and then aggressively pounce. (link)  A very desirable temperament to have.  And if the reverse comes, he takes it well. (link)  Also a good quality to have.  So it’s not very hard to figure out what works.  But there aren’t that many Li Lu’s.  In my life, I’ve given money to one outside manager, and that’s Li Lu.  No others in my whole life.  And I have no feelings that it would be easy to find a second.  It’s not that there aren’t others out there, but they’re hard to find.  It doesn’t help you if a stock is a wonderful thing to buy if you can’t figure it out.

____________________________________

Question 21: In 1999, Warren Buffett said that he could return 50% if he ran $1 million.  Give what you said about the investment landscape today being more difficult, what do you think that number would be today?

Charlie: Well I do think that a very smart man who’s patient and aggressive in combination, is willing to work hard, to root around in untraveled places like thinly traded stocks and other odd places.  I do think a person with a lot of shrewdness, working with a small amount of capital, can probably earn high returns on capital even today.  However that is not my personal problem at the moment.  And for me it’s hard.  And for Berkshire it’s hard.  And for the Daily Journal we don’t have any cinch either.  It’s disadvantageous to have securities in a corporate vehicle like the Daily Journal Corporation.  It’s an accident that we have them there.  We have them there because that’s where the money was.  The way it’s worked out, it’s not desirable if you’re a shareholder and you have a layer of corporate taxes between you and your securities that are indirectly owned.  And once you get public securities held in a public corporation taxable under sub-Chapter C of the internal revenue code, all kinds of factors, including income taxes affect your investment decisions.  And it’s much easier to invest in charitable endowment or your personal pension plan.  Generally speaking, I would say, if you’re shrewd enough with small sums of money, I think you can compound pretty well.  The minute you get bigger sums, I think it starts getting difficult.  It’s way more difficult for all you people sitting here than it was for me when I was in your position.  But I’m about to die and you have a lot of years ahead. (laughter)  You would not want to trade your position for mine.

______________________________________

Question 26: Could you comment on whether you ever considered investments in Hershey’s or Tiffany’s over the long term and have offered attractive entry points?

Charlie: Well I’d be delighted to own either Hershey’s or Tiffany’s at the right price, wouldn’t you?  It’s just a question of price.  Of course they’re great companies.  But that’s not enough, you have to have great companies available at a price you’re willing to pay.  Hershey’s is a private company.  Nobody’s offering me Hershey’s.  I can buy the candy, but I can’t buy the company.

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Hedge fund manager Mark Sellers becoming great investor


Src: 


This is a killer talk I came across from Hedge Fund manager Mark Sellers, speaking to some Harvard MBA kids on what it takes to make it in markets. Regardless of whether you consider yourself a trader or investor, Mark’s “seven traits” apply.

Enjoy…

First of all, I want to thank Daniel Goldberg for asking me to be here today and all of you for actually showing up. I haven’t been to Boston in a while but I did live here for a short time in 1991 & 1992 when I attended Berklee School of Music.

I was studying to be a jazz piano player but dropped out after a couple semesters to move to Los Angeles and join a band. I was so broke when I lived here that I didn’t take advantage of all the things there are to do in Boston, and I didn’t have a car to explore New England. I mostly spent 10-12 hours a day holed up in a practice room playing the piano. So whenever I come back to visit Boston, it’s like a new city to me.

One thing I will tell you right off the bat: I’m not here to teach you how to be a great investor. On the contrary, I’m here to tell you why very few of you can ever hope to achieve this status.

If you spend enough time studying investors like Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett, Bruce Berkowitz, Bill Miller, Eddie Lampert, Bill Ackman, and people who have been similarly successful in the investment world, you will understand what I mean.

I know that everyone in this room is exceedingly intelligent and you’ve all worked hard to get where you are. You are the brightest of the bright. And yet, there’s one thing you should remember if you remember nothing else from my talk: You have almost no chance of being a great investor.

You have a really, really low probability, like 2% or less. And I’m adjusting for the fact that you all have high IQs and are hard workers and will have an MBA from one of the top business schools in the country soon. If this audience was just a random sample of the population at large, the likelihood of anyone here becoming a great investor later on would be even less, like 1/50th of 1% or something.

You all have a lot of advantages over Joe Investor, and yet you have almost no chance of standing out from the crowd over a long period of time.

And the reason is that it doesn’t much matter what your IQ is, or how many books or magazines or newspapers you have read, or how much experience you have, or will have later in your career. These are things that many people have and yet almost none of them end up compounding at 20% or 25% over their careers.

I know this is a controversial thing to say and I don’t want to offend anyone in the audience. I’m not pointing out anyone specifically and saying that you have almost no chance to be great. There are probably one or two people in this room who will end up compounding money at 20% for their career, but it’s hard to tell in advance who those will be without knowing each of you personally.

On the bright side, although most of you will not be able to compound money at 20% for your entire career, a lot of you will turn out to be good, above average investors because you are a skewed sample, the Harvard MBAs. A person can learn to be an above-average investor. You can learn to do well enough, if you’re smart and hardworking and educated, to keep a good, high-paying job in the investment business for your entire career.

You can make millions without being a great investor. You can learn to outperform the averages by a couple points a year through hard work and an above average IQ and a lot of study. So there is no reason to be discouraged by what I’m saying today. You can have a really successful, lucrative career even if you’re not the next Warren Buffett.

But you can’t compound money at 20% forever unless you have that hard-wired into your brain from the age of 10 or 11 or 12.

I’m not sure if it’s nature or nurture, but by the time you’re a teenager, if you don’t already have it, you can’t get it. By the time your brain is developed, you either have the ability to run circles around other investors or you don’t.

Going to Harvard won’t change that and reading every book ever written on investing won’t either. Neither will years of experience. All of these things are necessary if you want to become a great investor, but in and of themselves aren’t enough because all of them can be duplicated by competitors.

As an analogy, think about competitive strategy in the corporate world. I’m sure all of you have had, or will have, a strategy course while you’re here. Maybe you’ll study Michael Porter’s research and his books, which is what I did on my own before I entered business school. I learned a lot from reading his books and still use it all the time when analyzing companies.

Now, as a CEO of a company, what are the types of advantages that help protect you from the competition?

How do you get to the point where you have a wide economic moat, as Buffett calls it?

Well one thing that isn’t a source of a moat is technology because that can be duplicated and always will be, eventually, if that’s the only advantage you have. Your best hope in a situation like this is to be acquired or go public and sell all your shares before investors realize you donít have a sustainable advantage.

Technology is one type of advantage that’s short-lived. There are others, such as a good management team or a catchy advertising campaign or a hot fashion trend. These things produce temporary advantages but they change over time, or can be duplicated by competitors.

An economic moat is a structural thing. It’s like Southwest Airlines in the 1990s, it was so deeply ingrained in the company culture, in every employee, that no one could copy it, even though everyone kind of knew how Southwest was doing it.

If your competitors know your secret and yet still can’t copy it, that’s a structural advantage. That’s a moat.1

The way I see it, there are really only four sources of economic moats that are hard to duplicate, and thus, long-lasting. One source would be economies of scale and scope. Wal-Mart is an example of this, as is Cintas in the uniform rental business or Procter & Gamble or Home Depot and Lowe’s.

Another source is the network affect, ala eBay or Mastercard or Visa or American Express.

A third would be intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks, regulatory approvals, or customer goodwill. Disney, Nike, or Genentech would be good examples here. A fourth and final type of moat would be high customer switching costs. Paychex and Microsoft are great examples of companies that benefit from high customer switching costs.

These are the only four types of competitive advantages that are durable, because they are very difficult for competitors to duplicate. And just like a company needs to develop a moat or suffer from mediocrity, an investor needs some sort of edge over the competition or he’ll suffer from mediocrity.

There are 8,000 hedge funds and 10,000 mutual funds and millions of individuals trying to play the stock market every day. How can you get an advantage over all these people? What are the sources of the moat?

Well, one thing that is not a source is reading a lot of books and magazines and newspapers. Anyone can read a book.

Reading is incredibly important, but it won’t give you a big advantage over others. It will just allow you to keep up. Everyone reads a lot in this business. Some read more than others, but I don’t necessarily think there’s a correlation between investment performance and number of books read.

Once you reach a certain point in your knowledge base, there are diminishing returns to reading more. And in fact, reading too much news can actually be detrimental to performance because you start to believe all the crap the journalists pump out to sell more papers.

Another thing that won’t make you a great investor is an MBA from a top school or a CFA or PhD or CPA or MS or any of the other dozens of possible degrees and designations you can obtain.

Harvard can’t teach you to be a great investor. Neither can my alma mater, Northwestern University, or Chicago, or Wharton, or Stanford. I like to say that an MBA is the best way to learn how to exactly, precisely, equal the market return. You can reduce your tracking error dramatically by getting an MBA.

This often results in a big paycheck even though it’s the antithesis of what a great investor does. You can’t buy or study your way to being a great investor. These things won’t give you a moat. They are simply things that make it easier to get invited into the poker game.

Experience is another over-rated thing.

I mean, it’s incredibly important, but it’s not a source of competitive advantage. It’s another thing that is just required for admission. At some point the value of experience reaches the point of diminishing returns. If that wasn’t true, all the great money managers would have their best years in their 60s and 70s and 80s, and we know that’s not true. So some level of experience is necessary to play the game, but at some point, it doesn’t help any more and in any event, itís not a source of an economic moat for an investor.

Charlie Munger talks about this when he says you can recognize when someone gets it right away, and sometimes it’s someone who has almost no investing experience.

So what are the sources of competitive advantage for an investor?

Just as with a company or an industry, the moats for investors are structural. They have to do with psychology, and psychology is hard wired into your brain. It’s a part of you. You can’t do much to change it even if you read a lot of books on the subject.

The way I see it, there are at least seven traits great investors share that are true sources of advantage because they canít be learned once a person reaches adulthood. In fact, some of them can’t be learned at all; you’re either born with them or you aren’t.

Trait #1

Is the ability to buy stocks while others are panicking and sell stocks while others are euphoric.

Everyone thinks they can do this, but then when October 19, 1987 comes around and the market is crashing all around you, almost no one has the stomach to buy. When the year 1999 comes around and the market is going up almost every day, you can’t bring yourself to sell because if you do, you may fall behind your peers.

The vast majority of the people who manage money have MBAs and high IQs and have read a lot of books. By late 1999, all these people knew with great certainty that stocks were overvalued, and yet they couldn’t bring themselves to take money off the table because of the ìinstitutional imperative, as Buffett calls it.

Trait #2

The second character trait of a great investor is that he is obsessive about playing the game and wanting to win.

These people don’t just enjoy investing; they live it. They wake up in the morning and the first thing they think about, while they’re still half asleep, is a stock they have been researching, or one of the stocks they are thinking about selling, or what the greatest risk to their portfolio is and how they’re going to neutralize that risk.

They often have a hard time with personal relationships because, though they may truly enjoy other people, they don’t always give them much time. Their head is always in the clouds, dreaming about stocks.

Unfortunately, you can’t learn to be obsessive about something. You either are, or you aren’t. And if you aren’t, you can’t be the next Bruce Berkowitz.

Trait #3

A third trait is the willingness to learn from past mistakes. The thing that is so hard for people and what sets some investors apart is an intense desire to learn from their own mistakes so they can avoid repeating them.

Most people would much rather just move on and ignore the dumb things they’ve done in the past. I believe the term for this is repression.

But if you ignore mistakes without fully analyzing them, you will undoubtedly make a similar mistake later in your career. And in fact, even if you do analyze them it ís tough to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Trait #4

A fourth trait is an inherent sense of risk based on common sense.

Most people know the story of Long Term Capital Management, where a team of 60 or 70 PhDs with sophisticated risk models failed to realize what, in retrospect, seemed obvious: they were dramatically over leveraged. They never stepped back and said to themselves, “Hey, even though the computer says this is ok, does it really make sense in real life?”

The ability to do this is not as prevalent among human beings as you might think. I believe the greatest risk control is common sense, but people fall into the habit of sleeping well at night because the computer says they should. They ignore common sense, a mistake I see repeated over and over in the investment world.

Trait #5

Great investors have confidence in their own convictions and stick with them, even when facing criticism. Buffett never get into the dot-com mania though he was being criticized publicly for ignoring technology stocks.

He stuck to his guns when everyone else was abandoning the value investing ship and Barron’s was publishing a picture of him on the cover with the headline “What’s Wrong, Warren?”

Of course, it worked out brilliantly for him and made Barron’s look like a perfect contrary indicator.

Personally, I’m amazed at how little conviction most investors have in the stocks they buy. Instead of putting 20% of their portfolio into a stock, as the Kelly Formula might say to do, they’ll put 2% into it.

Mathematically, using the Kelly Formula, it can be shown that a 2% position is the equivalent of betting on a stock has only a 51% chance of going up, and a 49% chance of going down. Why would you waste your time even making that bet? These guys are getting paid $1 million a year to identify stocks with a 51% chance of going up? It’s insane.

Trait #6

Sixth, it’s important to have both sides of your brain working, not just the left side (the side that’s good at math and organization.)

In business school, I met a lot of people who were incredibly smart. But those who were majoring in finance couldn’t write worth a damn and had a hard time coming up with inventive ways to look at a problem. I was a little shocked at this.

I later learned that some really smart people have only one side of their brains working, and that is enough to do very well in the world but not enough to be an entrepreneurial investor who thinks differently from the masses.

On the other hand, if the right side of your brain is dominant, you probably loathe math and therefore you don’t often find these people in the world of finance to begin with. So finance people tend to be very left-brain oriented and I think that’s a problem. I believe a great investor needs to have both sides turned on.

As an investor, you need to perform calculations and have a logical investment thesis. This is your left brain working.

But you also need to be able to do things such as judging a management team from subtle cues they give off. You need to be able to step back and take a big picture view of certain situations rather than analyzing them to death. You need to have a sense of humor and humility and common sense. And most important, I believe you need to be a good writer.

Look at Buffett; he’s one of the best writers ever in the business world. It’s not a coincidence that he’s also one of the best investors of all time. If you can’t write clearly, it is my opinion that you don’t think very clearly. And if you don’t think clearly, you’re in trouble. There are a lot of people who have genius IQs who can’t think clearly, though they can figure out bond or option pricing in their heads.

Trait #7

And finally the most important, and rarest, trait of all: The ability to live through volatility without changing your investment thought process.

This is almost impossible for most people to do; when the chips are down they have a terrible time not selling their stocks at a loss. They have a really hard time getting themselves to average down or to put any money into stocks at all when the market is going down.

People don’t like short term pain even if it would result in better long-term results. Very few investors can handle the volatility required for high portfolio returns.

They equate short-term volatility with risk. This is irrational; risk means that if you are wrong about a bet you make, you lose money. A swing up or down over a relatively short time period is not a loss and therefore not risk, unless you are prone to panicking at the bottom and locking in the loss.

But most people just can’t see it that way; their brains won’t let them. Their panic instinct steps in and shuts down the normal brain function.

I would argue that none of these traits can be learned once a person reaches adulthood. By that time, your potential to be an outstanding investor later in life has already been determined.

It can be honed, but not developed from scratch because it mostly has to do with the way your brain is wired and experiences you have as a child. That doesn’t mean financial education and reading and investing experience aren’t important.

Those are critical just to get into the game and keep playing. But those things can be copied by anyone.

The seven traits above can’t be.