In this thread, I'll help you understand the relationships between *investing* and *inflation*.
2/
In his 2011 letter to Berkshire shareholders, Warren Buffett made an important observation.
He said that the purpose of investing is not just to grow *money*, but to grow *after tax purchasing power*.
3/
This means:
Investments should not be evaluated simply in *nominal* terms -- how much they grow our money.
They should be evaluated in *real* terms -- taking into account both taxes and inflation.
4/
Let's take an example.
Suppose we invested $100K in a stock 5 years ago.
And suppose the stock doubled in these 5 years.
So now, our position is worth $200K.
This is a *nominal* annualized return of about 14.87%.
5/
Suppose we now sell the stock.
When we sell, we have to pay *capital gains tax* on our $100K profit.
Let's say our tax rate is 20%.
So we'll pay $20K in taxes.
After that, we'll have $200K - $20K = $180K left over.
6/
But as Buffett said, that's not all. We should also consider *inflation*.
Let's say, over the last 5 years, inflation was about 5% per year.
That means, we need $1*(1.05^5) = $1.28 today to buy the same goods and services that $1 would have bought us 5 years ago.
7/
So, the $180K we have today is equivalent to about $180K/1.28 = $141K in "5 years ago" money.
So, in *constant dollar* terms, we've grown $100K into ~$141K over 5 years.
This is a *real* annualized return of only ~7.12% -- much worse than our *nominal* ~14.87%.
8/
Also note: capital gains tax reduced our gains by $20K. But *inflation* further reduced them by about $180K - $141K = $39K.
So, the impact of inflation was almost *twice* as bad as capital gains tax.
In his 2011 letter, Buffett called this the "invisible inflation tax".
9/
But inflation was only 5%.
Capital gains tax was 20%.
And yet, inflation had the bigger impact. Why?
There are 2 reasons.
10/
First, inflation *compounds* year over year, whereas capital gains tax is paid *just once* -- at the end when the stock is sold.
Second, inflation erodes the *entire capital* (principal + profits), whereas capital gains tax is levied *only on the profits*.
11/
Here's a formula to calculate the *real* annualized return -- accounting for both inflation and taxes -- from the *nominal* annualized return of an investment:
12/
Carrying this one step further:
The same principles also apply when a company *reinvests* its earnings back into its own business -- instead of distributing these earnings to shareholders as dividends.
13/
The reason why companies retain earnings: they believe that for every dollar retained and reinvested back into growing the business, they will *eventually* be able to distribute more than $1 of value to shareholders.
14/
For example, let's say a company we own earned $1 this year (after tax).
The company could, of course, distribute this $1 to us as a dividend. If the company did this, we'd pay, say, $0.20 in income taxes and be left with $0.80 of "purchasing power".
15/
But instead of this dividend, let's say the company retained this $1 and used it to buy an asset.
Let's say this asset will last 10 years, and will generate $0.30 of cash in each of those 10 years. That's a pre-tax return (IRR) of ~27.32%.
Let's say the company pays a 25% tax on this $0.20 of pre-tax income. That's a $0.05 tax bill.
This leaves $0.30 - $0.05 = $0.25 in operating cash flows -- every year for the next 10 years.
Suppose the company distributes all these cash flows to us as dividends.
18/
Of course, we then have to pay our 20% income tax on these dividends, netting us $0.20 each year over the next 10 years.
See, we have 2 layers of taxation -- one at the corporate level and one at the shareholder level!
19/
Also, unfortunately, we have 5% inflation.
So, the first $0.20 will only be worth $0.20/1.05 = ~$0.19 in today's dollars, the second $0.20 only $0.20/(1.05^2) = ~$0.18, and so on -- up to the tenth and final $0.20 that will be worth only $0.20/(1.05^10) = ~$0.12.
20/
So, in *real* terms, we gave up $0.80 of purchasing power when the company decided to retain the original $1 instead of paying us a dividend.
But in return, we get this sequence of diminishing inflation-adjusted $0.20 payouts for 10 years.
21/
Therefore, our *real* return from $1 of earnings retained by the company -- considering both the purchasing power given up and that obtained in exchange -- works out to about ~15.63%.
22/
This ~15.63% in our hands is, of course, much lower than the ~27.32% originally earned by the company on the asset.
But that's what 2 layers of taxation combined with inflation can do.
23/
Key lesson: it's vitally important to account for both taxes and inflation while analyzing investment returns -- from both stock purchases/sales and dividends/retained earnings.
What counts is the preservation and growth of *real* purchasing power, not *nominal* dollars.
24/
I also want to mention why I used 5% for inflation in the examples above -- when it's no secret that the Fed aims to keep it at ~2%.
The reason has to do with the way inflation is measured -- Consumer Price Index or CPI.
25/
Our actual costs of living tend to rise a bit faster than CPI.
This is because CPI relies on assumptions like "substitution": if a product becomes pricey, CPI assumes that we'll substitute it with a cheaper product, which we may be unwilling to do.
26/
Also, CPI adjusts for "quality".
For example, cars have become more expensive over time. But they've also improved in safety, fuel efficiency, and performance.
27/
So, CPI tries to only reflect *part* of a car's price increase -- the part that's due to general inflation.
The rest of the price increase is attributed to product improvements -- and excluded from CPI.
28/
But of course, when we buy a new car, we're hit by the *full* price increase -- not just the part that's reflected in CPI.
Also, over time, we all experience "lifestyle creep" -- we consume more goods and services over time. This is not reflected in CPI.
29/
For all these reasons, it's a good idea to be *conservative* with inflation assumptions.
If our portfolio can deliver growth in purchasing power even at 5% inflation, then we're likely to do even better if inflation turns out to be only 2%.
But the reverse isn't true.
30/
In addition to Buffett's 2011 letter above, I also recommend reading his 1980 letter.
This was written when inflation was rampant in the US (close to 15% per year). And as always, Buffett's thoughts are clear-headed and beautifully expressed.
Also, thanks to @rationalwalk and @RudyHavenstein, I stumbled upon this comic book about inflation -- created by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It's a super fun read!
In this thread, I'll help you understand Stock Based Compensation (SBC).
As investors, I think we can gain a lot of insight into companies by looking at their SBC policies -- what incentives they create, how much they cost, etc.
2/
The goal behind SBC is: we want a company's *executives* -- the CEO, upper management, ideally anyone making important decisions -- to think like *owners*.
That way, they'll run the company in a way that maximizes the long-term interests of the owners (us shareholders).
3/
The logic goes: if we want executives to *think* like owners, why not just give them shares of the company and *make* them owners?
So that's the idea. We pay executives only partly in cash. The rest of their salary is in the form of company shares.