Investors talk a lot about their investment process. Some of them are very good. But few ever break down their investment process into what I think are five major steps. As an investor, it is worth articulating what your process is for each of those five steps.
An investment starts with "idea generation". Where do you get your ideas from? Screens...magazine articles...cloning? There are many possible sources and you don't have to choose just one. Having a well-defined list helps focus and also tracking where your best ideas come from.
The next step is "analysis". It can range from checking technical indicators to a feet-on-the-ground scuttlebutt process. This depends on what kind of investor you are. But define exactly what you do, and what you look at. It helps avoid biases and mistakes due to missed steps.
"Portfolio construction" is a big one. It's not just about sizing and sector balancing. It's about structure in terms of core-satellite, or 10/20/70, or about splitting between punts and long-term positions. Having construction discipline can have a big payoff.
Many, especially retail investors, swing between looking at stock prices daily or simply buying and forgetting forever. Neither is ideal. How do you "monitor" your positions? Quarterly results? Annual reports? Corporate announcements? Price alerts? Decide, and then follow it.
And finally, "exits". Even the best in the world often admit to not having perfected this. This is intertwined with your stock selection process, your source of funds, your personality, and your goals. Developing clarity on this, if over time, is a powerful skill.
These are five steps. But each step contains a world in itself. There are many ways to think about each of them. The choices you make for one affect your options in the others. Define yours with introspection and study, and it can pay rich dividends. Literally.
Over the last few years, quantitative value investing has been denigrated relentlessly. The main criticism is that in an intangibles-heavy world, using book value as a measure of a company's worth is misguided. That is true! But these criticisms make one flawed assumption.
They assume that quant practitioners build value portfolios they way Fama and French first described them in 1992. No actual portfolios today hold stocks simply because of low p/b ratio. Why? Because accounting rules don't correctly capture the value of intellectual property.
Consider this. Facebook's 2020 balance sheet shows intangible assets of just $623 million. This is after FB spent a staggering $40+ billion on R&D in the last 3 years. Surely, FB's intangible assets are considerably higher than the listed $623 million.
Of late, there has been a lot of chatter that "value" is making a comeback after a decade of underperformance. While this is broadly true, there is a large amount of nuance that such a statement glosses over.
In most circumstances, it doesn't matter. But if you are a quant investor, or an investor in a quant fund, understanding these nuances matters a lot. After all, not all large cap funds are the same. Why should all value strategies be the same?
The textbook definition of value in the quant sense is the p/b ratio. Fama and French, the duo that proposed this idea, sorted the investment universe based on price to book. Roughly speaking, 1/3rd of the stocks with the lowest p/b ratios were considered value stocks.
Finally finished reading Kochland by @CLeonardNews. Took me 2 weeks to get through it but totally unputdownable. If I'd realised it was a 700 page tome before I picked it up, I might have shied away. Thank God I didn't.
1/n
For one thing, it's brilliantly written. There's an excellent balance between giving us details about the various characters' history and sticking to the main points. This is in contrast to Ron Chernow - a brilliant writer in his own right. 2/n
More importantly though, it has incredible detail about so many things that have happened both in in American politics as well as American business. From a far clearer explanation of what happened during the California electricity... 3/n
After having read so much about how Amazon does not really lose money but constantly grows without reporting too much of a profit, I decided to finally take a dive into its financials over the last 15 years. In only about 20 minutes, my mind is already blown. 1/n #amazon
I started at 2003. Their financial statements start with cash flows. I'm not sure if that's the US GAAP convention but if it isn't, right out of the gate it says something about management's priorities. 2/n
In 2003, Amazon reported a net income of $35m. But operating cash flows of an incredible $392m. Two important bits stand out for me in there. Stock based comp. of $87.7m and an increase in accounts payables of $167m. That's ~$254m of cash you get to expense. 3/n