1/ When it comes to successful investing, there is a substantial persuasion gap between what you hear from the value investors and those who invest in the newest thing that's supposed to take over the world. This has enormous consequences for the net worth of every American.
2/ Whenever there is talk of a new industry, the hypemeisters come out and tell you about the 1,000,000% returns that await the space. It takes the frontier spirit you have and tries to map on a form of Manifest Destiny to crypto, electric cars, and sustainable whatever.
3/ Someone was an early settler of Florida, New York, California, Texas, and so on and ended up with hundreds of acres of land now worth countless millions. "Buy this alternative currency and it will be you someday."
4/ This impulse, namely that getting in on something relatively new will lead to riches, funds billions of dollars of speculation that ends in substantial paper losses and erosion of net worth. It uses your imagination to manipulate you.
5/ Meanwhile, in value investor land, there is someone saying, "Hey, there's this stock that is yielding 3%, been paying out dividends for your entire lifetime, and is growing at a 7-10% rate." Often, it is in a boring albeit necessary industry.
6/ The lack of novelty, and the perceived 13% ceiling with such an investment, struggles to compete with "This is the Newest and Greatest Thing Ever That Will Take Over the World and Make You Millions." Hence, so much folly is pursued.
7/ This is because possibility persuades better than probability. With value investing, you get certainty. Someone who owns two dozen stocks like Johnson & Johnson and saves $500-$2000 per month for decades has a 99% probability of enjoying a multi-millionaire standard of living.
8/ Someone who buys Dogecoin, Rivian, and so on has no such probability. You can throw in Bitcoin and Tesla - the analysis is the same. The probability is not even 10% of generational long-term success, but the possibilities lure in billions of investor dollars right in.
9/ Someone who devote their surplus to Berkshire Hathaway, Nestle, and Johnson & Johnson is going to have ironclad protection against failure and near-certain probabilities of success over a multi-decade period. This is the sales pitch that needs to resonate.
10/ Pivoting towards speculation is always costly. If you are young, you are losing the decades and decades of capital gains and dividends you could have generated. If you are older, you are losing capital that you don't have the time to make up.
11/ In a fast-moving world, those Ole Reliables that offer certainty should be discussed in terms that are more attractive (you have a nearly 100% chance of getting rich if you're patient).
12/ Meanwhile, those that offer possibilities should be subject to a reality check in the form of a probability analysis. Look at the dotcom busts, cannabis, and meat-alternative bubbles and failures in recent years.
13/ As always, remember that "what is popular on Twitter" and "what is popular on CNBC" is a spotlight bias in favor of novelty. Look beyond that! Remember, the company most likely to be around in a century is the company that has been around the past 100 years.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ One of the major questions that you will have when you begin investing is this: What does it take to generate substantial money passively over a somewhat reasonable amount of time? The answer: $650 per month for twenty years.
2/ If someone in 1990 was earning the average income and wanted to generate $67k passively in 2021 (the US median household income), it would require setting aside a bit over $200 per month into Johnson & Johnson, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds stock.
3/ For someone earning the US median household income personally throughout this entire timeframe without any raises above what the US median household earned, this would require a 19% savings rate in Year 1 but only a 11% savings rate currently.
1/ In a world where everyone seems to want to invest nearly all of their funds into tech, I thought it would be worthwhile to take a moment to reflect on the role of non-tech stocks in an investment portfolio and the advantage they bring to long-term wealth creation.
2/ The advantage of tech stocks is well known. Scalability with intangible goods can take you from 0 to 1,000,000 (or higher) in a matter of time. Successful full video games are one of the best examples of this - a couple of guys create code, pick a platform, and
3/ then can earn theoretically limited sales without encountering the limiting factors of property, equipment, labor, and the proportionality that characterizes most of the "real world." While this approach can support rapid growth, the prospect of going to zero always looms.
1/ I want to reflect on several topics: Apple stock (which many own either outright or through many workplace 401k funds), stock market valuations and the future of returns, and Charlie Munger's comments this past week at the Sohn Conference.
2/ Charlie Munger offered a very profound observation when he said that the current market mania is crazier than the 1990s and "everyone who bought a stock at a P/E ratio 10 and now finds it at 35 thinks himself a genius" when criticizing the nature of current investment gains.
3/ That was clearly a veiled reference/synecdoche where he was Berkshire Hathaway's returns with Apple stock over the past five years (bought at an average price of 12x earnings and now trading at 28x earnings) as a shorthand for much of the market as a whole.
1/ We need to talk about the difference between "gambling" and "investing". Every market cycle has its risks. When times are tough, I remind investors that they own assets and have a perpetual claim on the *forever* future of the business absent insolvency. But....
2/ In bull markets, a different risk shows up. And that is the seduction of gambling. Right now, our culture makes it easier than ever to gamble. There are TV commercials, websites, and right now as I watch the Giants-Dodgers baseball game, gambling imprints placed on the mound.
3/ With investing, we now live in the Robinhood culture where almost two-thirds of the company's funds come from behind-the-scenes deals relating to options contracts that are...free to the user. The culture is presently begging you to abandon discipline at all turns.
1/ One of my favorite investing questions: How on earth did Monster Energy $MNST compound a total of 70,515% since 1985, turning a $10,000 investment into $7 million over that same time frame while the average American household generated total income of $1.8 million?
2/ As is always the case when it comes to the "supercompounders" of the investment world, Monster Beverage's long-term success is a combination of: good product, good structure, and good management.
3/ The first one, good product, is hard to define. We live in a world where everything is reduced to numbers, yet the reason we make a decision is very subjective. But if you throw sugar + caffeine + citric acid at consumers, they will respond enthusiastically.
Financial media is always interested in content, fresh ideas, and the latest cutting edge. There is a lot of value here, but there is also a lot of trouble because it can lead susceptible investors to play "gin rummy" with their portfolio by constantly buying/selling stocks.
To use an example, Apple is the most widely held stock on Robinhood over the past five years. It has returned 418% over that time frame, 462% with dividends reinvested. An extraordinary return!
But there's the catch (there's always a catch). The average Robinhood user only achieved 11% returns for a cumulative return of 70%, presumably 91% with dividends reinvested.